War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[rightwinger]

Still waiting Rabbi...

Actually everyone would lose 20% of their wealth.
Because you just don't get how this works, do you?

Still waiting Rabbi...

Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect more wealth?

 

[rightwinger]

Good god

Are you somehow claiming that our 1% is some "highway to wealth" that we must preserve for all time?

We have invested in that particular highway for 30 years. We were promised wealth and prosperity for all. That highway shipped wealth to China instead. Why are we continuing to invest in that highway?

I'm sorry but you were never promised "wealth and prosperity for all." You were only promised the opportunity to prosper. The Utopian universe where everyone has wealth and prosperity, does not exist.

You've not invested anything. It doesn't cost you one dime to have lower top marginal income tax rates. Wealth wasn't shipped to China, wealth is being borrowed from China at an alarming rate in order to support your bloated entitlement programs you refuse to give up. Jobs that have gone to China were the result of your socialist policies which priced labor out of the capitalist market.

The road to California doesn't represent the 1% in my analogy, it represents the policies which helped people become part of the 1%. That's where you seem to be having a problem with your comprehension in this debate. You somehow think removing policies (tax codes) which help people obtain wealth, is somehow going to help people obtain more wealth. Dumbest idea in the history of man.

Actually, that transcontinental railroad to California did help the 1% gain more wealth

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

 

[Toro]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Posting it another time doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're confusing different concepts.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is one of the most basic concepts in all of economics. How wealth is distributed within society is another issue.

If wealth was a zero-sum game, we would - literally - still have living standards of the 17th century. Last time I checked, we didn't have iPhones and airplanes in the 17th century.

Got it, as usual you ignore the premise and create your own and argue from there. Shocking

he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You clearly don't understand the basic concepts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still waiting Rabbi...

Still waiting Rabbi...

Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

I dunno. Why dont you ask Obama and the Democratrs you keep voting for?

 

[Boss]

Still waiting Rabbi...

Still waiting Rabbi...

Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

We've already explained to you in detail how top marginal income tax rates do not affect the wealthiest 1% because they don't earn income. We've explained why there are policies to encourage capital investment. I've even explained to you how it's not possible for you to ever confiscate the wealth of the rich... They are two moves ahead of you at all times and loads smarter than you'll ever hope to be.

The only thing worse than being dumb is being dumb AND stubborn!

 

[rightwinger]

Still waiting Rabbi...

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

I dunno. Why dont you ask Obama and the Democratrs you keep voting for?

Have you finished your Math homework Rabbi?

 

[rightwinger]

Still waiting Rabbi...

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

We've already explained to you in detail how top marginal income tax rates do not affect the wealthiest 1% because they don't earn income. We've explained why there are policies to encourage capital investment. I've even explained to you how it's not possible for you to ever confiscate the wealth of the rich... They are two moves ahead of you at all times and loads smarter than you'll ever hope to be.

The only thing worse than being dumb is being dumb AND stubborn!

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

 

[The Rabbi]

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

I dunno. Why dont you ask Obama and the Democratrs you keep voting for?

Have you finished your Math homework Rabbi?

Unlike you I finished school a long time ago. You're still working with cartoons.

 

[Boss]

Actually, that transcontinental railroad to California did help the 1% gain more wealth

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

 

[Boss]

I can't find a cartoon that might explain it. Beause that's the only way you're going to understand this. I already posted a question that youv'e dodged: do you think people will not change their behavior if you tell some you're taking their money and others you're giving them money?

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

We've already explained to you in detail how top marginal income tax rates do not affect the wealthiest 1% because they don't earn income. We've explained why there are policies to encourage capital investment. I've even explained to you how it's not possible for you to ever confiscate the wealth of the rich... They are two moves ahead of you at all times and loads smarter than you'll ever hope to be.

The only thing worse than being dumb is being dumb AND stubborn!

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

Name one!

 

[jillian]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Posting it another time doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're confusing different concepts.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is one of the most basic concepts in all of economics. How wealth is distributed within society is another issue.

If wealth was a zero-sum game, we would - literally - still have living standards of the 17th century. Last time I checked, we didn't have iPhones and airplanes in the 17th century.

Got it, as usual you ignore the premise and create your own and argue from there. Shocking

he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You clearly don't understand the basic concepts.

what concepts would that be?

that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

i'm pretty sure if we start there, we can find far more places for agreement than i'm seeing in this thread

 

[jillian]

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

I dunno. Why dont you ask Obama and the Democratrs you keep voting for?

Have you finished your Math homework Rabbi?

Unlike you I finished school a long time ago. You're still working with cartoons.

you don't sound like you went to school, wabbit

 

[The Rabbi]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Posting it another time doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're confusing different concepts.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is one of the most basic concepts in all of economics. How wealth is distributed within society is another issue.

If wealth was a zero-sum game, we would - literally - still have living standards of the 17th century. Last time I checked, we didn't have iPhones and airplanes in the 17th century.

Got it, as usual you ignore the premise and create your own and argue from there. Shocking

he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You clearly don't understand the basic concepts.

what concepts would that be?

that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

i'm pretty sure if we start there, we can find far more places for agreement than i'm seeing in this thread

Please name those policies.
Oh, wait. You can't. That's why you're a troll.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

I dunno. Why dont you ask Obama and the Democratrs you keep voting for?

Have you finished your Math homework Rabbi?

Unlike you I finished school a long time ago. You're still working with cartoons.

you don't sound like you went to school, wabbit

Thats because you wouldn't know what it sounded like, cvnt.

 

[Boss]

...that policies that only protect and enrich further the top 1% are bad for society?

First of all, there are no policies which 'protect and enrich' wealthy people. That's a myth that you have been brainwashed into believing but it's not true. There are laws which encourage wealthy people to take risks with their wealth, and when that happens, others prosper and gain wealth. That is good for society.

Here's the detail you need to understand. Wealthy people do not need their wealth protected as long as there is a Constitution with a 4th Amendment. So any "policy" that you might think "protects" them is redundant. Their wealth is already protected.

They also don't need policies to enrich their wealth. Just the fact they have wealth enriches their wealth. If you wish to implement policies to prevent their wealth from being enriched, they will move their wealth to a country with more favorable policies.

This is what makes your war unwinnable and your enemy undefeatable.

It is without a doubt, the dumbest idea in the history of man.

 

[Dad2three]

Actually, that transcontinental railroad to California did help the 1% gain more wealth

Another fine example of a government sellout to the rich

But the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists. Yep, the wealthiest men who paid for building it did benefit a lot.... that's WHY they did it. You see, they were motivated to build the railroad. But now, last time I checked, the railroad was not exclusively used by only the wealthiest 1%. Seems like an awful lot of people who were not among the wealthiest 1% used the railroad and gained a benefit from it. Seems like a lot of middle-income and poor people were able to use the railroad to gain prosperity and wealth. In the end, even though it helped the rich get richer, it was a good thing for all.

REALLY? lol

The 'free market' did it huh? And the MILLIONS of acres of land grants and subsidies into the multi hundreds of millions?

Read a damn history book Bubba

First Transcontinental Railroad - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

It's amazing that people believe this.

Wealth rises almost every year.

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Posting it another time doesn't make it any less wrong.

You're confusing different concepts.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is one of the most basic concepts in all of economics. How wealth is distributed within society is another issue.

If wealth was a zero-sum game, we would - literally - still have living standards of the 17th century. Last time I checked, we didn't have iPhones and airplanes in the 17th century.

Got it, as usual you ignore the premise and create your own and argue from there. Shocking

he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

You clearly don't understand the basic concepts.

And you clearly can't be honest

 

[Lakhota]

Top Economists: Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

I agree!

 

[Dad2three]

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

We've already explained to you in detail how top marginal income tax rates do not affect the wealthiest 1% because they don't earn income. We've explained why there are policies to encourage capital investment. I've even explained to you how it's not possible for you to ever confiscate the wealth of the rich... They are two moves ahead of you at all times and loads smarter than you'll ever hope to be.

The only thing worse than being dumb is being dumb AND stubborn!

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

Name one!

The capital gains preference taxes income from investments at a lower rate than ordinary wage income, providing a huge tax break to investors.

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

Still waiting Rabbi...
Why don't you embarass yourself in front of all these nice people and explain how a loss of 2 tenths of a percent in wealth for the 1% results in a 20% loss of wealth for everyone?

Sheltering hundreds of billions in offshore accounts instead of reinvesting in the US economy is apparently an important component of the profit motive for share holders these days. I guess having corporate lobbyists to write laws the way you want is just one of the many advantages of living in a free society.

Once again...why do we continue Government policies that are only helping the 1% aquire and protect mor wealth?

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

We've already explained to you in detail how top marginal income tax rates do not affect the wealthiest 1% because they don't earn income. We've explained why there are policies to encourage capital investment. I've even explained to you how it's not possible for you to ever confiscate the wealth of the rich... They are two moves ahead of you at all times and loads smarter than you'll ever hope to be.

The only thing worse than being dumb is being dumb AND stubborn!

There has never been, in the history of Congress, a law passed which only applies to the wealthiest 1%. Our policies and laws apply to every American.

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

Name one!

Carried interest: The carried interest loophole, which President Obama closes in his recent budget proposal, benefits wealthy hedge fund managers who take their pay from investors’ profits instead of through management fees, which makes the income subject to the lower capital gains rate than ordinary income rates.

The loophole applies to virtually no one, but it allows those who use it — wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives like Mitt Romney — to substantially lower their tax rates. Eliminating it would both make the tax code more equitable and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.