Top 1 Percent Spreading $60T Wealth But Not to You (millionaire, dollars, economy)
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.
So how is giving money to the government via taxes going to help Joe Mainstreet who wants their fair share of it ? Is Joe Mainstreet hoping the government will take that money and expand our welfare programs ?
I guess the answer to your question is what kind of society do you want? Conservatives say that we should be a meritocracy. A society that permits unlimited wealth transfers will eventually become a plutocracy. Do you want a society with a permanent upper class, like the UK. Do you want an American aristocracy? A class of useless sons and daughters of the wealthy who live off what there ancestors made? I think that cuts across the grain of what it means to be American.
What is truly laughable is that the conservatives who say sure let there be unregulated wealth transfers are the ones least likely to benefit. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am not opposed to wealth transfers as long as it has limits.
I guess the answer to your question is what kind of society do you want? Conservatives say that we should be a meritocracy. A society that permits unlimited wealth transfers will eventually become a plutocracy. Do you want a society with a permanent upper class, like the UK. Do you want an American aristocracy? A class of useless sons and daughters of the wealthy who live off what there ancestors made? I think that cuts across the grain of what it means to be American.
What is truly laughable is that the conservatives who say sure let there be unregulated wealth transfers are the ones least likely to benefit. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am not opposed to wealth transfers as long as it has limits.
So you are in favor of a mandated asset limitation ?
Should the government just seize anything over that limit ?
I guess the answer to your question is what kind of society do you want? Conservatives say that we should be a meritocracy. A society that permits unlimited wealth transfers will eventually become a plutocracy. Do you want a society with a permanent upper class, like the UK. Do you want an American aristocracy? A class of useless sons and daughters of the wealthy who live off what there ancestors made? I think that cuts across the grain of what it means to be American.
Conservatives? Conservatives haven't oversaw our monetary policies of the last 6 years which has saw the largest seperation of the have's and the have not's in the history of the country. The Conservatives might have done the same thing but it wasn't the Conservatives that did that.
Quote:
What is truly laughable is that the conservatives who say sure let there be unregulated wealth transfers are the ones least likely to benefit. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am not opposed to wealth transfers as long as it has limits.
And yet, you want to blame your boogeymen for the problem.
Well taking on debt is not the way to attain wealth.
This isn't what you said earlier. It's be responsible when it might harm you but it's O.K. to be irresponsible when you feel it may benefit you? No, going with the flow is going to end in the same place as the housing bubble did.
Quote:
Me..I follow government crises and then invest in the companies the government throws money at to solve the problems they've created.
Baxter was very good to me when we had that "pandemic" a few years ago.
OSI is still very good with their naked scanners and follow ons.
I accumulated "wealth" by buying and selling and taking my profits.
But you go ahead and take on DEBT via a mortgage you can't afford and "think" you are accumulating wealth.
DEBT is not wealth.
Of course you know that isn't what I asked you. You are smarter than that.
This isn't what you said earlier. It's be responsible when it might harm you but it's O.K. to be irresponsible when you feel it may benefit you? No, going with the flow is going to end in the same place as the housing bubble did.
Of course you know that isn't what I asked you. You are smarter than that.
It absolutely is.
Taking on DEBT is giving them wealth, not you.
Riding the coat tails of wild Wall Street speculation is you gaining wealth (as long as you sell and take your profits).
Taking out student loans, buying homes you can't afford is you giving away your money to them and what do you have..DEBT.
You're thinking about all this is way off.
DEBT is a 4 letter word. Going into debt is you feeding the beast.
CC, car, house debt goes to the banks.
Student loan debt goes to the government.
You "borrow" $x and end up paying back 2 or 3 times what you borrowed.
That is a strawman argument. The estate tax has worked well for nearly a century. For heaven's sake, it was started by Republicans.
Now, answer my question do you want a society in which, let's say, the Waltons, are our new aristocracy?
You are already there and probably don't even realize it.
No, the Waltons are content to be the #1 US employer.
You have Gates and Bush running education for their financial benefit.
You have GE and Boeing running the military for their financial benefit.
The takeover happened with JFK's death.
LBJ came on board, we went to Vietnam and started the "Great Society".
Some "great society" we've ended up with.
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.
