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'm tired of being trickled on by a theory that hasn't shown that it works.
If you read my post again, you'll see that what I wrote conforms perfectly with that definition.
You don't believe it works? Let me ask you this: are people more apt to invest in something with a larger return and less risk or with a smaller return with greater risk? Higher capital gains reduce the return and increase risk.
If you read my post again, you'll see that what I wrote conforms perfectly with that definition.
You don't believe it works? Let me ask you this: are people more apt to invest in something with a larger return and less risk or with a smaller return with greater risk? Higher capital gains reduce the return and increase risk.
But, the reality is that those with the means to invest (and start businesses) will do so regardless, because we're nowhere near the upper limit on marginal tax rates. Simply put, at the current rates, moving up or down slightly isn't likely to change current investment rates.
30 years of history has shown that it did nothing but enrich the already rich while doing nothing positive for anyone else.
Do you actually think that the condition of the "poor" has not improved since the 1980s? In pretty much every measure, what rich people in had, "poor" people can now afford. Everyone has a refrigerator and access to food. There are too many examples to mention. Pick anything and you'll see that there has been a material improvement.
There are plenty of problems in the world with poverty, but America isn't one of them. We should be proud to have the richest "poor" people on earth.
But of course this thread has nothing to do with recognizing how far we've come -- it's egalitarian nonsense about being peeved that someone, somewhere is making a LOT of money that WE don't think they deserve, and how we can correct this problem of someone having something that we don't want them to have.
Good lord I am doing alright then just retire by my own investing. I know of no one who those years were not the most increases in their lifetime.Even our local city employees got almost that in any two years and almost that in several single year. Add salary raise last year 3% plus health insurance benefit 20% contribution increased cost when they adopted ACA mandates.Budget just published showed another 3% this year increase.
What the data says is that the top 1% out strip all other groups, including college educated and those with advanced degrees. Are those with advanced degrees "not improving" themselves? Not striving?
There is no evidence at all to suggest that the top tax brackets are suddenly working harder, became smarter, or are striving more than they did 40 years ago. The major difference that has occurred in the last 30 years is that we have bestowed much more favorable tax treatment on this top group which has created this inequality.
Cant really see what your response has to do with my post when you take into account my previous posts and the context of the post I was responding to. I.e. that some people will find something to gripe about which ever way the wind blows.
You don't need cash on hand. Why wouldn't everyone simply move the fixed income portion of their portfolio into equity in a scenario such as 2009? You can rebalance to get the upside.
Not everyone would find it prudent to go 100% equities and take all that risk. Mind you, I put everything I had into equities after the down turn and increased my purchases. I did the same after the dotcom crash and after 9/11. But, taking on added risk in the midst of turmoil and uncertainty is not something I would have recommended to others. I doubt any credible FA would do so either. Particularly for those with questionable job security or who were unemployed or who had expenses looming (college, retirement...) or no reserve resources. Plus, as it turned out, fixed income did quite well without all that risk.
Last edited by shaker281; 09-18-2013 at 10:46 PM..
If you read my post again, you'll see that what I wrote conforms perfectly with that definition.
You don't believe it works? Let me ask you this: are people more apt to invest in something with a larger return and less risk or with a smaller return with greater risk? Higher capital gains reduce the return and increase risk.
So, zero capital gains would be even better? Or is there a point where we have a balance? Why assume the current threshold is the perfect equilibrium?
It is not a question of whether it "works" or not. It is a question of whether tax law is giving an outsized advantage at the top and resulting is a concentration of wealth that is leaving everyone else on the outside looking in.
The numbers seem to be impossible to refute. A smaller and smaller segment of society is capturing more and more of the resources and the entire middle class is watching their hopes and dreams diminish. I am not sure why anyone in the bottom 95% would not find this disconcerting. If you further shift the odds to the houses favor, why would anyone want to play? Sure, the casino wins more bets, but more and more people step away from the table.
What is happening right now is that even those folks with resources are avoiding credit and spending less. This hampers the velocity of money and slows economic growth. Many people feel the system is stacked against them and are pulling away. Or that the risks outweigh the benefits.
Last edited by shaker281; 09-18-2013 at 10:50 PM..
I don't see this elsewhere so forgive me if I'm repeating something. ZIRP and QE are theft from the middle classes to the 1%.
I'm all for the free markets and the self made billionaires but there is a big difference to that and the crony capitalism we are seeing with ZIRP and QE. Example saving accounts are being robbed by today's low (zero) interest rates to support the stock market and housing prices.
Lets have true free markets, where the Federal Reserve lets interest rates find their true level.
Do you actually think that the condition of the "poor" has not improved since the 1980s? In pretty much every measure, what rich people in had, "poor" people can now afford. Everyone has a refrigerator and access to food. There are too many examples to mention. Pick anything and you'll see that there has been a material improvement.
There are plenty of problems in the world with poverty, but America isn't one of them. We should be proud to have the richest "poor" people on earth.
But of course this thread has nothing to do with recognizing how far we've come -- it's egalitarian nonsense about being peeved that someone, somewhere is making a LOT of money that WE don't think they deserve, and how we can correct this problem of someone having something that we don't want them to have.
Seems to me you have not been to the poor parts of the country if you think this is true. Just because people have food and a fridge does not mean they are well off. I am pretty sure we do not have the richest poor in the world you may want to check some European countries.
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.
I wonder
