9/5 http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2041155
America's inequality is due to its rich people doing especially well
compared to other countries' rich people. It poor people is doing
about the same as other countries' poor people.
\_ You mean all those countries that don't even have a middle
class, and where the poor have absolutely no mobility?
\_ So to make this fair we should provide welfare for foreign rich
people.
\_ Bottom 80% of Americans only own 17% of the country's wealth.
Hahaha! Poor bastards!
\_ The rich are already doing so well, and we are still cutting
\_ The rich are already doing so well, and they are still cutting
their income tax and inheritance tax.
\_ Leaving them more capital to create more jobs.
\_ As Warren Buffett noted, giving more money to rich people
doesn't create more jobs--because rich people don't spend
as much of their money. If you give money to people who
actually *need* it and will spend it, *that* will create
jobs.
And more fundamentally, the fact that our rich are doing
better than other countries, but our poor aren't, is
*exactly the problem*. -tom
\_ Buffett is a moron, and apparently you are too. If rich
people don't spend the money on consumer goods, they'll use
the money in a different way--investing it, etc. Even
putting it in a bank account allows more loans to people who
\_ Leaving them more capital to create more jobs.
don't have the capital to make large purchases out of
pocket.
\_ Nope, ultimately you need people to spend money.
Now ordinary Americans have too much debt already
and the interest rate is already very low. You
want your average American to have even heavier
debts?
\_ You miss the part about loans to people who then
start small businesses which are the backbone of
the American economy? Quoting Warren Buffet on
anything is akin to calling someone a Nazi in an
online debate. It's pointless and demonstrates
lack of ability to think. "He's rich so he must
know lots about macro economics! Let's do whatever
this rich dude days because he's one of us!" Uh huh.
\_ Quoting Warren Buffet is actually poignant in
this case. Even Alan Greenspan acknowledges the
pure and simple fact that if you give the money
back to the consumer class, that it will have
more of an effect in the short term. Giving
money to the investor class does nothing for the
short term, only potentially for the long term.
The investor class does nothing with the money
but hoard it and reinvest, that does not create
their income tax and inheritance tax.
\_ Leaving them more capital to create more jobs.
other than "it makes me feel better to hurt someone else"?
jobs, that only creates wealth (which may create
jobs a ways down the road). -mlee
\_ Okay, by that argument if the government gave me a billion
dollars, I would automatically use it to hire a bunch of
Americans instead of blowing it on hookers, eightballs, and
multiple NASA space-tourism jaunts. I say you give me the
money, and let's see what happens.
\_ Which would create more jobs for hookers, NASA workers, etc.
The money wouldn't simply disappear. It gets put back into
the economy.
\_ Great, so pony up the cash, Daddy Warbucks. Giving
me the money the rich would save in these tax cuts
would benefit the economy just as much as giving it
to them.
\_ Although it would create jobs for hookers, there are
more efficient ways of creating jobs. You are not a
prime job creation engine for the economy. Maybe in
another life you'll be Warren Buffet and people will
blindly quote you simply because you're rich.
\_ And any rich schmoe is a prime job creation
engine? Horsehockey. Saying that we should give
tax breaks to the rich because they'll spend
the money and therefore employ people is not
only naive, it's perverse.
\_ There are "more efficient ways"?!?! Yes, there
are, but going through gov't is guaranteed to not
be more efficient.
\_ Dummy, by definition "the rich" are *always* doing well. Is
this so hard to comprehend? The important part is *who* is
rich, how did they get there, what are they doing to stay there,
and how hard is it for someone else to get there? Does raising
taxes on "the rich" help the middle class or poor in any way
other than "it makes me feel better to hurt someone else"?
\_ The rich gain more from the promotion of a strong US
military, civil order, and national infrastructure than
do the poor, hence the rich should pay proportionately
more in taxes. In addition, if the rich pay more in taxes,
the poor and middle class need not pay as much in taxes; if
this does not constitute help, I would like to know
what does.
\_ That's totally false. The rich actually use less gov't
resources than the poor, by far. If you are rich, you
can support yourself and don't require gov't intervention
in things like healthcare, housing, employment, childcare,
schooling, and sustenance. In contrast the poor drain
gov't resources like crazy. The poor also have bigger
families, and those families are gov't subsidized.
\_ You're missing the point: the rich have more to lose
in the case of a weak military, civil disorder, and
a crumbling infrastructure (as business relies on
the infrastructure to make things run smoothly and
the rich depend on business). They have more at
stake and therefore should pay more.
\_ Yeah why should I spend all that money on the
military to protect my total asset of $200
in the bank? Since the top 1% has 50% of the
country's wealth, they should pay 50% of its
taxes.
\_ 1) they don't. 2) they already pay more than
their percent income. 3) if you've got $200 to
your name and minimal or no income you're a
deficit, not a plus for the economy. you're taking
out waaaay more in infrastructure costs than you'll
ever put back in. how does water get to your tap?
who paves your roads? who pays the cop that stands
on the corner? puts out your fires? brings food
to your local market? runs wires to your hovel?
you can't even begin to pay for what you're sucking
from the tax payers in this country past, present,
and future. you're a net loss.
\_ Where did you get the idea about "minimal or no
income"? I am in the top 19% who thinks they
are in the top 1%. In anycase, it's just to
illustrate a point.
\_ Check the tax tables: you're paying a max of
38%, and if you're that rich and can't afford
a tax-deductible accountant to steer you
through the loopholes, I have a bridge in
New York I think you might be interested in
buying.
\_ Why yes, it does. Raising taxes on the rich allows more
spending on things like education, child care, and
health care that increase the standard of living of
the middle class and increase productivity for the
entire economy. Why do you think that European productivity
has been growing faster than American for over a generation?
If you look at stats for the middle 50%, you can see
that wages in America have stagnated for the average
worker, while they have gone up almost everywhere else.
Americans are working longer hours and seeing less
for it, while the opposite is true in the other
industrialized nations.
\_ Ask the typical out of work German or Frenchman how much
they enjoy the 2:1 taxpayer/leech ratio in their countries.
In a generation, it'll be 1:1 in several EU nations. It
isn't sustainable. The EU nations have sold their future
to their past. |
http://csua.com/feed/