It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: TheGOAT
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Why are you parroting the media?
Can't you see this is just dividing us?
(did I do that right?)
The liberal mindset, tax the rich until they leave the country and we all go broke.
Uh, if you think a country full of people goes broke and collapses when the rich leave, then I've got a couple bridges to sell you (super cheap).
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: TheRedneck
So in a system where there are no rich, lets say its a room with 100 people in it, then nothing happens/gets done, society stagnates and collapses, and the world ends.......
It is ignorant of you to assume that the rich matriculated into existence on the 8th day. The system started from a homeostatic baseline and grew into the monstrosity it is today.
Money is a fiat that can be employed without backing (though it is obviously riskier) in a society were suddenly everyone has 0 in their bank account. In that case, something as simple as the government 'creating' money then portioning it out for a variety of services kick-starts the economic system again.
I'm sorry you suckle at the teat of the rich expecting to get anything more than the crumbs they are too lazy to sequester (and they're getting better and better at 'cleaning up after themselves' every year). Is it so hard to rationalize that the rich would rather keep their money, suppress wage growth, increase productivity (as has been happening) so that they can get more out of their workforce for less and therefore further enrich only themselves?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: TheRedneck
Well apologies for assuming you were supporting the latest tax cuts. Are you saying that giving the wealthy the lions share of the tax cuts isn't optimal?
originally posted by: Wayfarer
I thought it had been made pretty clear already in this thread that the 'Rich' are not planning on reinvesting most of the money they're getting back, but rather collecting/sequestering it to further enrich themselves. It sounds like you all are making the argument that if we give the rich all the money in the world, they'll share 1% of it with us little folk, and that the 1% they share is better than 0%.
I can't rationalize this as anything other than indoctrination into the belief that the rich have already won, will always win, and we should just give them everything in the hopes that the rest of us can survive off whatever marginal amount they allow us to so we don't all starve.
I thought it had been made pretty clear already in this thread that the 'Rich' are not planning on reinvesting most of the money they're getting back, but rather collecting/sequestering it to further enrich themselves.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer
Im not sure why you'd worry about civility, etc. You don't seem to be rude.
Part of my job is interpreting data. The one thing i have learned is that data may point to something that isn't really there. An example from the first few pages (page 1, actually):
Could relate to the increase in efficiency seen in systems as a natural progression into the industrial age and post war era. It could be that when computers began to be used to gain efficiency in the mid 70's, you see the divergence of productivity and compensation. Honestly, you can't pay me for doing the job of 4 people when i've created efficiencies that allow me to do said work in 50 hours a week.
The only other graph i found is this:
Which creates quite a few questions for me to answer before I can give you any kind of intelligent reply. But I would point out that it isn't the poor we should be measuring, its the middle class. With a strong middle class, the poor feel much less pain.
An example of a question I have is: all the cash holdings from among the top 10% in the US....how many of those are foreign nationals/expats who are offshoring our currency?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
You seem to be suffering from this illusion that the 'rich' are all alike, clones of each other who will always act the same, dress the same, think the same, walk the same, talk the same... it's a false belief. The innovators will prosper, while the satiated will simply stagnate until they are overtaken by younger, hungrier companies. It's happened that way since the beginnings of commerce. What I care about is not what Ford does, or what Wells Fargo does, or what Wal-Mart does... I care about the overall gains, and the path we have set ourselves on now has great potential to make massive improvements overall.
And if some lazy fat-rat makes a few million extra while I get a better job, a better future, and a chance to grow and succeed... who cares? I get what I want.
TheRedneck
why would the wealthy return their money to the US unless it won't be taxed (or taxed at a lower rate than where it is currently being held)? They exist to perpetuate their wealth, and the only reason it gets brought back into the US is because we're allowing them to return it tax free (which doesn't feed back into the system).