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.
"Income Inequality" is Orwellian and as absurd as "Income Equality."
The Laws of Economics are what they are, like or not, and if you don't like it, then try to seek out a universe where the Laws of Economics do not apply.
Aside from that, I'm amused at your inability to mount any factual refutation.
Ably...
Mircea
Still not giving any evidence just stating your opinion. People on here have posted charts showing how income equality has happened
"Income Inequality" is Orwellian and as absurd as "Income Equality."
The Laws of Economics are what they are, like or not, and if you don't like it, then try to seek out a universe where the Laws of Economics do not apply.
Aside from that, I'm amused at your inability to mount any factual refutation.
Ably...
Mircea
No scholarly evidence? Only if you shut your eyes to the evidence.
So, you're part of the world's elite .5%, and apparently you keep getting richer.
Better have the government divvy up your stuff to put you in line with the rest of the world's middle class.
Nope, not even on their radar. I just have enough that envy just does not enter into my thinking. But, that does not preclude me from seeing what is going on around me and asking pertinent questions.
Last edited by shaker281; 09-23-2013 at 02:56 AM..
...
The acquisition of wealth is voluntary. It is a choice. Either people choose to create wealth, or they choose not to create wealth.
Optimum Capital Gains Tax Rate would be ~9.5%
Wealth is voluntary. No one is required to acquire Wealth. It is purely matter of choice, and the 99% have repeatedly proven that acquiring Netflix is more important that acquiring Wealth.
If you want to whine and gripe, then get out on the streets and start telling the 99% to quit wasting their money on stupid stuff.
Slicing...
Mircea
Acquisition of wealth being voluntary is irellevant to whether the deck is stacked. I can voluntarily play blackjack, but if the odds are arranged against me, I still lose.
A single university study that claims the capital gains rate 0f 9.69 would maximize federal revenues is not the final word. But, it does prove the point I was making when I posted the question (rhetorically): that there is no reason to believe any current policy is optimal and not subject to review.
Whining? Ah, there you go mischaracterizing and posting long-winded diatribes that no one will actually read. Like the whole top part, I cut from the post I quoted.
If it were not for all those folks buying the things they want, those of us who invest wouldn't be seeing such nice returns. Plus, I buy lots of things and still invest. Does it make you feel better about yourself to think that somehow by doing without, you have made a righteous choice? It must make you fume that people can have both! Probably why you are angrily pontificating all the time.
Feel free to post about how the bottom will fall out any day now, like you always do. Or should I just cut and paste one of your previous rants to save everyone some time?
Last edited by shaker281; 09-23-2013 at 03:30 AM..
Acquisition of wealth being voluntary is irellevant....
No, it is not irellevant [sic].
Wealth does not fall out of trees. You must plan to build wealth over a period of time, and the extent to which you do so is totally voluntary.
No one is compelled or required to have wealth; it is a personal choice, and one that is voluntary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
... to whether the deck is stacked. I can voluntarily play blackjack, but if the odds are arranged against me, I still lose.
If there is any stacking of the deck, it is genetic and cultural.
Any person can choose to give up their monthly Netflix subscription and use that money to purchase stocks, bonds or other financial instruments to gain wealth.
How is the deck stacked?
What, it's an unfair choice?
Prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
A single university study that claims the capital gains rate 0f 9.69 would maximize federal revenues is not the final word.
Then find a study to refute it.
Better yet, present evidence conflicting with the government's evidence that each and every time the Capital Gains Tax Rate is increased, the government receives less in Capital Gains Tax Revenues, yet each and every time the Capital Gains Tax Rate is decreased, government revenues from Capital Gains Taxes increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Whining? Ah, there you go mischaracterizing and posting long-winded diatribes that no one will actually read. Like the whole top part, I cut from the post I quoted.
Please accept my most profuse apologies for not being able to dumb-down the issue to a 30 second sound-bite or a text message sent by TapTalk.
I shall endeavor to try harder in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
If it were not for all those folks buying the things they want, those of us who invest wouldn't be seeing such nice returns.
Then you voluntary give up your income to those who have the "deck stacked" against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Does it make you feel better about yourself to think that somehow by doing without, you have made a righteous choice? It must make you fume that people can have both! Probably why you are angrily pontificating all the time.
I choose not to buy stocks or bonds. I choose not to invest. I'm perfectly okay with the fact that my total net worth is about $35,000, just as I am perfectly okay with not having a mortgage on my home and ~25 hectares of land (and I bought my Jeep and boat second hand and paid cash).
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Feel free to post about how the bottom will fall out any day now, like you always do.
No doubt you've mistaken me for someone else. I'm known for blasting the "sky-is-falling" idiots in the same way I blast the economically uneducated who think they know something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
No scholarly evidence? Only if you shut your eyes to the evidence.
Okay, so Google found "About 23,900" mistakes in only 0.10 seconds written by Ivory Tower Turds who would still scream, "Income Inequality!" even if every person on Earth had the equivalent net worth.
And what do we have?
1972
1997
1983
1979
1998
2002
1999
1996
1985
1999
Wow....not even one from within the last 10 years....like that's really current research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984
Still not giving any evidence just stating your opinion. People on here have posted charts showing how income equality has happened
I did give evidence.......straight from the IRS. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. Perhaps if you hired a tutor to assist you.
Why don't show us all what is the opposite of "income inequality?"
Or maybe show us what "Income Equality" should look like.
Income inequality does exist but it does not morally matter - though it is a convenient excuse for the envious to take from the wealthy, which forces the wealthy to protect themselves. Social mobility and access to opportunity matter. Taking care of our poorest and weakest masses morally matters. Allowing the middle class to keep up with the Jones (or the Hiltons) is not a moral problem. Middle class ability to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous with mcmansions, world travel, and yachts was a temporary, unsustainable illusion.
Income inequality is not morally wrong. Access to opportunity matters. Our obligation is to provide a dignified, safe existence to our truly poor, weak, and incapable. It is not to take from the top 1% to give to the middle class who have access to many of the same opportunities that created our majority self-made rich.
Income inequality does exist but it does not morally matter - though it is a convenient excuse for the envious to take from the wealthy, which forces the wealthy to protect themselves. Social mobility and access to opportunity matter. Taking care of our poorest and weakest masses morally matters. Allowing the middle class to keep up with the Jones (or the Hiltons) is not a moral problem. Middle class ability to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous with mcmansions, world travel, and yachts was a temporary, unsustainable illusion.
Income inequality does not morally matter. Access to opportunity matters. Our obligation is to provide a dignified, safe existence to our truly poor, weak, and incapable. It is not to take from the top 1% to give to the middle class who have access to opportunities.
So which part of the "top 1% saw a 86% gains while the bottom 99% saw only a 6% gain in income in almost a decade" does not indicate a lack of opportunity for upward social mobility to you?
That was the point of me posting the article, not because I am envious and think I am entitled to make as much as the millionaire next door because of my existence. To me, that's an indicator that the social mobility you're referring to is not being made readily available to the bottom 99%. That includes you, sweetheart (because I'm about 99.99% certain you're not in the top 1%). So if you are really concerned about what you claim to be concerned about, why does this tidbit not bother you?
So which part of the "top 1% saw a 86% gains while the bottom 99% saw only a 6% gain in income in almost a decade" does not indicate a lack of opportunity for upward social mobility to you?
That was the point of me posting the article, not because I am envious and think I am entitled to make as much as the millionaire next door because of my existence. To me, that's an indicator that the social mobility you're referring to is not being made readily available to the bottom 99%. That includes you, sweetheart.
Nope, I have already made the jump sweetcakes (and to boot, even during the last decade you are whining about). Opportunities abound for those who want it. You go after social mobility - it is not "made readily available" and handed to you on a silver platter, sweetcakes. Still a great country for hardworkers, innovators, leaders, risk-takers, and sweethearts. The numbers may not be as appealing to you, but opportunities still abound.
Nope, I have already made the jump sweetcakes (and to boot, even during the last decade you are whining about). Opportunities abound for those who want it. You go after social mobility - it is not "made readily available" and handed to you on a silver platter, sweetcakes. Still a great country for hardworkers, innovators, leaders, risk-takers, and sweethearts. The numbers may not be as appealing to you, but opportunities still abound.
However, the numbers do not support your claim (I know, numbers are hard). So where does that leave us? Oh wait, that's right. I got mine, to hell with you. God bless 'Murica!
However, the numbers do not support your claim (I know, numbers are hard). So where does that leave us? Oh wait, that's right. I got mine, to hell with you. God bless 'Murica!
Nope, I created mine. I encourage people to focus on creating something of value rather than whining about 'Murica while waiting for their riches to "be made readily available" as you say. Take a look back at the choices you've made in education, employment (I remember your posts) - perhaps you can now take a different path rather than whining about not getting your fair piece of the pie.
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.
