War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Contumacious]

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.

The battle lines are pretty much drawn at those who have benefited from the American economic/tax system, and those who have not. A lot of those who have benefited have such a knee-jerk, arrogant, and defensive reaction that there is just no getting through to them.

Those who benefit love to crow about how hard they worked.

If anything THAT is the great American myth.


There are so many variables in to financial success that I laugh when I hear people extolling the virtues of their “hard work”. Yes, hard work is necessary, but it is not the path to goodness and wealth.

From your standpoint hard work means:

1- voting early and often
2- determining who will provide more welfare-type benefits Hillary or Elizabeth
3- producing new neologisms such as zero-sum game in order to hide your parasitic/socialist tendencies

.

 

[Dad2three]

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

I can honestly say that someone who doesn't understand the difference between wealth and wealth distribution has little understanding of basic economics, no matter how much of a C&P Master you may be.

Yes, Mr Smith was a known moron dealing with such things

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

 

[francoHFW]

So a new paradigm in the US, where only the Rich can vote, where only the Rich can hold positions of power, and where all opposition to, criticism of, and disagreement with the Rich is punishable under the law,

how soon would that make life better for the rest of us?

It seemed to work pretty well in the early years of the Constitution. Because people didnt have to pander to ignorant assholes who couldn't hold a job and resented anyone with a bigger house. Like you.

When there was plenty of room, slaves would do everything for you, MAINLY your boss knew you and how you were doing, and weren't out of touch a-holes, and you could always go West, hater dupe.

 

[Dad2three]

See if you can spot the Reaganism effect, dingbats. People ran out of their savings by 2007...

he Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Great, OK, if I use it later?

 

[rightwinger]

Great speech by Warren

Thanks for posting

But there's no war on the rich. Just remember that.

I never said there was

Adjusting tax codes is not "war" silly girl

No, you never said there was. Because you're a partisan stupid hack. There is obviously such a war going on. Plugging your ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you isnt much of a response.

War?

Kind of melodramatic aren't you?

Adjusting the tax structure on that 1% who have 34% of the wealth is far from a war. It's just sensible fiscal policy

Kind of ill informed, aren't you?

Evidently not

With wages stagnant for the working class in the last generation, it is time to stop trickle down economics

 

[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.

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.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

Are you serious or what?

Uhm, yes... why would I be anything but serious?
Did the land build the railroad? Yes or no?

You see... I said "...the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists."

The response to this was regarding land the railroad was built on. I didn't mention the land, only the building of the railroad. Now the actual LAND belonged to indigenous tribes of North America and was stolen by the US Government. So the US Government actually made no real contribution to the railroad... other than military protection against the people the land was stolen from. Capitalists built the railroad.

 

[rightwinger]

So a new paradigm in the US, where only the Rich can vote, where only the Rich can hold positions of power, and where all opposition to, criticism of, and disagreement with the Rich is punishable under the law,

how soon would that make life better for the rest of us?

It seemed to work pretty well in the early years of the Constitution. Because people didnt have to pander to ignorant assholes who couldn't hold a job and resented anyone with a bigger house. Like you.

They used to just let em die. Life expectancy was in the 40s

Our government cares more about the people now

 

[Dad2three]

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

Great speech by Warren

Thanks for posting

But there's no war on the rich. Just remember that.

I never said there was

Adjusting tax codes is not "war" silly girl

No, you never said there was. Because you're a partisan stupid hack. There is obviously such a war going on. Plugging your ears and saying nah nah nah I can't hear you isnt much of a response.

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated


What a bad job of 'war'

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

 

[Dad2three]

Kind of melodramatic aren't you?

Adjusting the tax structure on that 1% who have 34% of the wealth is far from a war. It's just sensible fiscal policy

No. it's utterly stupid policy. You can't tax wealth. You can only tax income. Wealthy people do not have to earn incomes... they are already wealthy.

The only thing you can do is to put up roadblocks so that no one else can obtain wealth. This seems to be the approach you've chosen to take, and it's the dumbest idea ever in the history of man.

So heavy inheritance tax wont work huh? lol

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

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!

So you agree, they benefit ONLY those rich enough to buy Congress. Than

EVEN YOUR PREMISE WAS LAWS APPLY TO EVERYONE? Weird you can't use logic

So you agree, they benefit ONLY those rich enough to buy Congress.
No, I showed you where your very own resource totally refuted that argument. Thus far, there have been ZERO examples given of a law or policy which ONLY affects the wealthy and does not apply to any other American. That was your claim, that was the challenge, and you haven't produced an example.

Now, let me explain why you're having trouble here... it's called the 14th Amendment. You see, we do not pass laws in America which only apply to certain groups. All of the laws we pass apply to all Americans. There is not a special set of laws which only apply to wealthy people, they don't have their own special tax code, and that never has been or will be the case as long as there is a 14th Amendment and Constitution.

CARRIED INTEREST RULE? lol

 

[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!

So you REALLY don't want ONE law that benefits the 'job creators' after all. You ae a tool Bubba

No, I had rather get rid of laws which hinder the job creators and encourage them to create more jobs. The OPPOSITE of what you stupidly want to do.


Again, YOU are the consummate tool. You've embarked on a war you cannot win against an enemy you can never defeat. You continue to fire volleys of cannonballs into your hull in the vain attempt to get the 'greedy rich bastards' who remain two steps ahead of you. You're convinced your efforts are paying off but the actuality of the results are dismal. Wealthy people continue to gain wealth, poor and middle income people continue to struggle, stifled by your idiotic policies which prevent them from obtaining wealth.

Dumbest idea in the history of man! No question about that!

 

[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.

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.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

So you ignored the post where I showed RR got there BECAUSE of Gov't subsidies huh? lol

 

[occupied]

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!

So you REALLY don't want ONE law that benefits the 'job creators' after all. You ae a tool Bubba

No, I had rather get rid of laws which hinder the job creators and encourage them to create more jobs. The OPPOSITE of what you stupidly want to do.


Again, YOU are the consummate tool. You've embarked on a war you cannot win against an enemy you can never defeat. You continue to fire volleys of cannonballs into your hull in the vain attempt to get the 'greedy rich bastards' who remain two steps ahead of you. You're convinced your efforts are paying off but the actuality of the results are dismal. Wealthy people continue to gain wealth, poor and middle income people continue to struggle, stifled by your idiotic policies which prevent them from obtaining wealth.

Dumbest idea in the history of man! No question about that!

The dumbest idea in history is that the wealthy are entitled to our obedience and are not accountable to the people they have power over.

 

[Boss]

So heavy inheritance tax wont work huh? lol

We already have it. We tax inheritance more than anything, and yet... the wealthy keep on getting wealthier. Again, remember this... Wealthy people are smart... much smarter than you! They are two steps ahead of you and anything you can do to try and get their wealth.

You see, what happens is... Knowing there is an inheritance tax, the wealthy (who are aware they are wealthy) plan out the disbursement of their estates far ahead of their demise. So when they die and it comes time to collect the tax, there isn't any inheritance which qualifies because it has all been divided up to avoid that. You can lower the amount, but then you are blowing another hole in the hull of your own ship. You're hurting people who aren't wealthy but have a family farm or business they leave to their remaining family.

SHhhBOOM! Drats! Missed the Rich, killed more of your own with "friendly fire!"

 

[Toro]

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.

Since you are the one who decided to reply to me, your point is irrelevant to the incorrect assertion that wealth is a zero-sum game.

You LIE. Shocking. The premises, as I've outlined to you, was

Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society".

JUST like my link, and my posting showed.

Lying right winger? I'm shocked

You are a fool because you don't have the sense to know what you don't know. Perhaps you should have read further down your Wikipedia link.

In economics, wealth in a commonly applied accounting sense is the net worth of a person, household, or nation, that is, the value of all assets owned net of all liabilities owed at a point in time. For national wealth as measured in the national accounts, the net liabilities are those owed to the rest of the world.

economic definition of wealth - Google Search

You learn this in the first week of Introductory Economics 101. You should get an education. Then, you wouldn't display your ignorance online for all the world to see.

It's ironic that you quote Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations was the first teatise demonstrating that wealth wasn't a zero-sum game.

Of course, you wouldn't know that.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

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.

Not much of a historian are you. How do you imagine the railroads acquired the land?

Did the land build the railroad?

Are you serious or what?

Uhm, yes... why would I be anything but serious?
Did the land build the railroad? Yes or no?

You see... I said "...the government had little to do with it. The railroad was built by free market capitalists."

The response to this was regarding land the railroad was built on. I didn't mention the land, only the building of the railroad. Now the actual LAND belonged to indigenous tribes of North America and was stolen by the US Government. So the US Government actually made no real contribution to the railroad... other than military protection against the people the land was stolen from. Capitalists built the railroad.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Where do you build a railroad without the free the land provided by the US government?

 

[Boss]

So you ignored the post where I showed RR got there BECAUSE of Gov't subsidies huh? lol

Really? So they subsidised poor people and anti-capitalists who built it?

 

[Boss]

That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Where do you build a railroad without the free the land provided by the US government?

Again, the land was not "free" (as is nothing in this universe.) It was stolen from the indigenous people who lived there. It did not belong to the US Government. Now they did give this stolen land to the capitalists who built the railroad, but the capitalists still built it, not the government.

 

[Boss]

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!

So you agree, they benefit ONLY those rich enough to buy Congress. Than

EVEN YOUR PREMISE WAS LAWS APPLY TO EVERYONE? Weird you can't use logic

So you agree, they benefit ONLY those rich enough to buy Congress.
No, I showed you where your very own resource totally refuted that argument. Thus far, there have been ZERO examples given of a law or policy which ONLY affects the wealthy and does not apply to any other American. That was your claim, that was the challenge, and you haven't produced an example.

Now, let me explain why you're having trouble here... it's called the 14th Amendment. You see, we do not pass laws in America which only apply to certain groups. All of the laws we pass apply to all Americans. There is not a special set of laws which only apply to wealthy people, they don't have their own special tax code, and that never has been or will be the case as long as there is a 14th Amendment and Constitution.

CARRIED INTEREST RULE? lol

CARRIED INTEREST RULE? lol

Part of the US Tax Code which applies to EVERY American.

Argument FAIL!

 

[Discombobulated]

That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Where do you build a railroad without the free the land provided by the US government?

Again, the land was not "free" (as is nothing in this universe.) It was stolen from the indigenous people who lived there. It did not belong to the US Government. Now they did give this stolen land to the capitalists who built the railroad, but the capitalists still built it, not the government.

No, your superficial characterization is inaccurate. Obviously the railroads worked in cooperation with government . I wonder why people imagine there is some distinction to be made between capitalists and government? Evidently it's OK for the capitalist to profit from stolen property when it comes from the government.