Top 20% of households pay vast majority of income taxes

[AzogtheDefiler]

It was your quote:

"The poor make the rich, rich."

I don't have a problem with that quote. It's partially true, at the very least. Every person who spends money helps to make the rich rich. Every time we make a purchasing decision we're deciding who we want to be rich. That's why I don't have a problem with income inequality in and of itself. It's only a problem when people are using coercion to acquire wealth (either through fraud and theft, or via manipulating laws).

Well yes.... if you think about it, everyone that buys or sells anything, is helping someone become rich.

I think the problem many have with this, is that people seem to have a one-way view of how wealth works. Like if I buy something, I get poorer, and the rich get richer.

If that was true.... at all.... I wouldn't do it. If every time I bought gasoline for my car, I was worse off than before I bought it.... I wouldn't buy it.

The rich get rich, because they provide value and wealth to the rest of society. The poorest person, is better of with a working car, than they are without one. So when they pay money to a rich person for a product, they are getting an exchange in value.

Additionally, the vast majority of cost in any product, is the labor. So most of what you pay for any given product, goes to the employees, not the CEO.

Consider McDonald's for example. The entire store chain serves roughly 69 Million people a day. That's 25 Billion a year. The CEO last year got $21.8 Million. Now assuming that is all cash (which it is not), that means the CEO of McDonald's earned roughly 8/100th of a penny, per customer.

So when you drive through McDonald's and buy your $10 value meal.... a fraction of a penny of that price is going to the CEO. Where is the rest of that money going? To the employees, to the employees of the stores suppliers, and so on.

You just made my case for me. Thanks.

You have a case?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Yet Sears failed. Sometimes "rich people" make mistakes. Consumers have a plethora of options. The key is to build the best mousetrap.

I suspect that for every success there are usually several failures.

That is why it is called risk.

It is despicable that people put up their money and take risk to create jobs and then the friggin oppressive government takes a good size portion of the profits and then gives the money to worthless welfare queens and Illegals.

This dude is hopeless. You’re wasting your time. He doesn’t understand economics, business or finance.

I know.

Most of the Moon Bats are dumber than a door knob and unwilling to learn. He is no exception. You can't explain Economics to a Communist or Socialist.

These Moon Bats know nothing about Economics, History, Ethics, The Constitution, Biology or Climate Science.

Go back to your ginseng hunting, Jethro.

He is right. You’re wrong and “Jethro” is making you look dumb. Easily.

 

[Andylusion]

Nonsense? How many of the bottom income people, produce jobs? How many poor people have offered you full time jobs? Do tell. I can't wait to see your statistical numbers of how many poor people create long-term jobs in the country.

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

 

[Andylusion]

It was your quote:

"The poor make the rich, rich."

I don't have a problem with that quote. It's partially true, at the very least. Every person who spends money helps to make the rich rich. Every time we make a purchasing decision we're deciding who we want to be rich. That's why I don't have a problem with income inequality in and of itself. It's only a problem when people are using coercion to acquire wealth (either through fraud and theft, or via manipulating laws).

Well yes.... if you think about it, everyone that buys or sells anything, is helping someone become rich.

I think the problem many have with this, is that people seem to have a one-way view of how wealth works. Like if I buy something, I get poorer, and the rich get richer.

If that was true.... at all.... I wouldn't do it. If every time I bought gasoline for my car, I was worse off than before I bought it.... I wouldn't buy it.

The rich get rich, because they provide value and wealth to the rest of society. The poorest person, is better of with a working car, than they are without one. So when they pay money to a rich person for a product, they are getting an exchange in value.

Additionally, the vast majority of cost in any product, is the labor. So most of what you pay for any given product, goes to the employees, not the CEO.

Consider McDonald's for example. The entire store chain serves roughly 69 Million people a day. That's 25 Billion a year. The CEO last year got $21.8 Million. Now assuming that is all cash (which it is not), that means the CEO of McDonald's earned roughly 8/100th of a penny, per customer.

So when you drive through McDonald's and buy your $10 value meal.... a fraction of a penny of that price is going to the CEO. Where is the rest of that money going? To the employees, to the employees of the stores suppliers, and so on.

You just made my case for me. Thanks.

I think I completely dismantled your case.... but if you want to think otherwise, you are allowed to be wrong on this forum.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

[


I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

You are very confused about this. Have you ever taken a course in Economics?

I'm sure your local Community College has a course in Economics. You should really consider signing up for it.

You are getting beat up on this thread because you are lacking basic knowledge of how an economy works.

Capital is the driver for economic growth.

Poor people don't create jobs. They can "demand" all they want but if they don't have the money nothing is going is going to be bought. In order for them to get the money for demand they have to have jobs that are created by people with excess capital to invest.

Fuck you, hillbilly.

I'm getting beat up? Not likely.
You don't have a clue.

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

You couldn't get through the first test in an economics course.

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

 

[dblack]

The poor make the rich, rich. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. My beef is giving the rich all the credit.

What does "giving the rich all the credit" mean?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was your quote:

"The poor make the rich, rich."

I don't have a problem with that quote. It's partially true, at the very least. Every person who spends money helps to make the rich rich. Every time we make a purchasing decision we're deciding who we want to be rich. That's why I don't have a problem with income inequality in and of itself. It's only a problem when people are using coercion to acquire wealth (either through fraud and theft, or via manipulating laws).

Well yes.... if you think about it, everyone that buys or sells anything, is helping someone become rich.

I think the problem many have with this, is that people seem to have a one-way view of how wealth works. Like if I buy something, I get poorer, and the rich get richer.

If that was true.... at all.... I wouldn't do it. If every time I bought gasoline for my car, I was worse off than before I bought it.... I wouldn't buy it.

The rich get rich, because they provide value and wealth to the rest of society. The poorest person, is better of with a working car, than they are without one. So when they pay money to a rich person for a product, they are getting an exchange in value.

Additionally, the vast majority of cost in any product, is the labor. So most of what you pay for any given product, goes to the employees, not the CEO.

Consider McDonald's for example. The entire store chain serves roughly 69 Million people a day. That's 25 Billion a year. The CEO last year got $21.8 Million. Now assuming that is all cash (which it is not), that means the CEO of McDonald's earned roughly 8/100th of a penny, per customer.

So when you drive through McDonald's and buy your $10 value meal.... a fraction of a penny of that price is going to the CEO. Where is the rest of that money going? To the employees, to the employees of the stores suppliers, and so on.

You just made my case for me. Thanks.

I think I completely dismantled your case.... but if you want to think otherwise, you are allowed to be wrong on this forum.

No doubt you do.

Additionally, the vast majority of cost in any product, is the labor. So most of what you pay for any given product, goes to the employees, not the CEO.

Consider McDonald's for example. The entire store chain serves roughly 69 Million people a day. That's 25 Billion a year. The CEO last year got $21.8 Million. Now assuming that is all cash (which it is not), that means the CEO of McDonald's earned roughly 8/100th of a penny, per customer.

So when you drive through McDonald's and buy your $10 value meal.... a fraction of a penny of that price is going to the CEO. Where is the rest of that money going? To the employees, to the employees of the stores suppliers, and so on.

You just explained why consumers drive the economy and not the business. The business exists to extract wealth while consumers provide it. For the business owner and the employee.

 

[dblack]

raising the minimum wage is more productive.

Raising all wages.

What good would that do? I suppose we could achieve the same effect by just declaring all dollar bills to now be worth ten times as much. Hopefully you can see the stupidity in that.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

You’re wrong. Ask the restaurant owners in Cleveland along with those who work at the arena. He created mega jobs.

Not directly or purposefully.

Others capitalized on the existing demand.
Try again.

LBJ is a brand. More than just a player. You don’t think Tom Brady creates jobs?

I think people capitalize the demand created by their popularity.

 

[dblack]

You just explained why consumers drive the economy and not the business. The business exists to extract wealth while consumers create it. For the business owner and the employee.

I know these are standard socialist tropes, but they never made any sense to me. How is a business "extracting" wealth? If customers are voluntarily giving their money to the business, how is that "extraction". And for that matter, how are consumers creating anything by making purchases?

More importantly, what are trying to justify with this wordsmithing? Are you suggesting that business are guilty of some crime, or that consumers should be rewarded for their 'creation'.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yet Sears failed. Sometimes "rich people" make mistakes. Consumers have a plethora of options. The key is to build the best mousetrap.

I suspect that for every success there are usually several failures.

That is why it is called risk.

It is despicable that people put up their money and take risk to create jobs and then the friggin oppressive government takes a good size portion of the profits and then gives the money to worthless welfare queens and Illegals.

This dude is hopeless. You’re wasting your time. He doesn’t understand economics, business or finance.

I know.

Most of the Moon Bats are dumber than a door knob and unwilling to learn. He is no exception. You can't explain Economics to a Communist or Socialist.

These Moon Bats know nothing about Economics, History, Ethics, The Constitution, Biology or Climate Science.

Go back to your ginseng hunting, Jethro.

He is right. You’re wrong and “Jethro” is making you look dumb. Easily.

Not even close, captain MBA.
We both know that's not true.

 

[Andylusion]

It was your quote:

"The poor make the rich, rich."

I don't have a problem with that quote. It's partially true, at the very least. Every person who spends money helps to make the rich rich. Every time we make a purchasing decision we're deciding who we want to be rich. That's why I don't have a problem with income inequality in and of itself. It's only a problem when people are using coercion to acquire wealth (either through fraud and theft, or via manipulating laws).

Well yes.... if you think about it, everyone that buys or sells anything, is helping someone become rich.

I think the problem many have with this, is that people seem to have a one-way view of how wealth works. Like if I buy something, I get poorer, and the rich get richer.

If that was true.... at all.... I wouldn't do it. If every time I bought gasoline for my car, I was worse off than before I bought it.... I wouldn't buy it.

The rich get rich, because they provide value and wealth to the rest of society. The poorest person, is better of with a working car, than they are without one. So when they pay money to a rich person for a product, they are getting an exchange in value.

Additionally, the vast majority of cost in any product, is the labor. So most of what you pay for any given product, goes to the employees, not the CEO.

Consider McDonald's for example. The entire store chain serves roughly 69 Million people a day. That's 25 Billion a year. The CEO last year got $21.8 Million. Now assuming that is all cash (which it is not), that means the CEO of McDonald's earned roughly 8/100th of a penny, per customer.

So when you drive through McDonald's and buy your $10 value meal.... a fraction of a penny of that price is going to the CEO. Where is the rest of that money going? To the employees, to the employees of the stores suppliers, and so on.

You just made my case for me. Thanks.

I think I completely dismantled your case.... but if you want to think otherwise, you are allowed to be wrong on this forum.

No doubt you do.

Additionally, the vast majority of cost in any product, is the labor. So most of what you pay for any given product, goes to the employees, not the CEO.

Consider McDonald's for example. The entire store chain serves roughly 69 Million people a day. That's 25 Billion a year. The CEO last year got $21.8 Million. Now assuming that is all cash (which it is not), that means the CEO of McDonald's earned roughly 8/100th of a penny, per customer.

So when you drive through McDonald's and buy your $10 value meal.... a fraction of a penny of that price is going to the CEO. Where is the rest of that money going? To the employees, to the employees of the stores suppliers, and so on.

You just explained why consumers drive the economy and not the business. The business exists to extract wealth while consumers create it. For the business owner and the employee.

Business can't "extract wealth". That is impossible.

If you don't provide me a product worth the price I am willing to pay, then I don't buy it from you.

If I don't buy it, then no wealth is extracted.

If the product is worth the money...... then wealth is still not extracted, because I have a product in my possession that is in equal worth to the amount of money I paid for it.

If the car isn't worth $10,000.... then I don't buy it. If it is... then I have a $10,000 car. No wealth was "extracted" from me.

Further you mention that this is a benefit for business owners and the employees..... but nearly all consumers are employees. So how can a group of people extract wealth, from themselves?

Again, if consumers were the driving factor, then why is there product shortages across the entire country of Venezuela? Are you saying there are no consumers? I promise you there are.

And if consumers were the driving factor in China, then why was there so little economic growth before they allowed wealthy people to invest in the economy?

Were there magically no consumers before, and magically they spawned into existence after liberalizing the economy.... and it just happen to be a magical fluke that wealthy people started creating companies and businesses at the same time?

No, I didn't explain why consumers drive the economy. You just refused to understand basic economics.

 

[dblack]

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

Why does it matter? Outside of the semantics, what policy implications does your attribution imply?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Jobs are created to meet demand. Demand comes from consumers.
There aren't wal marts all over the country because of rich people.

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The poor make the rich, rich. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. My beef is giving the rich all the credit.

What does "giving the rich all the credit" mean?

Just what it says.
Asserting that they somehow are responsible for diving the economy.

 

[dblack]

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Not sure what you're getting at here. If we started over, and everyone had the same wealth - would nothing else happen?

 

[dblack]

The poor make the rich, rich. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. My beef is giving the rich all the credit.

What does "giving the rich all the credit" mean?

Just what it says.
Asserting that they somehow are responsible for diving the economy.

But you're advocating for something. What is it?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

raising the minimum wage is more productive.

Raising all wages.

What good would that do? I suppose we could achieve the same effect by just declaring all dollar bills to now be worth ten times as much. Hopefully you can see the stupidity in that.

Create growth.
70% of GDP is consumer spending.

 

[dblack]

raising the minimum wage is more productive.

Raising all wages.

What good would that do? I suppose we could achieve the same effect by just declaring all dollar bills to now be worth ten times as much. Hopefully you can see the stupidity in that.

Create growth.
70% of GDP is consumer spending.

Why is that a good thing?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You just explained why consumers drive the economy and not the business. The business exists to extract wealth while consumers create it. For the business owner and the employee.

I know these are standard socialist tropes, but they never made any sense to me. How is a business "extracting" wealth? If customers are voluntarily giving their money to the business, how is that "extraction". And for that matter, how are consumers creating anything by making purchases?

More importantly, what are trying to justify with this wordsmithing? Are you suggesting that business are guilty of some crime, or that consumers should be rewarded for their 'creation'.

You supply siders are obtuse AF

The entire purpose of a business is to make a profit. Wealth. No?

They're certainly not operated to provide jobs. Jobs are just a necessary part of generating a profit.