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.
It is quite evident that you either aren't paying attention or are trolling.
In case you don't know (I mean, really, don't know), your income is earned income, which is taxed at a higher rate than their income, which is from risky investments, which because of their risk, and to encourage investment, are taxed at a lower rate. Save your money, invest, and your profits too will be taxed at the lower rate - regardless of your income level.
---Which is a fallacy since the majority of working people do not have that type of expendable income so that they can take those risk. The other point is that if the tax rate is raise for the wealthier folks they will not limit their production, that is a conservative lie! When the corporate rate was high pre-bush tax breaks this country was doing just fine, but since than the wealth disparity has grown a tenfold.
Do you have any idea whatsoever, how far out your have had to go in an attempt to support your failed premise?
I don't think you've accurately identified my premise, nor have you adequately defended your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatles4evr
#1 investment does not always create jobs". Yes, that is true
#2 There may be a tiny percent who don't
So then you agree, both of my points were factually correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatles4evr
Creating a job, funding it, etc., is in itself, an investment and requires investment capital to do.
This is also not true. Creating a job requires economic activity, not investment capital.
Quote:
There may be a tiny percent who don't, but virtually all do, directly or indirectly. Even putting your cash in a savings accounts is "investement" or contributes thereto by making money available to loan to business to grow their business and either support, create or both, employees.
You're under the illusion that we have a perfect capitalist system, where any money invested always creates jobs.
If I invest $1 trillion in oil futures, all this speculation will do is destroy jobs, by rendering large parts of our economy uneconomical. So this idea that "capital investment always creates jobs" is a fallacy. Capital investment is not intended to create jobs, it is intended to create a return for the investor.
Even when a return is generated for the investor, you're under the false assumption that this return is creating jobs, and wealth for society. You completely ignore economically destructive investment strategies like regulatory arbitrage or tax arbitrage, or the never-ending chase for banks to artificially increase net asset values with money from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Most of what you (and the other supply siders) call a "capital gain" is just an increase in net asset value due to money printing, rather than a real investment into productive labor.
I can abide by the idea that certain types of investment should be tax-preferenced, however, this would require a total redefinition of what constitutes a "Capital Gain."
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 04-19-2012 at 01:45 PM..
HAHAHAHAAHAHA! Wow, that has to be the funniest thing Ive ever seen in my life.
But true for the producers who accept responsibility for their success. Funny for the leeches who want everything handed to them.
Quote:
And your empirical observations are clearly preferable to study after study concluding the exact opposite.
No, study after study shows there is plenty of upward economic movement in the USA.
Here is an example;
And things look rosier at the bottom of income distribution, too. The same Tax Foundation analysis showed that about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 had moved to a higher quintile by 2007. And about one-third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher. While it may be difficult to rise literally from rags to riches, there is still plenty of opportunity for Americans to climb up the income ladder.
So if upward mobility is so common, why are there still plenty of poor people in this country? In a recent video about income mobility hosted by the Institute for Humane Studies, economist Steven Horwitz of Saint Lawrence University explains: “Immigrants and young people entering the labor force come into that income distribution at low levels of income. They become the new poor when the old poor slowly move their way up.” Horwitz concludes that “even though a first glance at the data may make it seem as if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the reality of the United States in the early 21st century is that everyone is getting richer, poor and rich alike.”
Of course there are people who don't have what it takes, that is the point. Many people just can't compete with ambitious overachievers. Still, they deserve a decent life as long as they give their best, whatever that is...
That's why we give billions of dollars to charity every year.... to help those who are unable to help themselves.
Do you realize how stupid that statement is? Mathematically, it will always be that way in every country in the world. You can only have 1% in the top 1%, so if 1% of poor kids make it to the top 1%, then that's quite good. If 1% of the non poor make it to the top 1%, that's good too.
Having a 1% at all is the problem, thats what you dont understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Achieving the American Dream does not require that you match Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. It's about a comfortable living. Not uber wealth.
No, the American dream should be doing better then your parents, not needing more skills and education to do identical or worse then your parents. That is a failed system right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Try reading the facts with an open mind;
"And things look rosier at the bottom of income distribution, too. The same Tax Foundation analysis showed that about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 had moved to a higher quintile by 2007. And about one-third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher. While it may be difficult to rise literally from rags to riches, there is still plenty of opportunity for Americans to climb up the income ladder."
Since you could probably spin your wheels all day and not figure out what the problem with this statement is, Ill help you
"that about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 had moved to a higher quintile by 2007"
Household income and individual income are completely different beasts. Primarily this is because household income is affected greatly by dual income existence. Two broke people getting married can immediatley push their household up a few quintiles, but neither of them are doing any better individually.
However, lets just ignore that for a second, and move on to a math problem
In 8 years, 60 percent of households moved from the lowest income quintile to a higher income quintile. So, already 40% of broke households were still broke.
Out of that, 60%, about 33% made it to the middle income quintile, meaning 17% were stuck in the second lowest income quintile.
So, in 8 years, 57% of broke houses had little to no movement, and the article doesnt point out what percent made it PAST the middle income quintile, by Im willing to bet its almost none.
I
A good system would have to ensure that every kid at birth, was entitled to exactly the same priveledges as any other kid, that way, they are not stuck digging out of generational holes..
That sounds like robots..... and you would have to take millions of kids away from their parents. The government cannot compensate for kids who were unfortunate to be born to poor parents, and should not penalize kids who are fortunate to be born to good parents.
A better system would be to ensure that all kids have an adequate environment in which to learn and grow and to teach them NOT to be jealous of other kids who may have been born into better circumstances.
That's why we give billions of dollars to charity every year.... to help those who are unable to help themselves.
1. Charity is selective
2. Charity is not remotely enough to cover needed aid
3. Charity is not the answer unless its in the form of productive assets.
But true for the producers who accept responsibility for their success. Funny for the leeches who want everything handed to them.
No, study after study shows there is plenty of upward economic movement in the USA.
Here is an example;
And things look rosier at the bottom of income distribution, too. The same Tax Foundation analysis showed that about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 had moved to a higher quintile by 2007. And about one-third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher. While it may be difficult to rise literally from rags to riches, there is still plenty of opportunity for Americans to climb up the income ladder.
So if upward mobility is so common, why are there still plenty of poor people in this country? In a recent video about income mobility hosted by the Institute for Humane Studies, economist Steven Horwitz of Saint Lawrence University explains: “Immigrants and young people entering the labor force come into that income distribution at low levels of income. They become the new poor when the old poor slowly move their way up.” Horwitz concludes that “even though a first glance at the data may make it seem as if the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the reality of the United States in the early 21st century is that everyone is getting richer, poor and rich alike.”
Since pretty much EVERYONE (except perhaps trust fund kids) starts out at the bottom, moving up the income distribution is a standard fact of life for most Americans as they age and acquire skills on and perhaps off the job.
There is nothing remarkable about this, there is a well known earnings curve which applies generally.
Should Americans have the right to purchase real property in increments they can afford, or should that be up to government?
I don't see how the government has a role in this. I know you want to buy a tiny home. And you can't find one where you live. You think there is a conspiracy to prevent that (perhaps enforced through zoning or deed restrictions). I see it as this tiny home just isn't available where you want to buy it. It is probably available somewhere else.
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.
