What should the wealthy do? Libs How should they be sharing there wealth?

[OnePercenter]

All my life the criteria was it does not matter if you are black, white, Indian, Vietnamese, WHATEVER. Gay, straight or in between or both, tall, short, dark haired, bald, DOES NOT MATTER.
It was what YOUR WORK ETHIC WAS at a young age.
If you were not making it then you worked over time. You never cried like a bitch and if lemons were all you were getting your way then you would quit moaning like a 5 year old and figure out a way to make lemonade and move forward.
If excuse makers like OnePercenter would quit posting here and go to work and would quit acting like a baby they would have plenty of money.

I don't post excuses. I post the truth. If the truth is too hard for you to comprehend (if you have the ability too comprehend) that's not my fault.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So why don't you start a business and take advantage of the tax code?

Who said I don't?

Skull pays 22% effective tax on the $294k/yr in income because he doesn't take deductions and goes to H&R Block for tax advise.

And you've seen my tax returns?

 

[Gadawg73]

There are ways to get around the business use only. I know some people who own a very large business and have a company jet. They bought a small completely unrelated business right near the summer home. This small business is owned by the larger business. They use the corporate jet to go to this summer home all the time. I'm guessing for tax purposes they are "working" at the other small business when they do that. It's about a 6 hour drive.

Of course there are. The income and corporate tax system the left loves so much MUST GO.
If someone has worked hard enough 70 hours a week to have a business that makes a profit risking all of their capital what business is it of anyone if they have a jet?
Get the government out of our business and end the 56000 pages of the tax code.
The IRS is bigger than the US military combined over seas.

The left? Do you NOT UNDERSTAND that the rich pay less EFFECTIVE total tax than the middle class and poor?

I retired 16 years ago at the age of 40. I pay 0% effective tax. My income is derived from a family trust.

Case in point. Fisher Island, Fl. is one of the richest zip codes in the US. Property starts close to $1million, the average income is the low $900k's, but there's 8% unemployment. Can you guess why?

No they don't you fool.
You are a complete dumbass claiming the poor pay more EFFECTIVE total taxes than the wealthy.
POOR PAY NO INCOME TAXES.
How come you do not send in half of your income from that trust to the IRS if you feel so bad making up the whopper stories you tell?
What % of the wealthy receive funds from a trust?
1 % like you label yourself?
You spread the same kind of lies the media did in the Zimmerman case.

 

[Gadawg73]

The wealthy have money and spend that money at a rate 50 times larger than the poor so they pay 50 times more in sales tax and their property taxes are paid.
The poor in most cases pay no income tax, no social security tax, no property tax.
But they do pay the vehicle tax on their car for a tag, tobacco tax and tax on beer and liquor which does add up.
They have money for their necessities.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, hows come the ultra wealthy are not demanding this wonderful flat tax of 10%?
They evidently would have the most to gain. But I don't hear of the Buffets and the Jamie Diamonds of the world calling for such changes. Why?

Why is Buffett calling for tax raises? Surely that cannot benefit him.

Because it won't change the effective tax on the rich, but will increase investments. Think deferred income.

So a tax raise won't raise the tax on the rich?

BTW a 30% capital gains rate would raise the taxes on investments.

Think losing 30% of your gains.

 

[Gadawg73]

All my life the criteria was it does not matter if you are black, white, Indian, Vietnamese, WHATEVER. Gay, straight or in between or both, tall, short, dark haired, bald, DOES NOT MATTER.
It was what YOUR WORK ETHIC WAS at a young age.
If you were not making it then you worked over time. You never cried like a bitch and if lemons were all you were getting your way then you would quit moaning like a 5 year old and figure out a way to make lemonade and move forward.
If excuse makers like OnePercenter would quit posting here and go to work and would quit acting like a baby they would have plenty of money.

I don't post excuses. I post the truth. If the truth is too hard for you to comprehend (if you have the ability too comprehend) that's not my fault.

I do not believe anything you post and I would bet I am not alone here.

 

[Gadawg73]

How should the wealthy share their wealth?

They should trickle it down

They do not have to share it, government steals it from them and hands it out like candy more every year.
To get votes.
Wealth should never be redistributed.
Wealth is EARNED.

 

[Gadawg73]

This nation was founded on the protection of the individual and their property rights.
That is why we became the power that we are.
People come from all over the world, do not speak the language and become successful here.
Because the law protects their individual rights to earn their money AND KEEP IT.
Until the left comes with the power of government to redistribute it to those THEY DEEM worthy of having it more than the person that earned it.

 

[Nosmo King]

If we removed all the morality concerning wage disparity, all the notions of fairness and all the politics of class, would there be any real damage to our economy by simply turning a blind eye to the issue?

Is there an inherent danger to the Capitalist system if the very few were allowed to establish a monopoly on wealth and capital? Would our system flourish if the wealth is distributed to the very few at the expense of the majority? Could Capitalism survive with a small minority owning the means of production and the wealth of the nation?

 

[zeke]

If we removed all the morality concerning wage disparity, all the notions of fairness and all the politics of class, would there be any real damage to our economy by simply turning a blind eye to the issue?

Is there an inherent danger to the Capitalist system if the very few were allowed to establish a monopoly on wealth and capital? Would our system flourish if the wealth is distributed to the very few at the expense of the majority? Could Capitalism survive with a small minority owning the means of production and the wealth of the nation?

Hey hey hey. Interesting questions. Don't personally know the answer but I do think that if we only wait a few more years we are gonna find out just what it is that happens to a capitalist system when the wealth generated isn't shared by labor.

But I don't believe the current trend will greatly benefit anyone other than the ultra wealthy.

 

[editec]

Income and wealth inequity is a requirement for capitalism.

But as with most requirements in complex systems, there is a range that works well and beyond those upper and lower limits the system becomes inefficient.

Right now LABOR'S SHARE of the GDP is too low to sustain a healthy economy.

This is particularly outrageous given the fact that productivity is increasing at the same time.

Obviously if productivity is increasing but LABOR'S SHARE of that proceeds are not increasing at the same rate, the difference is going to CAPITAL as increased profits.

Hence we continue to see the growing inequity of wealth and income between the the various socioeconomic classes.

Basically ALL LABORING CLASSES (however highly skilled) are losing ground to all INVESTMENT CLASSES.

Now how does a society deal with that", or perhaps the question is "should a society deal with that?"

When the state of affairs happened at the turn of the 20th century, the society dealt with that via UNIONISM, which forced CAPITAL to give LABOR a greater share of the profits.

But as this nation has opened its borders to the production of NON UNIONIZED NATIONS, this solution is no longer viable.

Now the only solution apparently available is via ROBIN HOOD TAXATION.

And as so many of our right wing chums have pointed out, this has got to be about the WORST way to deal with this problem we have.

Governments are not especially efficient at handing out profits via welfare paid for by taxes.

And theyt become especioally bad at that trask when the CAPITAL CLASS captures governement and insures that they will NOT pay additional texes, or worse, actually decreases the capital classes share of taxes paid overall.

And that, maro-economy fans, is the state of affairs in which we currently find ourselves

 

[zeke]

Income and wealth inequity is a requirement for capitalism.

But as with most requirements in complex systems, there is a range that works well and beyond those upper and lower limits the system becomes inefficient.

Right now LABOR'S SHARE of the GDP is too low to sustain a healthy economy.

This is particularly outrageous given the fact that productivity is increasing at the same time.

Obviously if productivity is increasing but LABOR'S SHARE of that proceeds are not increasing at the same rate, the difference is going to CAPITAL as increased profits.

Hence we continue to see the growing inequity of wealth and income between the the various socioeconomic classes.

Basically ALL LABORING CLASSES (however highly skilled) are losing ground to all INVESTMENT CLASSES.

Now how does a society deal with that", or perhaps the question is "should a society deal with that?"

When the state of affairs happened at the turn of the 20th century, the society dealt with that via UNIONISM, which forced CAPITAL to give LABOR a greater share of the profits.

But as this nation has opened its borders to the production of NON UNIONIZED NATIONS, this solution is no longer viable.

Now the only solution apparently available is via ROBIN HOOD TAXATION.

And as so many of our right wing chums have pointed out, this has got to be about the WORST way to deal with this problem we have.

Governments are not especially efficient at handing out profits via welfare paid for by taxes.

And theyt become especioally bad at that trask when the CAPITAL CLASS captures governement and insures that they will NOT pay additional texes, or worse, actually decreases the capital classes share of taxes paid overall.

And that, maro-economy fans, is the state of affairs in which we currently find ourselves

Well said. I just look at it as a declining standard of living for most. And a greatly increasing standard of living for some.

Labor must be like water. Seeks its own level. Much more likely that American labor rates would decline to a level closer to the rest of the world rather than American labor rates causing third world labor rates to rise. Just to many really poor people around the world that will work for almost nothing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Income and wealth inequity is a requirement for capitalism.

But as with most requirements in complex systems, there is a range that works well and beyond those upper and lower limits the system becomes inefficient.

Right now LABOR'S SHARE of the GDP is too low to sustain a healthy economy.

This is particularly outrageous given the fact that productivity is increasing at the same time.

Obviously if productivity is increasing but LABOR'S SHARE of that proceeds are not increasing at the same rate, the difference is going to CAPITAL as increased profits.

Hence we continue to see the growing inequity of wealth and income between the the various socioeconomic classes.

Basically ALL LABORING CLASSES (however highly skilled) are losing ground to all INVESTMENT CLASSES.

Now how does a society deal with that", or perhaps the question is "should a society deal with that?"

When the state of affairs happened at the turn of the 20th century, the society dealt with that via UNIONISM, which forced CAPITAL to give LABOR a greater share of the profits.

But as this nation has opened its borders to the production of NON UNIONIZED NATIONS, this solution is no longer viable.

Now the only solution apparently available is via ROBIN HOOD TAXATION.

And as so many of our right wing chums have pointed out, this has got to be about the WORST way to deal with this problem we have.

Governments are not especially efficient at handing out profits via welfare paid for by taxes.

And theyt become especioally bad at that trask when the CAPITAL CLASS captures governement and insures that they will NOT pay additional texes, or worse, actually decreases the capital classes share of taxes paid overall.

And that, maro-economy fans, is the state of affairs in which we currently find ourselves

Well said. I just look at it as a declining standard of living for most. And a greatly increasing standard of living for some.

Labor must be like water. Seeks its own level. Much more likely that American labor rates would decline to a level closer to the rest of the world rather than American labor rates causing third world labor rates to rise. Just to many really poor people around the world that will work for almost nothing.

The days where someone with a high school diploma and no skills receiving a job in manufacturing making 50K a year with benefits when the same job can be done better and more efficiently for half that in another country where that worker is a middle class worker there are over.
And they should be. If they weren't we would still be in the horse and buggy days.
Fat, lazy, stubborn and entitlement minded Americans need to get off their asses and educate themselves to take the millions of unfilled IT jobs out there now.
But we keep educating the dumb masses in Greek Mythology, Latin history, African American STudies, Gay and Lesbian history and the dozens of other university majors that I believe to be excellent programs but there are NO JOBS for them when they graduate.
And the bottom line is if you can not make enough $$ with your job get a 2nd job.
No cry babies. Time for Americans to get off their ass and compete with the rest of the world.
We will do it and leave behind the folks stuck in the 50s union mentality.
Good riddance.

 

[editec]

Income and wealth inequity is a requirement for capitalism.

But as with most requirements in complex systems, there is a range that works well and beyond those upper and lower limits the system becomes inefficient.

Right now LABOR'S SHARE of the GDP is too low to sustain a healthy economy.

This is particularly outrageous given the fact that productivity is increasing at the same time.

Obviously if productivity is increasing but LABOR'S SHARE of that proceeds are not increasing at the same rate, the difference is going to CAPITAL as increased profits.

Hence we continue to see the growing inequity of wealth and income between the the various socioeconomic classes.

Basically ALL LABORING CLASSES (however highly skilled) are losing ground to all INVESTMENT CLASSES.

Now how does a society deal with that", or perhaps the question is "should a society deal with that?"

When the state of affairs happened at the turn of the 20th century, the society dealt with that via UNIONISM, which forced CAPITAL to give LABOR a greater share of the profits.

But as this nation has opened its borders to the production of NON UNIONIZED NATIONS, this solution is no longer viable.

Now the only solution apparently available is via ROBIN HOOD TAXATION.

And as so many of our right wing chums have pointed out, this has got to be about the WORST way to deal with this problem we have.

Governments are not especially efficient at handing out profits via welfare paid for by taxes.

And theyt become especioally bad at that trask when the CAPITAL CLASS captures governement and insures that they will NOT pay additional texes, or worse, actually decreases the capital classes share of taxes paid overall.

And that, maro-economy fans, is the state of affairs in which we currently find ourselves

Well said. I just look at it as a declining standard of living for most. And a greatly increasing standard of living for some.

Labor must be like water. Seeks its own level. Much more likely that American labor rates would decline to a level closer to the rest of the world rather than American labor rates causing third world labor rates to rise. Just to many really poor people around the world that will work for almost nothing.

The days where someone with a high school diploma and no skills receiving a job in manufacturing making 50K a year with benefits when the same job can be done better and more efficiently for half that in another country where that worker is a middle class worker there are over.

Those days never existed, amigo. People working factories who made very good money usually had fair good mechanical and techical skills, too. People working in factories without high skills usually made shit wages. I worked, for example, at a DIXIE CUP plant when I was 18. I really did not make much more than minimum wages at that time. Of course Minimum wages in those days had more purchasing power thanr than now.

And they should be. If they weren't we would still be in the horse and buggy days.
Fat, lazy, stubborn and entitlement minded Americans need to get off their asses and educate themselves to take the millions of unfilled IT jobs out there now.

If but only that delusion of yours was true. Sadly it is not true for a number of reasons: 1. there are not millions of unfullfilled IT jobs. 2 not everybody is qualifed to become IT mavens; 3. Many of those who might be qualified are disqualified for reasons other than intellectual shortcomings..like age for exmple.

But we keep educating the dumb masses in Greek Mythology, Latin history, African American STudies, Gay and Lesbian history and the dozens of other university majors that I believe to be excellent programs but there are NO JOBS for them when they graduate.

Yup. As a society run for the MASTERS we only want to pay TECHNOLOGISTS, not anyone in the humanities, because people trained and educated in the humanities demand that we treat people like HUMANS instead of profits centers

And the bottom line is if you can not make enough $$ with your job get a 2nd job.
No cry babies. Time for Americans to get off their ass and compete with the rest of the world.

In 2011, there were roughly 6.9 million people across the country who were holding two or more jobs at the same time. The vast majority of those individuals were between the ages of 25 and 54, but 5.3 percent of all 20 to 24 year olds held multiple jobs - slightly higher than for the 25 to 54 year age group. There were slightly more women holding two jobs during the year than men, and roughly 5.3 percent of all employed women juggled multiple jobs while only 4.6 percent of employed men did. The overwhelming majority of multiple-job holders were white, and roughly 5.1 percent of all white workers held multiple jobs compared to 4.5 percent of workers of Black or African American descent, 3.1 percent of workers of Asian descent, and 3.0 percent of workers of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

The majority of all multiple-job holders were married in 2011, but 5.3 percent of workers who were widowed, divorced, or separated worked two or more jobs compared with 4.7 percent of married workers and 5.1 percent of workers who had never been married. This was especially true for women: 6.1 percent of female workers who were widowed, divorced, or separated and 6.0 percent of female workers who were never married juggled multiple jobs at the same time compared with just 4.7 percent of female workers who were married.

Slightly more than one-half of all people who held two or more jobs at the same time during 2011 reported having a primary job full-time and a secondary job part-time. Very few individuals reported having two full-time jobs concurrently. However, women with multiple jobs were much more likely to be working two part-time jobs and the number of women who did work two or more part-time jobs was roughly double the number of men who did the same.

[quot] We will do it and leave behind the folks stuck in the 50s union mentality.
Good riddance.

I know I'll probably not convince you this is true, but workers today work MORE hours than they did in the 50s.

So your delusions that Americans are lazy is your conceit, not reality.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well said. I just look at it as a declining standard of living for most. And a greatly increasing standard of living for some.

Labor must be like water. Seeks its own level. Much more likely that American labor rates would decline to a level closer to the rest of the world rather than American labor rates causing third world labor rates to rise. Just to many really poor people around the world that will work for almost nothing.

Those days never existed, amigo. People working factories who made very good money usually had fair good mechanical and techical skills, too. People working in factories without high skills usually made shit wages. I worked, for example, at a DIXIE CUP plant when I was 18. I really did not make much more than minimum wages at that time. Of course Minimum wages in those days had more purchasing power thanr than now.




If but only that delusion of yours was true. Sadly it is not true for a number of reasons: 1. there are not millions of unfullfilled IT jobs. 2 not everybody is qualifed to become IT mavens; 3. Many of those who might be qualified are disqualified for reasons other than intellectual shortcomings..like age for exmple.





Yup. As a society run for the MASTERS we only want to pay TECHNOLOGISTS, not anyone in the humanities, because people trained and educated in the humanities demand that we treat people like HUMANS instead of profits centers

In 2011, there were roughly 6.9 million people across the country who were holding two or more jobs at the same time. The vast majority of those individuals were between the ages of 25 and 54, but 5.3 percent of all 20 to 24 year olds held multiple jobs - slightly higher than for the 25 to 54 year age group. There were slightly more women holding two jobs during the year than men, and roughly 5.3 percent of all employed women juggled multiple jobs while only 4.6 percent of employed men did. The overwhelming majority of multiple-job holders were white, and roughly 5.1 percent of all white workers held multiple jobs compared to 4.5 percent of workers of Black or African American descent, 3.1 percent of workers of Asian descent, and 3.0 percent of workers of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

The majority of all multiple-job holders were married in 2011, but 5.3 percent of workers who were widowed, divorced, or separated worked two or more jobs compared with 4.7 percent of married workers and 5.1 percent of workers who had never been married. This was especially true for women: 6.1 percent of female workers who were widowed, divorced, or separated and 6.0 percent of female workers who were never married juggled multiple jobs at the same time compared with just 4.7 percent of female workers who were married.

Slightly more than one-half of all people who held two or more jobs at the same time during 2011 reported having a primary job full-time and a secondary job part-time. Very few individuals reported having two full-time jobs concurrently. However, women with multiple jobs were much more likely to be working two part-time jobs and the number of women who did work two or more part-time jobs was roughly double the number of men who did the same.

[quot] We will do it and leave behind the folks stuck in the 50s union mentality.
Good riddance.

I know I'll probably not convince you this is true, but workers today work MORE hours than they did in the 50s.

So your delusions that Americans are lazy is your conceit, not reality.

Social security disability and worker's compensation claims doubling in the last 5 years and you believe the American worker has a stronger work ethic now than then?
Roll me one out of your bag.
You are stuck on stupid. The media sold you their spin and you bought it.
The fact is that workers ARE working for less and I schooled you why they are. Additionally, how is it that a large % of citizens FIND WORK within weeks AFTER their unemployment checks run out?
They have work for less $$ as they are as unskilled and as uneducated as the Mexican man that can do it for half the money.
And who's fault is that?

 

[Brain357]

Those days never existed, amigo. People working factories who made very good money usually had fair good mechanical and techical skills, too. People working in factories without high skills usually made shit wages. I worked, for example, at a DIXIE CUP plant when I was 18. I really did not make much more than minimum wages at that time. Of course Minimum wages in those days had more purchasing power thanr than now.




If but only that delusion of yours was true. Sadly it is not true for a number of reasons: 1. there are not millions of unfullfilled IT jobs. 2 not everybody is qualifed to become IT mavens; 3. Many of those who might be qualified are disqualified for reasons other than intellectual shortcomings..like age for exmple.





Yup. As a society run for the MASTERS we only want to pay TECHNOLOGISTS, not anyone in the humanities, because people trained and educated in the humanities demand that we treat people like HUMANS instead of profits centers








[quot] We will do it and leave behind the folks stuck in the 50s union mentality.
Good riddance.

I know I'll probably not convince you this is true, but workers today work MORE hours than they did in the 50s.

So your delusions that Americans are lazy is your conceit, not reality.

Social security disability and worker's compensation claims doubling in the last 5 years and you believe the American worker has a stronger work ethic now than then?
Roll me one out of your bag.
You are stuck on stupid. The media sold you their spin and you bought it.
The fact is that workers ARE working for less and I schooled you why they are. Additionally, how is it that a large % of citizens FIND WORK within weeks AFTER their unemployment checks run out?
They have work for less $$ as they are as unskilled and as uneducated as the Mexican man that can do it for half the money.
And who's fault is that?

Tell me something. Do you think every person is made out to work in an office doing IT? I'm from the middle class and remember all the dad's when I was growing up. A lot of very hard working guys in manufacturing. While hard working I don't know these guys would ever be successful in office type jobs. This is something that economics doesn't really account for IMHO. According to economic theory those types of jobs move away and we move to more skilled/trained jobs. But people are all different and I'm not sure an economy can be successful without lots of good middle class manufacturing type jobs. And frankly I've seen companies move to over seas producers for very little % savings. After you take into account the additional stock your have to carry, longer lead times, difficulty in handling quality issues... The savings is very little. It's often just greed moving these jobs out of the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

If we removed all the morality concerning wage disparity, all the notions of fairness and all the politics of class, would there be any real damage to our economy by simply turning a blind eye to the issue?

Is there an inherent danger to the Capitalist system if the very few were allowed to establish a monopoly on wealth and capital? Would our system flourish if the wealth is distributed to the very few at the expense of the majority? Could Capitalism survive with a small minority owning the means of production and the wealth of the nation?

Im all in favor of removing morality concerns from wage disparity. Wage disparity occurrs because some people are more valuable workers than others. Some people like Jack Welch build big companies and run them efficiently, producing large profits for their shareholders. Others are relegated to inspecting toilets for municipalities. Capiche?

 

[rightwinger]

How should the wealthy share their wealth?

They should trickle it down

They do not have to share it, government steals it from them and hands it out like candy more every year.
To get votes.
Wealth should never be redistributed.
Wealth is EARNED.

Here is the plan...

Since the 1980s we have been implementing supply side theories on the understanding that the money we filtered to the highest levels would trickle down in the form of a booming economy and more jobs

Since it didn't work......give us our money back

 

[The Rabbi]

How should the wealthy share their wealth?

They should trickle it down

They do not have to share it, government steals it from them and hands it out like candy more every year.
To get votes.
Wealth should never be redistributed.
Wealth is EARNED.

Here is the plan...

Since the 1980s we have been implementing supply side theories on the understanding that the money we filtered to the highest levels would trickle down in the form of a booming economy and more jobs

Since it didn't work......give us our money back

Was that a contest to see how much ignorance, stupidity and error you could fit into one post?

 

[rightwinger]

They do not have to share it, government steals it from them and hands it out like candy more every year.
To get votes.
Wealth should never be redistributed.
Wealth is EARNED.

Here is the plan...

Since the 1980s we have been implementing supply side theories on the understanding that the money we filtered to the highest levels would trickle down in the form of a booming economy and more jobs

Since it didn't work......give us our money back

Was that a contest to see how much ignorance, stupidity and error you could fit into one post?

If it is too late to get our money back, maybe we can just end those supply side policies