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 12-09-2013, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,062,828 times
Reputation: 3357

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
"taking a huge share" means you see the economy as a zero sum game and incomes as lottery winnings instead of compensation for jobs according to supply & demand. See my earlier mentioned ways to spot the economically ignorant.

If we both have $20, and then you get $10 more, I still have my $20. I might have less than you, but I didn't "lose money" because you gained some. If I negotiate a better salary tomorrow, I have done nothing to your current salary. And if someone negotiates a massive income, they are not "taking" anything from anyone. Incomes are part of voluntary employment contracts. There is no "taking" involved with income. If income "takes" from anywhere, it is taken from the profits of the owners, but again, this is all voluntary, not theft.

And if someone has $billions, this does not make other people poor. The lowest income quintile in the United States is richer than roughly 80% of the population of this planet. Something like a billion people in the world live on less than the equivalent of $1 per day. The "poorest" American has easy access to potable water, food, heat/AC/shelter, and yes, comfort. Is it Tiger Woods' yacht comfort? Nope. Is it 5 star restaurant food? Nope. But those are relative measures.
The economy is not a zero sum game, but at any given point in time, wealth and dollars are finite. We don't continuously print dollars so we can have an infinite supply.

If there is $100 total in the economy, and you have $90 and I have $10, in order for me to get $20 you must have $80.

Money represents physical wealth, which exists in the real world. A house is wealth. A car is wealth. A computer is wealth. A resource like oil is wealth. These things are fixed and finite.

If you look at the graph, you'll see that the poor and middle have a very tiny share of wealth. That's not just some abstract thing, it's reality. If you're poor or middle class chances are you don't own your house and aren't even close, and possibly even owe more than it's worth. That means you have very low or negative wealth, and that's very bad for economic security.

Not only that, but we're worse off than we were. In 1970, a single normal income at a normal job was enough to be able to afford the American dream-- a house, a car, and a decent quality of life. Now that's not the case.

When it comes to income and wealth distribution, the proof is in the pudding, plain and simple. Remember what Reagan asked? Are we better off than we were a few generations ago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:25 AM
 
Location: 77441
3,161 posts, read 3,710,864 times
Reputation: 2297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I don't know what you read. You said that only in CD would the OP news be considered bad news, although no one had suggested it's bad news.

people are forgetting that obama is wanting to punish successful people for earning $$.

you're only entitled to what he says you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Barrington
41,818 posts, read 31,705,675 times
Reputation: 14075
From the OP's link.....

"As the fastest growing group based on take home pay......."


It's all Obama's fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:29 AM
 
37,998 posts, read 18,937,843 times
Reputation: 12082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bily Lovec View Post
people are forgetting that obama is wanting to punish successful people for earning $$.

you're only entitled to what he says you are.
Sept. 8 speech to Congress, Obama talked about the need increase taxes for millionaires and billionaires” as a way to pay for his proposed jobs bill. For emphasis, he cited the fact that billionaire Warren Buffett’s tax rate is lower than his secretary’s.

But a few days later, he revealed the details of his plan, Obama called for limiting tax deductions for singles earning more than $200,000 a year and couples earning more than $250,000 annually.

Talk about a major disconnect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:34 AM
 
37,998 posts, read 18,937,843 times
Reputation: 12082
$200k is not the wealthy that Obama claimed to go after. Obama's plan didn't place an additional tax burden on the likes of Buffett, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg, even though those financial titans and others have said they would be willing to pay more.

The super wealthy can easily cut their effective tax rates to half of the 35% income tax rate by drawing modest incomes and using their long-term gains to live on
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:34 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 80,998,062 times
Reputation: 17978
The higher the number of contributors the better as pure consumers funded thru wealth sharing only consume more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,062,828 times
Reputation: 3357
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
$200k is not the wealthy that Obama claimed to go after. Obama's plan didn't place an additional tax burden on the likes of Buffett, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg, even though those financial titans and others have said they would be willing to pay more.

The super wealthy can easily cut their effective tax rates to half of the 35% income tax rate by drawing modest incomes and using their long-term gains to live on
Obama raised the capital gains tax

http://apiexchange.com/index_main.php?id=8&idz=236
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:38 AM
 
37,998 posts, read 18,937,843 times
Reputation: 12082
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
The higher the number of contributors the better as pure consumers funded thru wealth sharing only consume more.
So why don't you live in a socialist or communist country. By the way, when Obama started on his tax the rich rant it only caused me and others like me to buckle in.

No worries for you and your jealous kind. The Obama administration tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes on this group of higher earners at the end of last year, and succeeded in doing so by passing the 2010 health care reform bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:40 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 7,724,729 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
The economy is not a zero sum game, but at any given point in time, wealth and dollars are finite. We don't continuously print dollars so we can have an infinite supply.

If there is $100 total in the economy, and you have $90 and I have $10, in order for me to get $20 you must have $80.

Money represents physical wealth, which exists in the real world. A house is wealth. A car is wealth. A computer is wealth. A resource like oil is wealth. These things are fixed and finite.

If you look at the graph, you'll see that the poor and middle have a very tiny share of wealth. That's not just some abstract thing, it's reality. If you're poor or middle class chances are you don't own your house and aren't even close, and possibly even owe more than it's worth. That means you have very low or negative wealth, and that's very bad for economic security.
You say it's not a zero sum game, then you immediately claim it actually is.

By that same thought, there must also be a finite amount of food in the country too, so a fat man got that way by taking food out of a skinny man's cupboard.

Not all purchases are consumable, no gain products and services. your analogy fails, when I buy some product or service that actually makes me more productive, or allows me to do things I could not otherwise do.

For example, I buy a car for $15,000 and it allows me to drive to and from work, shop for groceries, chauffeur my family around. Having a car means I can drive to work, and make tens of thousands of dollars more then I otherwise could. It saves me from having to pay someone else to take my family members where they need to go, or pay to have groceries delivered.

Another example, I buy tools for work, or buy a computer and sign a contract with an ISP, so my family can shop online, educate my children, write emails to friends, look for a job.

The point is, I might buy a product or service from you for $80-$8,000 but the financial return I enjoy because of the new productivity is much more then what I paid to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Maui County, HI
4,131 posts, read 6,062,828 times
Reputation: 3357
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
So why don't you live in a socialist or communist country. By the way, when Obama started on his tax the rich rant it only caused me and others like me to buckle in.

No worries for you and your jealous kind. The Obama administration tried unsuccessfully to raise taxes on this group of higher earners at the end of last year, and succeeded in doing so by passing the 2010 health care reform bill.
We do live in a socialist country. But it's socialist for only some groups of people-- The elderly, farmers, corporations, and the very very poor.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top