Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Last I checked a business requires a plan, a product, a management and startup capital. That combination is not all that plentiful. Just look at the numbers presented. Assuming (always dangerous) 10% of the population started a business that means 30 million businesses. Of the 30 million started less than 300 became Forbes 400 successes. 25 of the 30 million probably failed taking their savings with them. A person would probably do better buying Powerball tickets.

Why do you people disparage the person that just wants a lifetime job doing what they are good at doing for decent wages and benefits followed by a good pension after 40 years or so? Why have you made this impossible? Why do you want this to be impossible?
Very good point, Greg. Unless one lives in Lake Wobegon, we all can't be in the top 1%. What the nation looked like when I was a child was one where one could have a decent life-style being middle-class -- being able have a middle-class salary which put food on the table; a roof over the family's head; send your kids to college and be assured a modest retirement.

That looks more and more like a dream to most not-rich today and it is because of growing income inequality, where the top 1% grabs a greater share of national income -- and not because all of a sudden the top 1% are smarter or more talented, just that the rules over the last 30 years are tilted in their favor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,783,759 times
Reputation: 24863
MTAtech - That was the world I grew up in as well. It has dissapeared onto the world of MAMMON where manipulating money pays better than making things. The economy rewards people like the Republican canditate the made a fortune cheating workers, bankers and his own investors out of jobs, loans and capital. I have to ask why is this theif still running around lose?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:36 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13714
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Very good point, Greg. Unless one lives in Lake Wobegon, we all can't be in the top 1%. What the nation looked like when I was a child was one where one could have a decent life-style being middle-class -- being able have a middle-class salary which put food on the table; a roof over the family's head; send your kids to college and be assured a modest retirement.

That looks more and more like a dream to most not-rich today and it is because of growing income inequality, where the top 1% grabs a greater share of national income.
You've already been corrected on that. The top 1% is LOSING income share.

Furthermore... the costs of housing, attending college, etc., have all increased astronomically and out of the middle class's affordability range because of GOVERNMENT interference. The government inflated a housing bubble with easy money (loans to all, regardless of creditworthiness). That is in the process of bursting. The next bubble to burst will be easy money non-dischargeable in bankruptcy student loans. Who knows how many fools have been tricked into being perpetual debt slaves.

The Consumerist » What $200,000 In Student Loan Debt Looks Like
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
He's worth $7 billion and inherited $500 million, less than 8% of his wealth. Did 92% of his wealth just magically appear?
"Self-made" is associated with starting from nothing. He started with a half-a billion dollars. It's much easier to get a run in baseball if you start out on 3rd base.

If you had inherited $500 mil. in 1997 and bought Apple stock, your fortune would be $120 billion instead of $7 bil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:40 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13714
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
"Self-made" is associated with starting from nothing.
Self-made is earning the vast majority of your wealth, not having it handed to you. Your example inherited less than 8% of his wealth.

Furthermore, he did NOT come from a wealthy family. I usually do not like to link to wikipedia, but the info on Anschutz has sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:41 AM
 
4,156 posts, read 4,175,096 times
Reputation: 2076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe View Post
True statement.

As it stands currently, the lower and middle classes don't have enough money to spend to keep the economy going at a high level. Since the Middle and Lower classes make up the vast majority of the population, when they stop spending, the entire country feels it.

Increasing taxes on the rich will help balance the budget, but it won't save the U.S. economy. For the economy to improve (economy just being the circulation of money) we're going to have to get more money into the hands of the Lower and Middle classes.
So you don't think the US government already spends enough?

If you spend every penny of this, how you going to send your kid to college? How you going to survive on a raining days?

What we need is a balance of savings and spending. But in order to spend, you have to save first. The US saving rate is near 0.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:45 AM
 
4,156 posts, read 4,175,096 times
Reputation: 2076
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
"Self-made" is associated with starting from nothing. He started with a half-a billion dollars. It's much easier to get a run in baseball if you start out on 3rd base.

If you had inherited $500 mil. in 1997 and bought Apple stock, your fortune would be $120 billion instead of $7 bil.
If you had inherited $500 mil in 1997, bought out of money Nasdaq call options, then sell it at the Feb of 2000, flip the profit and bought out of money put options, you will worth more than all the billionaire combined.

Only problem, ok 2 problems. The first one is obvious, you cannot go back time. The second one is not obvious, because most of you don't understand how the financial market work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,948,900 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You've already been corrected on that. The top 1% is LOSING income share.
...
I haven't been corrected at all. You made an assertion, which was false. According to the Tax Foundation, this is the top 1%'s income share for the subject years:

2001 16.06%
2002 15.43%
2003 15.68%
2004 17.44%
2005 19.26%
2006 19.56%
2007 20.19%
2008 18.47%
2009 17.11%


I'd hardly call that "losing income share" when 1% of the people make 1/6th of the nation's income and the variance moves up and down by 1-2% -- mainly due to fluctuations in the stock market from one year to the next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:52 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13714
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
IC - What makes you have faith in that book?
It has 20 years worth of factual data on millionaires.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 07:53 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13714
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Taxing the rich modestly more brings in $50 billion -- $120 billion per year more.
Since taxing the rich more will likely yield no additional revenue because the rich are losing income share, what's your backup plan?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top