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.

 

The largest transfer of wealth in history

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Overwhelming debt that can not be paid off, should NOT be paid off. Time for a jubilee.

I would be curious to see if this massive write off of debts actually hurts the economy. Wouldn't it be ironic if it only hurt the creditor class and unencumbered the debtors to further grow our economy and society?

All the stories they tell us about how our economy will crash, maybe it will only crash their economy and our economy will be just fine if not actually improve over time. Wall Street vs Main Street. Every time president gets in front of us and tells us how our economy is doing great, they don't mean the sheep's economy, they mean the 1%'s economy, their economy. They aren't even lying to us but speak the truth. We just choose to totally misinterpret their words.


I am so happy to see your post! Sincerely...and you are absolutely right. If you need proof, look no further than Iceland.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

A tax break IS indeed a handout if a certain party gets into power and grants themselves a tax break. I think we can all agree that this is what trump and congress did. Just as when congress votes themselves a raise while no one else is getting a raise.

At any rate, you are close to correct. The top 1% pays 39% of the nation’s taxes. But the nations taxes need to be much higher to ever hope to bring down the debt, and it should come totally from those who gained 100% of the benefit of that debt. Those of the 1% who benefited from the bailout and the tax break.

None of this addresses the fact that we have a massive amount of money to a small group of people who didn’t work for it, and we have to pay for it much more than they do.

Also, I guarantee you that every single one of those top 1400 people engages in massive exploitation, and got that money by depriving someone else of it.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated



Almost 50% of the people in the US don't pay any federal income tax...


Funny thing that. Many of those people who pay no federal income tax are called the stupid and lazy!

I'm not so sure they are either stupid or lazy. They may be the brightest bunch in the country!



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Pensions are invested... 401ks....

The stock market is also how companies raise capital for expansion.

We all benefit directly and indirectly from a robust stock market.

For the record, I was not for the bailouts. I actually do support breaking up the big banks. I don't think any financial institution, whether a commercial bank like Wells or investment banks like Goldman should ever be considered "systematically important".



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

If AOC has her way, the top 1% will pay 100% of the taxes paid to the Federal Government!

Considering they RUN the Federal Government and OWN it, maybe that's the way it should be!



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

The top 1% of income earners in the US pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes. In fact, the top 1400 people paid more than 3% of the entire tax revenue. Just 1400 people paid more than $50 BILLION in taxes.

The top 20% of income earners paid 87% of the federal taxes.

Almost 50% of the people in the US don't pay any federal income tax...


They throw "top 1%" around like it is all rich bankers lighting their cigars with 100 dollar bills and the top 1% starts at less than 500k per year and in many states well under 300k per year. This is 1.4 million people in America that pay the 40% of all income taxes. The 0.001 made at least 53 million and is your 1400 people, and they paid on average 23% in taxes. For the super rich to pay 23% is most likely offset by other things like donations in the 10s of millions, so I typically would not have an issue with this.

The average 1%er pays about 28% and with all others actual tax payers is 14%, with another 50% not paying anything outside of all this.

The evil top 5% is about 166,000 per year...lol

Maybe they are talking about the .0001% here...You know that evil hedge fund manager that pulls in a billion, has no one working for them and finds loopholes to keep much of it... you know all 1 or 2 of them lol.

I would love a flat tax, and then everyone would know exactly what they need to pay and we can reduce the IRS down to about 100 people.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Pensions are invested... 401ks....

The stock market is also how companies raise capital for expansion.

We all benefit directly and indirectly from a robust stock market.

For the record, I was not for the bailouts. I actually do support breaking up the big banks. I don't think any financial institution, whether a commercial bank like Wells or investment banks like Goldman should ever be considered "systematically important".


I actually agree, the banks should have been left to fail. That being said, while you are correct that pensions and 401K's are investments in the stock market, a surprising number of middle class and lower folks have no money in either investment vehicles.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Edumakated

A tax break IS indeed a handout if a certain party gets into power and grants themselves a tax break. I think we can all agree that this is what trump and congress did. Just as when congress votes themselves a raise while no one else is getting a raise.

At any rate, you are close to correct. The top 1% pays 39% of the nation’s taxes. But the nations taxes need to be much higher to ever hope to bring down the debt, and it should come totally from those who gained 100% of the benefit of that debt. Those of the 1% who benefited from the bailout and the tax break.

None of this addresses the fact that we have a massive amount of money to a small group of people who didn’t work for it, and we have to pay for it much more than they do.

Also, I guarantee you that every single one of those top 1400 people engages in massive exploitation, and got that money by depriving someone else of it.


I'm part of the 1% and you told me to my face I didn't work for it, I'd knock your teeth out. You have no idea regarding the amount of work, effort, education, debt, and hours I've put in to be able to earn what I earn. For the record, you only need to make about $350k / yr to be considered part of the 1%.

In fact, globally, you only need to make about $35k / yr to be part of the 1% income wise. Basically, any mope in the US with a menial full time job is part of the 1% because the US standard of living is so high.

Please tell us how those 1400 exploited people to earn their wealth. Be very specific.

Did Bezos hold you down and make you sign up for Amazon Prime? Did Steve Jobs trick you into buying an IPhone? Let me guess, Bill Gates held your mama ransom to force you to buy an Xbox?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.


Southern Indiana here. Most of the folks I interact with who are in the middle class can't afford to put money into their 401k (should they even be offered the opportunity).



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Very well said. It is almost like we have been brainwashed. Brainwashed into viewing this reality from the standpoint of the 1%. To love and embrace all policies that enrich them. I wonder, where does the money come from that funnels into the 1%? Free market terminology that was originally designed to protect us from the parasite creditors, but that message was corrupted to become a protection for these creditors. Debt that should have been fully discharged/defaulted on in 2008 was continued through direct government support to the banks/investment firms. That debt we are now saddled with from the parasites is slowing killing the host.

I wonder what would happen in a closed society of just the 1%. How they would cannibalize each other would be tales that could entertain for 1000s of years.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

The average for American 401k is 14k. So the vast majority of Americans have 14000 dollars invested in retirement. This is supposed to replace pensions? It’s a scam. Some people get more scammed and some less, but it is NOT a responsible method for our govt to organize for people’s retirement. It was created so businesses could plunder the funds usually set aside for pension, ie steal more of the profit created by workers.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

That is a very good point. Maybe instead of looking at where they sit on the overall wealth scale, we should instead look at how they got their money in the first place. Was it honest that added to society or was it parasitical in nature?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.


Southern Indiana here. Most of the folks I interact with who are in the middle class can't afford to put money into their 401k (should they even be offered the opportunity).


Seems strange, most of the better employers here try to promote a little IRA savings to their employees. They will match what they put in up to a percent or two of their income. I mean, McDs doesn't have anything like that, but I do not think you can become middle class working at McDs. With Obamacare being enacted, lots of employers dumped their insurances and gave people raises. Even with the IRAs though, people do not have a whole lot of money in their pensions usually. It was better when employers actually took care of pensions than people having IRAs, people benefitted more if they lived to retire and pensions did go to spouses if the person died. I think our country went the wrong way with changing away from Pensions myself, Pensions were required to be fully funded by employers.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

To clarify, I stated in the bottom of my post that THOSE WHO BENEFITTED FROM THE BAILOUT AND TAX BREAK THE MOST ARE THOSE WHO SHOULD PAY BACK THE COST OF IT. if the majority of your annual income is not capital gains.... then I’m not talking about you. As to those 1400. Bezos for example. If you are bribing an area to get tax breaks in order to move your people there. That’s theft and exploitation. If, like hundreds of corporations in Louisiana , you bribe the private panel there to not charge you taxes on 80% of your property there..... are that’s theft and exploitation. If you bribe congress to pass legislation you wrote to disallow negotiations of prices for your products like the pharmaceutical companies did ...... that’s theft and exploitation. If you bribe congress to give you trillions in order to save you from your bad gambles and fraud, and to not send you to jail the way our banks all did..... that’s theft and exploitation. I can go on.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: rickymouse

The average for American 401k is 14k. So the vast majority of Americans have 14000 dollars invested in retirement. This is supposed to replace pensions? It’s a scam. Some people get more scammed and some less, but it is NOT a responsible method for our govt to organize for people’s retirement. It was created so businesses could plunder the funds usually set aside for pension, ie steal more of the profit created by workers.


The average american is woefully stupid with money. I see it everyday as i work in personal finance.

People rather pay $200/mo for cable TV and a cell phone than max out their 401ks. I can't tell you how many people I see paying $750/mo for a Bro Dozer or some other souped up car, but then in the same breath will say they have no money to put in their 401ks.

Wife and I started maxing out our 401ks right out of college. We have 7 figures put away just from 401k and stock grants. We are in our early 40s.

Many pensions are unsustainable because people are living way longer and there simply aren't enough contributors to make the math work. See GM. It is one thing to have a pension when everyone died at 60 or 65, but when you are living to 80-85 any didn't really contribute a ton for the pension in the first place, it becomes unsustainable.

Also, you are slamming wall street, but those pensions are major investors. HOw do you think they get the returns necessary to payout the pensions?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Edumakated

To clarify, I stated in the bottom of my post that THOSE WHO BENEFITTED FROM THE BAILOUT AND TAX BREAK THE MOST ARE THOSE WHO SHOULD PAY BACK THE COST OF IT. if the majority of your annual income is not capital gains.... then I’m not talking about you. As to those 1400. Bezos for example. If you are bribing an area to get tax breaks in order to move your people there. That’s theft and exploitation. If, like hundreds of corporations in Louisiana , you bribe the private panel there to not charge you taxes on 80% of your property there..... are that’s theft and exploitation. If you bribe congress to pass legislation you wrote to disallow negotiations of prices for your products like the pharmaceutical companies did ...... that’s theft and exploitation. If you bribe congress to give you trillions in order to save you from your bad gambles and fraud, and to not send you to jail the way our banks all did..... that’s theft and exploitation. I can go on.


It wasn't a bribe. Those cities offered it to get Amazon to move there because Amazon would bring tens of thousands of six figure jobs.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.


Southern Indiana here. Most of the folks I interact with who are in the middle class can't afford to put money into their 401k (should they even be offered the opportunity).


Seems strange, most of the better employers here try to promote a little IRA savings to their employees. They will match what they put in up to a percent or two of their income. I mean, McDs doesn't have anything like that, but I do not think you can become middle class working at McDs. With Obamacare being enacted, lots of employers dumped their insurances and gave people raises. Even with the IRAs though, people do not have a whole lot of money in their pensions usually. It was better when employers actually took care of pensions than people having IRAs, people benefitted more if they lived to retire and pensions did go to spouses if the person died. I think our country went the wrong way with changing away from Pensions myself, Pensions were required to be fully funded by employers.


My employer actual does the IRA matching to 2%, its just that at a middle class salary that amount of money is inconsequential (as it supports retirement for a couple years at most in a very meager living condition), so I feel the net effect of stock fluctuations change the end result very little for those in that category



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.


Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.


Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.


Southern Indiana here. Most of the folks I interact with who are in the middle class can't afford to put money into their 401k (should they even be offered the opportunity).


Seems strange, most of the better employers here try to promote a little IRA savings to their employees. They will match what they put in up to a percent or two of their income. I mean, McDs doesn't have anything like that, but I do not think you can become middle class working at McDs. With Obamacare being enacted, lots of employers dumped their insurances and gave people raises. Even with the IRAs though, people do not have a whole lot of money in their pensions usually. It was better when employers actually took care of pensions than people having IRAs, people benefitted more if they lived to retire and pensions did go to spouses if the person died. I think our country went the wrong way with changing away from Pensions myself, Pensions were required to be fully funded by employers.


My employer actual does the IRA matching to 2%, its just that at a middle class salary that amount of money is inconsequential (as it supports retirement for a couple years at most in a very meager living condition), so I feel the net effect of stock fluctuations change the end result very little for those in that category


The thing is that it takes time... at first it seems inconsequential but over time as the balance grows, it begins to grow faster as the base is larger. The problem is people don't start contributing early enough. You can't wake up one day when you are 50 and be like, "Oh, sh*t I need to save for retirement..." You have to start when you are like 22 years old and do it consistently.

The first thing I learned when I got my job was the sign up for the 401k and max it out before you even see the money.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join