Where Do Billionaires Come From?

[sparky]

explain this>>>

All men are created equal doesn't mean equal outcome. There are so many factors that are being played in a market economy that focusing on what some don't have vs what a few do have is not a good gauge.
That said, tax laws and structures are meant to limit/restrict participation by all but a few. It seems that when one becomes wealthy, by whatever means, one automatically becomes despised/envied and used as tool by politicians (law/tax structure writers) to pit the less fortunate against the more fortunate- so, are we to blame those who took advantage of the imperialist/elites in DC's fucking ignorance or try to beat them at their own game, which is what the super rich do-
Yes, I call DC law/tax structure writers fucking ignorant- citizens as well. ALL rules/laws are made to be broken. Some people are paid to do just that by finding what the rule/law doesn't say and doing it- they're called accountants and lawyers. Some people come by it naturally, they're called innovative (and enemies), and some emulate the former, they are called learners and doers.
Politicians (law/tax structure writers) are sociopathic fucking idiots that are easily bought and the super wealthy recognize that flaw in their character and take advantage of it. Let's not pretend any here who envy their status (and wealth) wouldn't do the same damn thing.
NO form of gov't or economy will prevent weak immoral sociopaths from seeking to *better* their plight in life- however, capitalism "provides" an opportunity- it is up to the Individual to find it and use it to their benefit. Not everyone is cut out to be at the top, and if everyone was at the top, well, inverted triangles can't remain standing-

Want to "blame" something/somebody for all the Billionaires? Try this on for size.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for the growth of gov't, the loss of liberty, the rise in inequality, and the boom and bust cycles. All those who support peace and prosperity should join the effort to *audit and end the fed*- Ron Paul

Now, there wouldn't be Billionaires or even many millionaires if the *money* wasn't there. But, then there's be 100aries and 1000aires- but, without the money to be taxed there would be a lot less tax and a lot less graft and corruption.
Taking from one to give to another is a Robin Hood fantasy played out by sociopaths- still, taking what isn't earned is theft.

I'll agree w/ a few points that parrot your own here Gdjjr.

It isn't how rich some are here, it's that they've rigged the system to be so

This is WHY wealth inequity exists , and has been an exponential pandemic raft with it's concentration among the very very few, w/out noteable quintile mobility

How bad is it? Well, if the rich can buy elections, by proxy they,ve bought Congress as well as our fiscal, foreign,domestic,trade, climate, policies

Ron Paul was spot on, right on back to the Jekyll island crews debute.....

It has nothing to do with envy or socialism

It has everything to do with a level playing field

~S~

There is a whole lot more at stake here than JUST a level playing field.

The live birth rate in the USA has been declining for generations, and that decline is accelerating. The live birth rate is well below the replacement rate for the US population. The right likes to blame abortion, but abortion rates are at their lowest rates since such stats were being kept. Women simply are not getting pregnant, and the reasons are strictly economic.

WORKING CLASS WOMEN CANNOT AFFORD TO GET PREGNANT. They have no medical insurance unless they work, and if they get pregnant, they can be fired and lose their insurance. They cannot afford to pay for the medical costs of a pregnancy and live birth without that insurance.

Even if their employer is enlightened and gives them time off to have a baby and keeps their job open, the costs of good childcare can run to $250 per week, per child. She might be able to afford child care for one child, but she's losing money by going out to work if she has a second child.

This is the law of unintended consequences. Low wages and lack of quality, affordable child care, which employers are consistently telling the American public they cannot afford to provide, are forcing women to choose not to have children, or to have fewer children.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr-007-508.pdf

America’s declining birth rate is a warning sign for millions of people’s finances

Simply stated, the US government has been taken over by corporatists, who have rigged the system to keep workers needy and dependent, and stratified the classes by race and gender. These corporatists constantly decry the working poor as the source of America's problems, to distract them from the role that corporate executives are writing all of the laws, and policies of the federal government to the detriment of the general population.

You have an opiod crisis, and a declining birth rate, and declining general health for your population because of your "for profit" medical system, which has legally profitted mightily by addicting millions of people to opiods, and legally profitting again by "curing" these addicitions, and all manner of ways of keeping poor people from getting anything more than subsistence medical care, in the richest country in the world.

The USA is the only first world country whose life expectancy is declining.

So there are lots and lots of social and economic consequences for these low wage rates. Replacement rate for the population is 2.1 live births per woman. The US live birth rate is 1.73 children per woman and going down.

This is not government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", this is government of the people, by corporate interests, for the benefit of the shareholder class. 40% of Americans are not benefitting from the Trump economy. That's a lot of families for whom life is not getting any better.

WORKING CLASS WOMEN CANNOT AFFORD TO GET PREGNANT. They have no medical insurance unless they work, and if they get pregnant, they can be fired and lose their insurance. They cannot afford to pay for the medical costs of a pregnancy and live birth without that insurance.

Even if their employer is enlightened and gives them time off to have a baby and keeps their job open, the costs of good childcare can run to $250 per week, per child. She might be able to afford child care for one child, but she's losing money by going out to work if she has a second child.

This is due to the government taxing people into two job families....cut the taxes on all Americans, reduce regulations on businesses and then you can get back to a time when one parent worked, one parent stayed home to raise the children......but until you get the government to back off, and stop extracting money for every act of life, you will have this situation...

Well, you've missed the target completely, but you did hit the tree. Taxes ARE the problem but not in the way you think.

Here's the problem: Corporatists aren't giving working people tax breaks. They're off-loading the social costs of low wages workers onto the middle class. The costs of Medicaid, Food Stamps, and earned income credits are being paid by the working and middle class and not by the corporations who benefit financially from their work.

In 2014, it was being said that government benefits paid to Walmart employees cost every American taxpayer $2,000, even if you never set foot in Walmart, or bought anything in one of their stores. 2014 was the year Walmart recorded the 2nd highest profit in America. Even if Walmart had paid the $6 billion their workers received in government benefits, directly to its workers in the form of wages, Walmart's would still have paid record dividends to their shareholders.

This is just corporate greed and theft of the work of its employees.[/QUOTE]


Add to that the WOL (war on labor) that's been raging since Reagan's stint with the unions.

One might even venture as far as the WOI (war on intellect) , being a reality here as well

Bottom line?

America has created an underclass

less upward mobility, lesser lifestyles, and a whole lot of misdirected anger and angst

~S~

 

[georgephillip]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

They owe it to working hard, outperforming the competition and being really smart.......and providing things that people want.

hey owe it to working hard, outperforming the competition and being really smart.......and providing things that people want.

Like medical bankruptcy?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Other financial industry billionaires got their money through private equity (PE) funds, whose main advantage seems to be carrying through activities that publicly traded companies would be too embarrassed to do.

"Their latest cash cow is surprise medical billing, where a variety of businesses owned by PE funds interject themselves into the medical process and hand patients huge bills."

Staggering medical bills are the biggest driver of personal bankruptcies in the US. Here's what you need to know if you're thinking about filing for bankruptcy.

 

[Ame®icano]

Walmart manipulated what the market would pay

How?

Easily. When you control government and the politicians are in your back pocket, anything is possible.

You refuse to see that problems are politicians, not businesses.

 

[Ame®icano]

explain this>>>

All men are created equal doesn't mean equal outcome. There are so many factors that are being played in a market economy that focusing on what some don't have vs what a few do have is not a good gauge.
That said, tax laws and structures are meant to limit/restrict participation by all but a few. It seems that when one becomes wealthy, by whatever means, one automatically becomes despised/envied and used as tool by politicians (law/tax structure writers) to pit the less fortunate against the more fortunate- so, are we to blame those who took advantage of the imperialist/elites in DC's fucking ignorance or try to beat them at their own game, which is what the super rich do-
Yes, I call DC law/tax structure writers fucking ignorant- citizens as well. ALL rules/laws are made to be broken. Some people are paid to do just that by finding what the rule/law doesn't say and doing it- they're called accountants and lawyers. Some people come by it naturally, they're called innovative (and enemies), and some emulate the former, they are called learners and doers.
Politicians (law/tax structure writers) are sociopathic fucking idiots that are easily bought and the super wealthy recognize that flaw in their character and take advantage of it. Let's not pretend any here who envy their status (and wealth) wouldn't do the same damn thing.
NO form of gov't or economy will prevent weak immoral sociopaths from seeking to *better* their plight in life- however, capitalism "provides" an opportunity- it is up to the Individual to find it and use it to their benefit. Not everyone is cut out to be at the top, and if everyone was at the top, well, inverted triangles can't remain standing-

Want to "blame" something/somebody for all the Billionaires? Try this on for size.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for the growth of gov't, the loss of liberty, the rise in inequality, and the boom and bust cycles. All those who support peace and prosperity should join the effort to *audit and end the fed*- Ron Paul

Now, there wouldn't be Billionaires or even many millionaires if the *money* wasn't there. But, then there's be 100aries and 1000aires- but, without the money to be taxed there would be a lot less tax and a lot less graft and corruption.
Taking from one to give to another is a Robin Hood fantasy played out by sociopaths- still, taking what isn't earned is theft.

I'll agree w/ a few points that parrot your own here Gdjjr.

It isn't how rich some are here, it's that they've rigged the system to be so

This is WHY wealth inequity exists , and has been an exponential pandemic raft with it's concentration among the very very few, w/out noteable quintile mobility

How bad is it? Well, if the rich can buy elections, by proxy they,ve bought Congress as well as our fiscal, foreign,domestic,trade, climate, policies

Ron Paul was spot on, right on back to the Jekyll island crews debute.....

It has nothing to do with envy or socialism

It has everything to do with a level playing field

~S~

There is a whole lot more at stake here than JUST a level playing field.

The live birth rate in the USA has been declining for generations, and that decline is accelerating. The live birth rate is well below the replacement rate for the US population. The right likes to blame abortion, but abortion rates are at their lowest rates since such stats were being kept. Women simply are not getting pregnant, and the reasons are strictly economic.

WORKING CLASS WOMEN CANNOT AFFORD TO GET PREGNANT. They have no medical insurance unless they work, and if they get pregnant, they can be fired and lose their insurance. They cannot afford to pay for the medical costs of a pregnancy and live birth without that insurance.

Even if their employer is enlightened and gives them time off to have a baby and keeps their job open, the costs of good childcare can run to $250 per week, per child. She might be able to afford child care for one child, but she's losing money by going out to work if she has a second child.

This is the law of unintended consequences. Low wages and lack of quality, affordable child care, which employers are consistently telling the American public they cannot afford to provide, are forcing women to choose not to have children, or to have fewer children.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr-007-508.pdf

America’s declining birth rate is a warning sign for millions of people’s finances

Simply stated, the US government has been taken over by corporatists, who have rigged the system to keep workers needy and dependent, and stratified the classes by race and gender. These corporatists constantly decry the working poor as the source of America's problems, to distract them from the role that corporate executives are writing all of the laws, and policies of the federal government to the detriment of the general population.

You have an opiod crisis, and a declining birth rate, and declining general health for your population because of your "for profit" medical system, which has legally profitted mightily by addicting millions of people to opiods, and legally profitting again by "curing" these addicitions, and all manner of ways of keeping poor people from getting anything more than subsistence medical care, in the richest country in the world.

The USA is the only first world country whose life expectancy is declining.

So there are lots and lots of social and economic consequences for these low wage rates. Replacement rate for the population is 2.1 live births per woman. The US live birth rate is 1.73 children per woman and going down.

This is not government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", this is government of the people, by corporate interests, for the benefit of the shareholder class. 40% of Americans are not benefitting from the Trump economy. That's a lot of families for whom life is not getting any better.

"WORKING CLASS WOMEN CANNOT AFFORD TO GET PREGNANT"

Isn't this what women wanted when they said they don't want to stay home and raise family?

 

[Ame®icano]

Actually, ICE has conducted numerous raids on employers hiring illegal aliens. Dirt bags like you whined about it.

And what happened to the employers?

I bet it was the same thing that always happens..a slap on the wrist and they walk away clean and clear.

The official penalty for a first offense is $5000 per alien.

Mississippi ice raids: 680 undocumented workers arrested in record-setting immigration sweep on the first day of school - CNN

So, you think these companies paid out 3.4 million?

If you believe that I have some damn nice ocean view property in Kansas to sell you.

I don't know what they paid. I only know what the official penalty is.

The problem is we almost never, if ever, enforce it on the employers. They tend to give a lot of campaign donations.

Who is corrupted party here? Politicians who take donations and don't enforce the laws or employers?

 

[georgephillip]

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

For those of us who see government as a fourth factor of production committed to reducing the cost of living and doing business instead of a deep-state Leviathan, cheaper drug prices trump shareholder value.

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf (P. 78)

"The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs.

"The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars.

"No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family.

"Almost every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies."

That sounds warm and fuzzy....In that case, shouldn't Father Government 'control' all commodities?

That sounds warm and fuzzy....In that case, shouldn't Father Government 'control' all commodities?

That seemed to work well during WWI and II

The American Economy during World War II

"For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century.

"The war’s effects were varied and far-reaching.

"The war decisively ended the depression itself.

"The federal government emerged from the war as a potent economic actor, able to regulate economic activity and to partially control the economy through spending and consumption."

 

[gipper]

Walmart manipulated what the market would pay

How?

Easily. When you control government and the politicians are in your back pocket, anything is possible.

You refuse to see that problems are politicians, not businesses.

LOL. You clearly haven’t read many of my posts.

 

[georgephillip]

I have a decent place to live, plenty of good food to eat, clothes to wear, no debt, a couple of trucks to drive, some toys like my old scrappy bass boat. So what if some other dude has 50 billion dollars, that is not hurting me a bit. I am richer than 99% of people through out human history simply by living in this age in the good ol' USA, the land of opportunity.

How does your lifestyle compare to your parents?

What does the future hold?

The Rising Costs of U.S. Income Inequality | HuffPost

 

[JoeMoma]

I have a decent place to live, plenty of good food to eat, clothes to wear, no debt, a couple of trucks to drive, some toys like my old scrappy bass boat. So what if some other dude has 50 billion dollars, that is not hurting me a bit. I am richer than 99% of people through out human history simply by living in this age in the good ol' USA, the land of opportunity.

How does your lifestyle compare to your parents?

What does the future hold?

The Rising Costs of U.S. Income Inequality | HuffPost

My lifestyle is a tad better than my parent's.

My future is much like that of the billionaire in that I'm taking nothing with me once I'm dead.

 

[sparky]

American Dream - Wikipedia

~S~

 

[georgephillip]

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Yeah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

eah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

Imagining the Internet

"As with many innovations, the idea for the telephone came along far sooner than it was brought to reality.

"While Italian innovator Antonio Meucci (pictured at left) is credited with inventing the first basic phone in 1849, and Frenchman Charles Bourseul devised a phone in 1854, Alexander Graham Bell won the first U.S. patent for the device in 1876.

"Bell began his research in 1874 and had financial backers who gave him the best business plan for bringing it to market."

Government created the market and guaranteed Bell's patent.

ROFL! How did government "create the market" for the telephone?

It Takes Government to Create Markets: Alex Marshall's The Surprising Design of Market Economies | HuffPost

"When the U.S. Army blasted into Baghdad in 2003, expelling Saddam’s Baathist regime, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expected 'free markets' to pop up all over. Instead, he got looting, murder, and chaos.

"So much for the neocon myth that markets are 'natural,' requiring only the absence of 'government interference.'

"In The Surprising Design of Market Economies, urban journalist Alex Marshall shows how in fact it always takes government — even bad government — to create and maintain markets.

"The idealized 'free market' we meet in Ec. 1, with its large numbers of well-informed competing buyers and sellers — that kind of market would not exist without intensive government support and regulation.

"I provided an example in my post on Public Meat Markets in Old New York."

 

[BrokeLoser]

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

For those of us who see government as a fourth factor of production committed to reducing the cost of living and doing business instead of a deep-state Leviathan, cheaper drug prices trump shareholder value.

https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf (P. 78)

"The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs.

"The breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred dollars.

"No one would have to struggle to get their insurer to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends and family.

"Almost every drug would be well within an affordable price range for a middle-class family, and covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed by governments and aid agencies."

That sounds warm and fuzzy....In that case, shouldn't Father Government 'control' all commodities?

Is that a yes georgephillip .......should Father Government be in control of all commodities? Is that your point?

 

[CWayne]

Where do Billionaires come from.

Trillionaires with broken rubbers?

 

[georgephillip]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.

"Raising more revenue" will men pissing it down a sewer. Higher taxes mean slower economic growth. That doesn't help anyone.

"Raising more revenue" will men pissing it down a sewer. Higher taxes mean slower economic growth. That doesn't help anyone.

When government uses higher tax revenues to fund water, sewers, subways, roads, police and fire protection, and, in the long run, public schools, it lowers the overall cost of living and doing business which stimulates economic growth.

5 Traits of a Command Economy

 

[georgephillip]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Business Insider › more-rich-people-in-china-than-america...
Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Do you "see" how Chinese capitalists are "earning" their billions?

1 million dead and US$38 billion lost: the price of China’s air pollution

Capitalism generates wealth like no economic system ever; however, it allows a few parasites to hoard vast quantities of wealth by externalizing clean-up costs onto society as a whole.

Is that fair or just, or don't you care?

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.

Pollution in China - Wikipedia

"A 2007 World Bank report conducted with China's national environmental agency found that "[...] outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year.

"Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhoea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.'

"World Bank officials said 'China’s environmental agency insisted that the health statistics be removed from the published version of the report, citing the possible impact on 'social stability'".

"It concluded?" You mean it reported a theory that if large quantities of a toxin will kill people, then a small quantity of a toxin will kill a proportional smaller number of people. This theory has never been proven. In fact, all the evidence indicates that it's false.

"It concluded?" You mean it reported a theory that if large quantities of a toxin will kill people, then a small quantity of a toxin will kill a proportional smaller number of people. This theory has never been proven. In fact, all the evidence indicates that it's false.

I have no idea what you're saying.
Do you?

Pollution in China - Wikipedia

"As of 2004:

• "The top five environmentally friendly cities: Haikou, Zhuhai, Zhanjiang, Guilin, Beihai[86]
• The top five cities with most effective pollution controls: Nantong, Lianyungang, Shenyang, Suzhou, Fuzhou[86]
• The 10 cities with worst air quality: Linfen, Yangquan, Datong, Shizuishan, Sanmenxia, Jinchang, Shijiazhuang, Xianyang, Zhuzhou, Luoyang[86]

"According to the National Environmental Analysis released by Tsinghua University and The Asian Development Bank in January 2013, seven of the ten most air polluted cities in the world are in China, including Taiyuan, Beijing, Urumqi, Lanzhou, Chongqing, Jinan and Shijiazhuang.[87]"

Chinese capitalists should not become billionaires by externalizing the costs of clean air on society.

 

[captkaos]

Most billionaires were millionaires to start

All billionaires were born the same way as the poor beggar on the street corner the only difference is circumstances motivation, opportunity and Education put all of them together "Bingo" Another Billionaire. Billionaires do not want a bunch of other billionaires mucking up their operations.

 

[georgephillip]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.

You are one of the most hilarious posters ever. You shove your foot in your mouth so often, I'm starting to wonder if you put salt on your socks in the morning.

Here you are posting "thinking verses feeling"... and you do this right after saying something that was clearly feelings, not thinking.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.​

So you are openly admitting that you are not thinking..... just feeling? Well that's good... since what you posted was a false claim.

A graph with just three data points, that blow up what you said.

The red line is the top marginal tax rate.
The green line, is tax revenues as a percent of GDP.

The blue line is a rolling average of all Federal income.

What can we learn from this? In the era of high tax rates, the government collected roughly 19% of GDP.
On a rolling average, the government collected slightly more money with low taxes, than it did with high taxes.

So your retard post about thinking verses feeling..... highly accurate. Brilliant meme. And the one who is most about feeling, and almost zero thinking.... is the one who posted them meme himself.

Well done sir.

A graph with just three data points, that blow up what you said.

The red line is the top marginal tax rate.
The green line, is tax revenues as a percent of GDP.

The blue line is a rolling average of all Federal income.

Do you have a link for that graph?

 

[bripat9643]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.

"Raising more revenue" will men pissing it down a sewer. Higher taxes mean slower economic growth. That doesn't help anyone.

"Raising more revenue" will men pissing it down a sewer. Higher taxes mean slower economic growth. That doesn't help anyone.

When government uses higher tax revenues to fund water, sewers, subways, roads, police and fire protection, and, in the long run, public schools, it lowers the overall cost of living and doing business which stimulates economic growth.

5 Traits of a Command Economy

We all know that most of the money is distributed to welfare parasites.

 

[georgephillip]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

What people feel is not part of an objective argument.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.

You are one of the most hilarious posters ever. You shove your foot in your mouth so often, I'm starting to wonder if you put salt on your socks in the morning.

Here you are posting "thinking verses feeling"... and you do this right after saying something that was clearly feelings, not thinking.

Making taxes more fair and raising more revenue will make a majority of Americans feel better about their futures.​

So you are openly admitting that you are not thinking..... just feeling? Well that's good... since what you posted was a false claim.

A graph with just three data points, that blow up what you said.

The red line is the top marginal tax rate.
The green line, is tax revenues as a percent of GDP.

The blue line is a rolling average of all Federal income.

What can we learn from this? In the era of high tax rates, the government collected roughly 19% of GDP.
On a rolling average, the government collected slightly more money with low taxes, than it did with high taxes.

So your retard post about thinking verses feeling..... highly accurate. Brilliant meme. And the one who is most about feeling, and almost zero thinking.... is the one who posted them meme himself.

Well done sir.

Hauser's law - Wikipedia

"Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 200..."

"Economist Mike Kimel, writing for the Angry Bear website, has stated that Hauser's Law is misleading as it sweeps large differences under the table.

"He wrote that tax revenue is higher in the years following a tax increase and lower in the years following a tax cut. He defined the time periods 1951-1953, 1967-1968, and 1991-2001 as "tax hike eras", and 1953-1967, 1969-1991, 2001-2010 as "tax cut eras", and points out that tax revenues increase in "tax hike eras" and that tax cuts lead to lower revenues.[8]

"It is misleading to refer to 1969-1984 as part of a 'tax cut era,' however, as the tax cuts of those times were compensating for bracket creep, as the era combined both high inflation with tax brackets not yet indexed for inflation.

"The tax cuts of that period merely kept taxes in line with inflation, and should not be conflated with later tax cuts which took place on top of a tax code already indexed for inflation."

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

That's an idiotic conclusion since there wouldn't be any new prescription drugs without patent protection. The revenue from new drugs without a patent is zero.

That's an idiotic conclusion since there wouldn't be any new prescription drugs without patent protection. The revenue from new drugs without a patent is zero

Do you have any evidence in support of that (ignorant) conclusion?

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer | Op-Eds & Columns | CEPR

"My book, Rigged, highlights five areas where US policies were deliberately structured to redistribute income upwards.

1. "IP laws were strengthened, making patent & copyright monopolies longer and stronger

"This hugely increased the share of GDP that goes to sectors like pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, computers, and software. And it made stakeholders in these sectors hugely wealthy."

"But it was unnecessary.

"Alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work – such as direct public funding for pharmaceutical research, with new drugs selling as generics – would not have led to the same sort of upward redistribution."

When we recognize that it was deliberate policy, and not the natural workings of the market, that gave us upward redistribution, it is much easier to find ways to rectify the problem.

this ^^^^ is why they, the top .01% push the concept of free trade, open market, etc.

while simultaneously lobbying Congress to their favor.

it's why Congress votes against the majority (read- middle class constituentcy) , and for this minority >>>

i find this no joke.....other than on us>>>

~S~

Corruption is legal in America:

Corruption is Legal in America and the Supreme Court Just Proved It

"This week (6/2016), the Supreme Court ruled that former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell didn't break corruption laws when he pulled political favors for a big donor in return for lavish gifts and personal loans. That kind of “you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours” behavior is not barred by current corruption laws, the Court decided; in other words, corruption is legal in America."

It's hard to see how "choosing" between Republican or Democrat in the voting booth changes this?