Top 8% Own 85%

[Toddsterpatriot]

I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.

Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.

The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us.

The system? How? Force you in debt? How does anyone force you to be in debt? Did someone put a gun to your head, and demand you sign up for Discover Card?

What kind of idiocy, is this? The only reason stupid people are in debt, is because they want to buy stuff, they haven't earned the money to pay for.

I just posted an article of a Mexican who came here with no education, who didn't have a work permit, and created a company making drones. He's now a billionaire.

Stop complaining, and start working. Whiny spoiled brat Americanism. Grow up.

Most absurd.

Read the article dipshit. You don't understand jack.

Why do you defend government, the elites, and big business committing fraud to enrich themselves?

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.

What's the proper amount for the top 8% to have?

Don't know. What do you think it should be?

As long as no laws were broken, I don't worry about things like this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even Commies have inequality?
Maybe it's a force of nature?

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.

What is the exact right amount? How do you know?

When there is too much is slows the economy.

Why?

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

 

[Campbell]

Most studies suggest that about one-fifth of the increase in economic inequality in America among men in recent decades is the result of the decline in unions. It may be more: A study in the American Sociological Review, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for one-third of the rise of inequality among men.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars, according to Rosenfeld. One reason is probably that the proportion who are unionized has fallen in that period from more than 40 percent to just 14 percent.

Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

In Germany, the average autoworker earns about $67 per hour in salary and benefits, compared with $34 in the United States. Yet Germany’s car companies in 2010 produced more than twice as many vehicles as American companies did, and they were highly profitable. It’s too glib to say that the problem in the American sector was just unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?_r=0

If we are going to do as Trump says and become great again, we need strong unions AGAIN.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars

Bring in enough illegals to work construction, wages for Americans will decline.


Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

The difference between our thug unions and those other unions is pretty large.

When ol' "pretty boy" Reagan fired PATCO and started the demise of unions in America he knew exactly what he was doing:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most studies suggest that about one-fifth of the increase in economic inequality in America among men in recent decades is the result of the decline in unions. It may be more: A study in the American Sociological Review, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for one-third of the rise of inequality among men.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars, according to Rosenfeld. One reason is probably that the proportion who are unionized has fallen in that period from more than 40 percent to just 14 percent.

Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

In Germany, the average autoworker earns about $67 per hour in salary and benefits, compared with $34 in the United States. Yet Germany’s car companies in 2010 produced more than twice as many vehicles as American companies did, and they were highly profitable. It’s too glib to say that the problem in the American sector was just unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?_r=0

If we are going to do as Trump says and become great again, we need strong unions AGAIN.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars

Bring in enough illegals to work construction, wages for Americans will decline.


Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

The difference between our thug unions and those other unions is pretty large.

When ol' "pretty boy" Reagan fired PATCO and started the demise of unions in America he knew exactly what he was doing:

I know, that was great. Violate your terms of employment, get fired.
We should get rid of all government unions. Now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Vote Republican == give them the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Take action" like elect a socialist who will make sure nobody ever gets too upity? I think not.

Damn you are slow.

A soft Socialism is what we have now.

So, we need a hard socialism to make up for it? What the hell "action" do you think we should take?

No, we need for the Government to even the playing field through taxation. Reward the Good Companies with tax breaks that play by the rules and tax the hell out of those that don't. For those that have the need to move their company overseas, we need to place a 25% tariff on their goods. Watch how fast they will return to the US. This is a job creation as most will claim, it's returning the jobs that were once here. This has been brought up by not only Dems but some Reps as well. But each time, it gets shut down in the House or Senate.

 

[Brain357]

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.

What is the exact right amount? How do you know?

When there is too much is slows the economy.

Why?

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.

 

[Brain357]

Most studies suggest that about one-fifth of the increase in economic inequality in America among men in recent decades is the result of the decline in unions. It may be more: A study in the American Sociological Review, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for one-third of the rise of inequality among men.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars, according to Rosenfeld. One reason is probably that the proportion who are unionized has fallen in that period from more than 40 percent to just 14 percent.

Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

In Germany, the average autoworker earns about $67 per hour in salary and benefits, compared with $34 in the United States. Yet Germany’s car companies in 2010 produced more than twice as many vehicles as American companies did, and they were highly profitable. It’s too glib to say that the problem in the American sector was just unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?_r=0

If we are going to do as Trump says and become great again, we need strong unions AGAIN.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars

Bring in enough illegals to work construction, wages for Americans will decline.


Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

The difference between our thug unions and those other unions is pretty large.

When ol' "pretty boy" Reagan fired PATCO and started the demise of unions in America he knew exactly what he was doing:

I know, that was great. Violate your terms of employment, get fired.
We should get rid of all government unions. Now.

The road to stagnant wages and a slow economy. Strange definition of great you have.

 

[Brain357]

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.

What is the exact right amount? How do you know?

When there is too much is slows the economy.

Why?

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Link proof that they are actually paying more now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Take action" like elect a socialist who will make sure nobody ever gets too upity? I think not.

Damn you are slow.

A soft Socialism is what we have now.

So, we need a hard socialism to make up for it? What the hell "action" do you think we should take?

No, we need for the Government to even the playing field through taxation. Reward the Good Companies with tax breaks that play by the rules and tax the hell out of those that don't. For those that have the need to move their company overseas, we need to place a 25% tariff on their goods. Watch how fast they will return to the US. This is a job creation as most will claim, it's returning the jobs that were once here. This has been brought up by not only Dems but some Reps as well. But each time, it gets shut down in the House or Senate.

I see you approve of dictatorship.

In a free country, we don't force people to stay here. That's what they used to do in the Soviet Union and in Cuba today. Even if you placed a tariff on those companies, they would simply pass that cost to the consumer which is you and I.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.

What is the exact right amount? How do you know?

When there is too much is slows the economy.

Why?

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

LOL!

Romney pays very little in taxes too.

So?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most studies suggest that about one-fifth of the increase in economic inequality in America among men in recent decades is the result of the decline in unions. It may be more: A study in the American Sociological Review, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for one-third of the rise of inequality among men.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars, according to Rosenfeld. One reason is probably that the proportion who are unionized has fallen in that period from more than 40 percent to just 14 percent.

Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

In Germany, the average autoworker earns about $67 per hour in salary and benefits, compared with $34 in the United States. Yet Germany’s car companies in 2010 produced more than twice as many vehicles as American companies did, and they were highly profitable. It’s too glib to say that the problem in the American sector was just unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?_r=0

If we are going to do as Trump says and become great again, we need strong unions AGAIN.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars

Bring in enough illegals to work construction, wages for Americans will decline.


Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

The difference between our thug unions and those other unions is pretty large.

When ol' "pretty boy" Reagan fired PATCO and started the demise of unions in America he knew exactly what he was doing:

I know, that was great. Violate your terms of employment, get fired.
We should get rid of all government unions. Now.

The road to stagnant wages and a slow economy. Strange definition of great you have.

Yes, getting rid of those unions and reducing the government workforce would be a big boost to our economy.

My definition of great includes.....when a union breaks the rules, break the union.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.

What is the exact right amount? How do you know?

When there is too much is slows the economy.

Why?

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Link proof that they are actually paying more now.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%

(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.

 

[Centinel]

Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.

What is the exact right amount? How do you know?

When there is too much is slows the economy.

Why?

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?

 

[Campbell]

Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.

The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us.

The system? How? Force you in debt? How does anyone force you to be in debt? Did someone put a gun to your head, and demand you sign up for Discover Card?

What kind of idiocy, is this? The only reason stupid people are in debt, is because they want to buy stuff, they haven't earned the money to pay for.

I just posted an article of a Mexican who came here with no education, who didn't have a work permit, and created a company making drones. He's now a billionaire.

Stop complaining, and start working. Whiny spoiled brat Americanism. Grow up.

Most absurd.

Read the article dipshit. You don't understand jack.

Why do you defend government, the elites, and big business committing fraud to enrich themselves?

I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.

Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.

What's the proper amount for the top 8% to have?

Don't know. What do you think it should be?

I think we will know it is about right when our economy gets moving again.

HUH??

 

[Brain357]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Link proof that they are actually paying more now.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%

(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.

Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.

 

[Brain357]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

LOL!

Romney pays very little in taxes too.

So?

Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy

"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.

That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.

 

[Centinel]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

Romney pays very little in taxes too. Sorry but you are wrong.

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

LOL!

Romney pays very little in taxes too.

So?

Americans are savers now. It's a problem for the economy

"Americans barely pried open their wallets in April," Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients.

That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country. If people don't spend, the economy doesn't grow.

What do you mean by "grow"?

 

[Brain357]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Spending grows an economy, not saving.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "grows an economy"?

A business isn't going to grow without spending. Suppose you own a restaurant. Do you need customers spending or saving? Will you have more employees if customers are spending or saving?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it

And savings is bad for the economy?

High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes

When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.

Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

And savings is bad for the economy?

Yes it is.

That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.

The rich actually pay very low rates.

Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

He's a liberal liar. So what?

Link proof that they are actually paying more now.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)

The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%

(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.

Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.

Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?

Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.

Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.

Huh? I think that would be your job.