War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Dad2three]

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

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!

Deductions for vacation homes: The mortgage interest tax deduction, aimed at promoting home ownership, allows homeowners to deduct interest paid on their second home as well. That obviously benefits the wealthy, since they are more likely to have second homes, but it gets worse: the deduction can also apply to large yachts that have sleeping spaces, giving a tax break to wealthy boat owners

5 Ways Our Tax Code Benefits the Rich and Screws Everyone Else Alternet

 

[Skull Pilot]

to add to that Skull Pilot, you can't have people gaining wealth when their opportunities become limited by policies designed only to help that top 1%.

What policy exactly has stopped you from making more or adding to your net worth?

we are not talking about MY earnings or net wroth. I am fine. unlike you, I have a societal interest in assuring a strong middle class.

and you know very well what rightwing policies have destroyed the middle class and left people with the same wages they earned basically thirty years ago, while goods cost so much more.

I don't know any right wing anything.

All I know is for my entire life no one, no policies, no rich guy, no CEO has ever stopped me from earning more, saving more, or anything else i wanted to do to improve my financial position.

I guess I don't see cabals and conspiracies to use as excuses.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

income i snot wealth.

the only wealth that matters is your wealth (net worth) and none of you have been able to tell me what rich greedy guy is stopping you from increasing your wealth. Or how one person's increase in net worth decreases yours.

Poorly paid people dealing with rising costs coupled with the lower buying power of what dollars they actually make have to liquidate their wealth to keep paying the bills that keep rising, leaving them bereft of that wealth. And it isn't "one person," it is a collusion, a cabal of "people" that (rather than who, no matter what the latest, rather than greatest, Supremes decided on the subject of personhood) keep driving costs higher and paychecks lower. This isn't rocket science, and you know damned well what you're supporting, and why.

So who is stopping any "poorly paid people" from acquiring a better skill set so as to earn more?

Or are you one that subscribes to the ridiculousness that no one should ever work more than 37.5 hours a week, never miss a vacation day or leave a sick day untaken and yet expect to get ahead?

 

[rightwinger]

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 should ask for your money back

 

[The Rabbi]

Top Economists: Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

I agree!

That crap has only been debunked about a hundred times on here.
Tax rates are only one part of the equation. Bring back all the deductions as well.

 

[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 should ask for your money back

I;m not the one who can't answer a question except by posting cartoons.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Top Economists: Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

I agree!

That crap has only been debunked about a hundred times on here.
Tax rates are only one part of the equation. Bring back all the deductions as well.

Well when the top rate was 90% the lowest rate was 20% and there was no EITC, no tuition deduction, etc etc

so people ought to be careful what they wish for when they want the good old days of a 90% bracket back

 

[Boss]

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.

The loophole applies to virtually no one.....
Argument FAIL! ...Try again!

 

[Boss]

and save as much as $21 billion over 10 years.

LMFAOooo.... So, it saves $2.1 billion per year?

That should just about cover Obama's green fees!

 

[Mr Natural]

There is no war on the rich.

If there is a war on any economic group in this country, it's the middle class.

 

[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.

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

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

No, we'v already proven it isnt. If I sell you something for $100 I have 100 more and you have 100 less. See how that works? It must be that wealth is limited and we need to redistribute it.

 

[rightwinger]

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

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

No, we'v already proven it isnt. If I sell you something for $100 I have 100 more and you have 100 less. See how that works? It must be that wealth is limited and we need to redistribute it.

Rabbi trying to explain math?

That's a good one

 

[The Rabbi]

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

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

No, we'v already proven it isnt. If I sell you something for $100 I have 100 more and you have 100 less. See how that works? It must be that wealth is limited and we need to redistribute it.

Rabbi trying to explain math?

That's a good one

No one can explain anyhing to you. Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[jillian]

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

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

and yet you're not acknowledging my obvious and correct point.

 

[jillian]

...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.

your basic premise is false.

there is no war on the rich. that's just a facile whine from corporatists who prey on weak-minded right-wingers who vote against their own self-interest.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

The concept that wealth is a zero sum game is flat out wrong.

and yet you're not acknowledging my obvious and correct point.

The one on top of your head?
Because you have yet to make any point, even a wrong one, in this thread.

 

[francoHFW]

Doesn't matter HOW I made it, the fact is money IS finite, like wealth


Try as you might, you can't get past basic math

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing

So speaks the moron....

If wealth did not grow, we'd all still be fighting over the first pig to be traded for an ear of corn.

You're too stupid to understand the difference between wealth and money.

BTW....You Boi has been printing money like its going out of style for 6 years.

Now go bother your mother for some cookies.

even assuming wealth were not finite, what is finite is opportunity and the distribution of that wealth, vis a vis salaries, etc., that is available to workers.

and the more the top 1% is pandered to, the more they drive down wages to increase their own share.

there... i hope that helps.

income i snot wealth.

the only wealth that matters is your wealth (net worth) and none of you have been able to tell me what rich greedy guy is stopping you from increasing your wealth. Or how one person's increase in net worth decreases yours.

Poorly paid people dealing with rising costs coupled with the lower buying power of what dollars they actually make have to liquidate their wealth to keep paying the bills that keep rising, leaving them bereft of that wealth. And it isn't "one person," it is a collusion, a cabal of "people" that (rather than who, no matter what the latest, rather than greatest, Supremes decided on the subject of personhood) keep driving costs higher and paychecks lower. This isn't rocket science, and you know damned well what you're supporting, and why.

So who is stopping any "poorly paid people" from acquiring a better skill set so as to earn more?

Or are you one that subscribes to the ridiculousness that no one should ever work more than 37.5 hours a week, never miss a vacation day or leave a sick day untaken and yet expect to get ahead?

Pubs who cut funding for training, make college loans more expensive duh. Make us the only modern country without at least a month paid vacation after a year, paid parental leave, good cheap day care, and tax the poor as much or more %wise as the rich, chump of the greedy idiot rich.

 

[Boss]

There is no war on the rich.

If there is a war on any economic group in this country, it's the middle class.

Yes, this seems to be a common retort. Kind of like how the Korean War wasn't really a war but a conflict... police action... anything other than a "WAR!"

The Left is fully engaged in an all out assault on the wealthy in America. This is apparent in almost every line of left-wing political rhetoric. Every left-wing democrat policy, every argument, every debate, is couched in the same anti-wealthy or anti-capitalist rhetoric.Relentless, non-stop sorties on every forum and blog, in every news report, in every op-ed by every left-winger in America. But it's not a "war?"

The middle class are declining. Do you know where they are going? Let's have a look...

Now tell me, where are the middle class going? They aren't joining the ranks of the poor because the poor are declining too. Here's a hint: look at what group is rising.

 

[The Rabbi]

...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.

your basic premise is false.

there is no war on the rich. that's just a facile whine from corporatists who prey on weak-minded right-wingers who vote against their own self-interest.

Idiot