Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bush actually gave everyone a tax cut because he lowered the lowest bracket and that didn't help the so called poor did it?
It didn't help the economy either. So your suggestion of further lowering taxes would only add to the debt as it did with Bush. Great plan.
I just showed you how a guy making 25K a year will get a $500 a year raise in take home pay with a flat 10% tax
so you're argument that it will cost the "poor" more is wrong
You are really arguing that somebody who was not taxed before is now richer after being taxed 10%? Geez, I hope you don't bitch about taxing the rich more. I guess it makes them richer so lets go for it. Feel the Bern.
Hey idiot he takes home more every week
People live on their take home pay he just won't get a tax refund in April
Hey idiot, after taxes he is making less.
So depending on how you look at it, the tax burden is real low or the lowest in a half century. Any way you look at it, it is historically very low.
Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.
And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.
Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.
Sorry shithead, or more accurately shit for brains, not everyone would be in the game. Have you not understood the consequences of Citizen's United and McCutcheon? Or are you one of the fools who believes both 5-4 decisions were all about free speech (I know the answer, consider this question to be rhetorical)?
Well I've about had it with your childish liberal insults. Respond if you like but I won't see it since you are the very first person I'm putting on ignore. If you can't discuss issues like an adult, it's a reflection of your bad upbringing in your single parent home. Good bye and I hope you grow up sometime.
Did you notice the Bush tax cuts failed to give us a strong economy? I guess you don't learn.
Here's some real numbers for you
A guy making only 25K a year has 57 dollars taken out of his paycheck fir federal income taxes
His weekly gross pay is 481
With a 10% flat tax he will only pay 48 dollars in federal income taxes
He just took home almost 10 dollars more a week
After taxes he makes 10% less. Less spending, economy tanks.
Hey Idiot he pays MORE under the current system and takes home less
He takes home MORE with a 10% flat federal income tax
do you really think that $48 is more than $57
I hope you are voting for bernie.
Higher taxes make us all richer!
That's funny
Tell me how am I going to be richer if the government takes MORE from me
It didn't help the economy either. So your suggestion of further lowering taxes would only add to the debt as it did with Bush. Great plan.
I just showed you how a guy making 25K a year will get a $500 a year raise in take home pay with a flat 10% tax
so you're argument that it will cost the "poor" more is wrong
You are really arguing that somebody who was not taxed before is now richer after being taxed 10%? Geez, I hope you don't bitch about taxing the rich more. I guess it makes them richer so lets go for it. Feel the Bern.
Hey idiot he takes home more every week
People live on their take home pay he just won't get a tax refund in April
Hey idiot, after taxes he is making less.
He is taking home more every week
Tell me do people live on their net pay or their gross pay?
People do not depend on their annual tax refund for their weekly expenses
This guy has 10 bucks more a week to live on than he does under the current system
Here's some real numbers for you
A guy making only 25K a year has 57 dollars taken out of his paycheck fir federal income taxes
His weekly gross pay is 481
With a 10% flat tax he will only pay 48 dollars in federal income taxes
He just took home almost 10 dollars more a week
After taxes he makes 10% less. Less spending, economy tanks.
Hey Idiot he pays MORE under the current system and takes home less
He takes home MORE with a 10% flat federal income tax
do you really think that $48 is more than $57
I hope you are voting for bernie.
Higher taxes make us all richer!
That's funny
Tell me how am I going to be richer if the government takes MORE from me
That is you claim for the poor man. He is richer if he goes from paying none to 10%. Great argument.
After taxes he makes 10% less. Less spending, economy tanks.
Hey Idiot he pays MORE under the current system and takes home less
He takes home MORE with a 10% flat federal income tax
do you really think that $48 is more than $57
I hope you are voting for bernie.
Higher taxes make us all richer!
That's funny
Tell me how am I going to be richer if the government takes MORE from me
That is you claim for the poor man. He is richer if he goes from paying none to 10%. Great argument.
You just said higher taxes much us all richer
So you must believe everyone should pay more
And as I have shown the poor guy has more to spend every week with a flat tax
Ask anyone living paycheck to paycheck if they would rather have more money in their pocket every week or a tax refund check once a year
Hey Idiot he pays MORE under the current system and takes home less
He takes home MORE with a 10% flat federal income tax
do you really think that $48 is more than $57
I hope you are voting for bernie.
Higher taxes make us all richer!
That's funny
Tell me how am I going to be richer if the government takes MORE from me
That is you claim for the poor man. He is richer if he goes from paying none to 10%. Great argument.
You just said higher taxes much us all richer
So you must believe everyone should pay more
And as I have shown the poor guy has more to spend every week with a flat tax
Ask anyone living paycheck to paycheck if they would rather have more money in their pocket every week or a tax refund check once a year
I was obviously mocking your claim idiot.
I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?
Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?
Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy...I never expected any response from a brain dead moon-bat troll.....but if anyone else wants to take a shot at my question go for it.
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Most absurd.Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.
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.
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.
I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?
Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?
Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
Most absurd.Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.
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.
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.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
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.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.
Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.
If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.
Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.
Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.
Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.
Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.
The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.
If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?
If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?
If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.
So the rich put all their money under a mattress?
Of course not they save and invest it which puts all that money back into the economy
Most people still don't have enough to spend. Businesses need customers with money to spend.
Spend on what? Anyone who is paying 10% won't see any change and anyone paying more than a 10% net tax will have more money
Yes a tax on the poor and a break for the rich. Gee, the rich are already doing really well and the economy is slow.
So anyone paying more than a net 10% will have more money and what do you think all those people will do with that extra money?
Did you notice the Bush tax cuts failed to give us a strong economy? I guess you don't learn.
I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?
Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so fucking ignorant?
Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
Most absurd.Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.
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.
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.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
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.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
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.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
Most people still don't have enough to spend. Businesses need customers with money to spend.
Spend on what? Anyone who is paying 10% won't see any change and anyone paying more than a 10% net tax will have more money
Yes a tax on the poor and a break for the rich. Gee, the rich are already doing really well and the economy is slow.
So anyone paying more than a net 10% will have more money and what do you think all those people will do with that extra money?
Did you notice the Bush tax cuts failed to give us a strong economy? I guess you don't learn.
Graph: Real Gross Domestic Product
Graph: Real Gross Domestic Product
Did you notice the Bush tax cuts failed to give us a strong economy?
Looks like the Bush cuts in 2001 and 2003 did more than Obama's hike in 2012.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
Most absurd.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.
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.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
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.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
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.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat pussy...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
Most absurd.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.
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.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
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.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
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.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
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.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
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.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
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.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.
Wow so you can imagine shit that doesn't exist
Maybe you should write fiction
Oh I forgot you already do that here
This guy has 10 bucks more a week to live on than he does under the current system[/
10 entire, whole dollars. WOW.
You are so fucking ridiculous that you have become silly.
LMAO
Hey. What about the 4 thousand dollars (or whatever) those poor people lost when you took away the EITC?
Is 4 thousand greater than 500 skull?
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
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.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
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.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.
Wow so you can imagine shit that doesn't exist
Maybe you should write fiction
Oh I forgot you already do that here
I tried to explain why it is a problem so even an idiot could understand. Based on your response I obviously failed. I will try to think of a way to dumb it down farther for you.
This guy has 10 bucks more a week to live on than he does under the current system[/
10 entire, whole dollars. WOW.
You are so fucking ridiculous that you have become silly.
LMAO
Hey. What about the 4 thousand dollars (or whatever) those poor people lost when you took away the EITC?
Is 4 thousand greater than 500 skull?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
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.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.
Wow so you can imagine shit that doesn't exist
Maybe you should write fiction
Oh I forgot you already do that here
I tried to explain why it is a problem so even an idiot could understand. Based on your response I obviously failed. I will try to think of a way to dumb it down farther for you.
You can imagine all sorts of shit that will never happen and it means nothing
There will never be a town where only one guy can afford to eat out
