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.
The argument for cutting capital gains taxes is it stops capital from fleeing to places that a better ROI can be realized. Workers need the capital of others to prosper.
The argument for cutting capital gains taxes is it stops capital from fleeing to places that a better ROI can be realized. Workers need the capital of others to prosper.
Let's leave out ponzi schemes for the moment shall we.
The argument for cutting capital gains taxes is it stops capital from fleeing to places that a better ROI can be realized. Workers need the capital of others to prosper.
Its kind of interesting....thats the excuse for all of it, its a massive race to the bottom with the wealthiest winning. Do you have a solution? Or are you OK with this?
Its kind of interesting....thats the excuse for all of it, its a massive race to the bottom with the wealthiest winning. Do you have a solution? Or are you OK with this?
Few economists oppose liberalized trade. What globalization is doing is forcing convergence of wages among those with similar skillsets regardless of where they live. It is problem for the Western worker that there is no solution for. Trade protectionism would do more harm than good. It is not so much that I am OK with this as I see no solution to the problem and I see the most frequently proposed "solutions" as exacerbating the problem.
In an environment where capital is increasingly able to flee wealth for those who invest in capital will increase over the wealth increase of laborers. It is what it is. As an individual the best you can do is to invest in stocks and be a part of what makes the uber-rich wealthy.
Its kind of interesting....thats the excuse for all of it, its a massive race to the bottom with the wealthiest winning. Do you have a solution? Or are you OK with this?
No, it's a normalization of wages in a GLOBAL ECONOMY among GLOBAL WORKERS.
Like it or not we will decline as emerging nations increase.
We'll meet somewhere in the middle.
Few economists oppose liberalized trade. What globalization is doing is forcing convergence of wages among those with similar skillsets regardless of where they live. It is problem for the Western worker that there is no solution for. Trade protectionism would do more harm than good. It is not so much that I am OK with this as I see no solution to the problem and I see the most frequently proposed "solutions" as exacerbating the problem.
In an environment where capital is increasingly able to flee wealth for those who invest in capital will increase over the wealth increase of laborers. It is what it is. As an individual the best you can do is to invest in stocks and be a part of what makes the uber-rich wealthy.
With your scenario, we would see equal gini coefficients for all countries that partake in global trade. But as you can see by this map, that is not the case.
Few economists oppose liberalized trade. What globalization is doing is forcing convergence of wages among those with similar skillsets regardless of where they live. It is problem for the Western worker that there is no solution for. Trade protectionism would do more harm than good. It is not so much that I am OK with this as I see no solution to the problem and I see the most frequently proposed "solutions" as exacerbating the problem.
In an environment where capital is increasingly able to flee wealth for those who invest in capital will increase over the wealth increase of laborers. It is what it is. As an individual the best you can do is to invest in stocks and be a part of what makes the uber-rich wealthy.
Soooo passing a law that said 50% of all publicly traded stocks are now national investments, and their value and dividends shall be used for the common good wouldn't resolve this?
So there are solutions, but nobody is willing to do them. They go against our capitalist grain. And...I dont have any good solutions either. But I do know we cant just ignore the problem either as you seem to be encouraging.
....pretty much every rural town in the country. Never heard of rural assistance programs?
Rural assistance programs do not improve economic conditions in the town in which they exist.. just stop the nonsense.
It provides housing by encouraging free market development using government assisted financing. That doesnt create perminant jobs or economic prosperity.
anyways the grammer is irrelevant to the topic. Who remembers the roaring 50's, and 60's? a time of massive expansion, and while I might buy the claim that the 50's was the result of everyone being bombed during the WW2, it doesn't explain the 60's or even the 70's.
You know, when tax rates for the rich were double of todays rates....
There were many more deductions allowed back then. Nobody was paying a "90%" ('50s) or "70%" (which Pres. Kennedy lowered it to) tax rate.
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.
Let's leave out ponzi schemes for the moment shall we.
