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.
Many years ago the tax code changed and luxury boat production ended.
It was 1990 (with George "Read My Lips" Bush at the helm) and your claims are quite melodramatic. The tax was 10% on prices over $100,000, so $20K on a boat that went for 300 grand. But the tax coincided with a recession which also hit yacht-makers hard, as the rich just tried to hunker down and make do with the yachts they already had rather than pay out such a sum in tough times. After a lot of "special interest lobbying", Bush agreed in 1992 to scrap the tax.
When is the last time you got more when the rich left?
When have the rich ever left? As in went away and disappeared?
In the 1930s the rich stopped sucking up such a large % of the economy, and guess what happened? Then in ~1980 they started taking more and more again.
One thing you forgot to mention in your little story was that the income of the remaining 9 doubled when the 10th guy left.
Aggregate wealth = productivity. The 10th guy isn't rich because he's productive, he's rich because the rules of the system grant him a high share of that aggregate production.
Maybe.
But the other 9 having their income doubled because of class warfare hasn't ever occurred in, well, ever. Your point stands and wealth disparity is to me disturbingly high. Thing is that it's not as clear to me that by offing the tenth guy that the other nine will do better for me as it is for your.
I don't know what you mean by "class warfare" but we need to stop letting them game national policies to benefit only themselves. It isn't that hard to figure out.
And university and charitable endowments, money market and other mutual funds, hedge funds, central banks, major commercial banks and insurance companies from around the world, and the rest of the whole nine yards of the world of institutional investors. And these players do not typically play any active role at all in corporate management or decision-making.
I did not say they have an active role in corporate management or decision-making.
At the policy level, Boards absolutely listen to major shareholders, many of whom do indeed want to know how their interests are aligned with management so that management will act in the interest of shareholders. At the policy level, institutional investors absolutely grade executive management on their return on invested capital and other metrics.
I've been in Board meetings to observe this discussion first hand. I'll go out on a limb and guess you haven't been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
Your whole thesis here is a line of partisan slander. You really should be ashamed of all this, but I certainly doubt that you will be.
Speaking of partisan slander... my guess is the irony of your post flies over your head.
Really? All a special interest has to do to get its way is go lobby somebody? I personally find it sad that people in general can be so bamboozled over even the basics of how their government works.
So you reject the evidence that special interest lobbying affects tax law? That flies in the face of reality.
Actually, lower income people take a lot of public transportation and tend not to drive gas guzzlers. The use of "of course" in your sentence immediately suggests that the claims that are to follow will be bogus.
In major metropolitan areas, public transportation exists and can be used either exclusively (Manhattan, San Francisco) or as a supplement (mid-sized cities). Below that, it is mostly individual automobile. Even in fairly large metro areas such as greater Las Vegas (a million) or San Bernardino public transportation exists but is not reliable and most low income people do indeed have cars or access to cars.
And, "of course" is obvious. When a lower income person can spend $20 a week less on gasoline on an income of, say, $30K that $20 is proportionately far greater than an upper income person with an income of, say, $500K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
...No, this is pure unadulterated piffle. Analyses of credit card charges since the drop in gasoline prices began clearly show what happened, and people were in fact so giddy over the price declines that they went out and spent considerably more than what they were actually saving. The biggest winners in all this were online retailers and restaurants, with home & garden centers and grocery stores coming next.
Since you know better than everyone else, I suggest you contact the NBER and the Fed and explain it to them. I'm sure they've ever thought of looking into the areas you suggest.
Doesn't economic productivity increase when you cut taxes in general? This statement while not untrue is misleading.
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.
