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.
In Europe, they don't call it communism. Social democracy is quite different. Yes, there are billionaires in those Europeans countries that support the Social Democrats. I've done any number of walking tours of Europeans cities on Youtube and haven't seen a homeless person yet.
A pack of wolves and a sheep vote to decide what is for dinner.
In Europe, they don't call it communism. Social democracy is quite different. Yes, there are billionaires in those Europeans countries that support the Social Democrats. I've done any number of walking tours of Europeans cities on Youtube and haven't seen a homeless person yet.
Sorry...this is a case of "I saw it on the internet so it must be true"
You should be sick of career politicians like Sanders who have become wealthy in office, while driving us nearly 30 trillion in debt. Sanders talks a good game, but his results are pretty poor. Sanders has been on the team screwing the middle class for decades.
This. Sanders, throughout his 50 year career, has not created a single penny of value-add his entire life. Meanwhile, Musk built 3 successful enterprises and created a trillion dollar company, not to mention the 100k+ jobs he created, despite frauds like Sanders wanting to tax him out of existence.
He ought to be ashamed of himself for sucking on the government teat for as long as he did.
But that is what all politicians do...sit there and spend more money than we send in.
They all do it and don't care that we don't have enough money to finance all their little petty pork projects buried in all these bills.
But now, now they need new sources of revenue because they can't borrow as much as they could before.
And if inflation hits and rates go up the US may not have enough constant revenue to pay the higher interest rates on our debt. That is another reason the Fed is keeping rates low...interest payments on US Debt.
I've worked in wealth management (series 7, 66, 14), after that I worked for a company that manufactured products that sold in the stock market. Currently I'm a VP for a global investment management company. I started my career in this industry VERY conservative. The more I learn about economics, global finance, and fiscal policy, the more liberal I get. That's a common theme I've seen among people actually in the industry, actually.
You would be the outlier, not only because more people get more conservative than liberal as they get older, but given your industry. it is not a common theme amongst those I know in the industry - be they in wealth management or M&A. I know at least twenty VERY well, and not one of them is into redistributive politics, either for themselves or their clients. And not one of them says "Yeah, but Joe - he's a liberal".
How much of your "financial markets" wealth - sheltered from taxation - have you given to the Treasury beyond your statutory requirement?
See, I'm all for some changes that "level the playing field" between high-income and everyday people. I'm just not going to give the Federal government 1 dime more than I have to, given their record of spending money and passing policy.
It's stupendously ignorant to assume the "rich" wouldn't favor a flat tax, for example. $4T ( a generous federal budget) divided by a 22T GDP = 18.2%. The top 25% pay exactly that or more.
You would be the outlier, not only because more people get more conservative than liberal as they get older, but given your industry. it is not a common theme amongst those I know in the industry - be they in wealth management or M&A. I know at least twenty VERY well, and not one of them is into redistributive politics, either for themselves or their clients. And not one of them says "Yeah, but Joe - he's a liberal".
How much of your "financial markets" wealth - sheltered from taxation - have you given to the Treasury beyond your statutory requirement?
See, I'm all for some changes that "level the playing field" between high-income and everyday people. I'm just not going to give the Federal government 1 dime more than I have to, given their record of spending money and passing policy.
It's stupendously ignorant to assume the "rich" wouldn't favor a flat tax, for example. $4T ( a generous federal budget) divided by a 22T GDP = 18.2%. The top 25% pay exactly that or more.
The notable difference, I'm not talking about people in social circles. I 100% believe those in your social circle have similar views to yourself, that's human nature. In a professional environment, conservative/liberal is significantly more liberal today than it was 15 years ago. There's a shift in people's mindsets as wealth transfers away from baby boomers, from what I see, and there's a handoff (or sell-off) of portfolios between generations going on right now.
A LOT of people are in favor of more fair tax policies, but within the scope of those rules, they will maximize personal returns. That's similar to ESG, people may have something in that space as a goal, but within the context of that as a constraint (if we want to call it that), you still maximize returns. As hypocritical as that seems at first glance, it does make sense. People understand private charity doesn't work to handle the actual needs of our society, and that government programs aren't necessarily bad.
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.