Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I imagine it is a little more difficult to run a worldwide, multi-billion dollar, massively large company as opposed to watching me use the self-checkout scanner and push a button when it malfunctions. I doubt very many people have the skills necessary for the first job, if they did competition would be driving the price down.
The gap between the rich and poor always cycles, we are at a peak now. Much of the increase in the mega wealthy is due to the tech revolution, just as the prior peak (1929) was due to the auto giants and other "tech" giants of the day, wealth concentrates in the hands of the entertainers of a new tech cycle.
Another factor keeping is the tax code penalizes the so called “rich”, people who make a high income of $250,000 a year or more. It is much harder to grow a business when your wages are taxed and the wealthy such as Buffet push for higher taxes on the high income earners, he knows it will keep down his future competition, not him.
The cycle will reverse just as it did from 1929-1974 until the next tech revolution kicks in, unless the government does more things to stifle ingenuity.
This is not to say that there aren’t big problems, watching a guy create synthetic CDO's of sub prime bonds and bring home $30 million a year is much worse than a talented CEO running a huge company.
ooops entrepreneur not entertainer, how far off was I?
So, dog eat dog, f u i got mine economics is the righteous answer. Got it. Great. You're immoral because all you can do is scan groceries with a scanner, it's your fault if you starve and/or live a third world country existence amongst people with exterior kitchens more expensive than the slum-building you're destituted to live in. Awesome. We are such a intra-hating society.
This country needs a third and power-shifting Labor party like it's going out of style.....
So, dog eat dog, f u i got mine economics is the righteous answer. Got it. Great. You're immoral because all you can do is scan groceries with a scanner, it's your fault if you starve and/or live a third world country existence amongst people with exterior kitchens more expensive than the slum-building you're destituted to live in. Awesome. We are such a intra-hating society.
This country needs a third and power-shifting Labor party like it's going out of style.....
It's need a third party, alright. The Libertarian party
So, dog eat dog, f u i got mine economics is the righteous answer. Got it. Great. You're immoral because all you can do is scan groceries with a scanner, it's your fault if you starve and/or live a third world country existence amongst people with exterior kitchens more expensive than the slum-building you're destituted to live in. Awesome. We are such a intra-hating society.
This country needs a third and power-shifting Labor party like it's going out of style.....
The gap has little to do with politics really. It has grown even withh more and more entitlements and the risch paying more and more of the tax burden. What I see is fewer kobs for those that have no specaility skill that they didn't come to the jobs with. For years we have actaully seen people move ito position that were partime jobs for teens and i some case even lower age;like newspaper delivery that was traditonally kids as young as ten.The reason is clear; there way too many people for the positions available.Its more a case of people falling behind what is needed to fill a living wage job now days IMO.The gap maybe gettig big from lowest to highest ;but there are still a huge number making much more than their parents or as small business owners like never before.
The gap has little to do with politics really. It has grown even withh more and more entitlements and the risch paying more and more of the tax burden. What I see is fewer kobs for those that have no specaility skill that they didn't come to the jobs with. For years we have actaully seen people move ito position that were partime jobs for teens and i some case even lower age;like newspaper delivery that was traditonally kids as young as ten.The reason is clear; there way too many people for the positions available.Its more a case of people falling behind what is needed to fill a living wage job now days IMO.The gap maybe gettig big from lowest to highest ;but there are still a huge number making much more than their parents or as small business owners like never before.
I agree that politics plays a it role but if you look back in history to the last "tech revolution" (cars, radios, phones, etc) the wealthy peaked when the household market saturation peaked, this same thing happened again with computer technology.
Another factor keeping is the tax code penalizes the so called “rich”, people who make a high income of $250,000 a year or more. It is much harder to grow a business when your wages are taxed and the wealthy such as Buffet push for higher taxes on the high income earners, he knows it will keep down his future competition, not him.
Why is it harder to grow a business when there are high marginal tax rates? A rapidly growing start-up is going to have little to no profit and will not be subject to the taxes in the first place.
Also, at least historically high marginal taxes rates have correlated with better distributions of wealth. From the 40's until the 80's the top tax rates were 70+% and this period had far better distributions of wealth. In the 20's the marginal rates were reduced and it was correlated with a poor distribution of wealth, but like the 90's and 2000's. Most of today's large tech businesses were created when marginal rates were 70+%, so the idea that high marginal tax rates prevent business formation is not observed in any data.
Warner Buffet really does not have that much time left in the business world, so the idea that he is going to be pushing for policies that reduce his future competition is a bit odd. Furthermore, he is going to donate almost all his wealth to charity. Not the sort of thing a ruthless capitalist does. Perhaps, just perhaps, Buffet is advocating for policies that will improve the general welfare of American society?
Why is it harder to grow a business when there are high marginal tax rates? A rapidly growing start-up is going to have little to no profit and will not be subject to the taxes in the first place.
But once they do, a lot of small businesses pay personal income taxes.
Also, at least historically high marginal taxes rates have correlated with better distributions of wealth. From the 40's until the 80's the top tax rates were 70+% and this period had far better distributions of wealth.
Quote:
Warner Buffet really does not have that much time left in the business world, so the idea that he is going to be pushing for policies that reduce his future competition is a bit odd. Furthermore, he is going to donate almost all his wealth to charity. Not the sort of thing a ruthless capitalist does. Perhaps, just perhaps, Buffet is advocating for policies that will improve the general welfare of American society?
When you are one of the richest people in the WORLD, worth tens of billions, it's easy to advocate taking 10%+ of your own wealth away without batting an eyelash. The same cannot be said of a family making $250 K/year.
WB can lavishly live off the interest and dividends alone with his income. OTOH, A family making $250-500 K still has to go to work every week just like everyone else to keep their expenses paid. That's not "rich" in my book, just "well-off" $250-300 K for a household is easily upper-middle class in parts of San Fran, NYC, DC and Boston.
Btw, what is the proper income distribution? It's a very "liberal" concept that income should be distributed in a certain way.
It's funny that one of the smartest guys when it came to dealing with high income tax rates was none other than democrat JFK:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President" "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
Last edited by chopchop0; 07-05-2010 at 07:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
