Obama on Repeat, Wants to "Tax the Rich" Again, Deja Vu

[crb]

So I hear the rich aren't paying their fair share again, for some reason I'm reminded of my first fight, with Tyler.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/Tax_liability_Shares.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

What do you think is a fair share? I'm tired of the nebulous word "fair" I want someone to put a number on it. Say you make 20% of the nation's income like the 1%, what is a fair share for you to pay of the nation's tax burden?

Look at the first link, for federal income tax (not including payroll taxes which fund benefit programs in which you get your money back (and much more) eventually so long as you don't die).

In 1979 the top 1% paid for 18.3% of government. The bottom 20% paid for 0%. In 2007, the last year listed, the top 1% paid for 39.5% of government, the bottom 20% paid for -3% (yes, negative 3, they got money).

I keep hearing from the left how we're taxing the poor and letting the rich off the hook, but if you look at the list, from the CBO, pulled of actual IRS statistics, you see a pretty steady march with the federal burden increasing for the top end, and decreasing for the bottom.

If you look at the table that keeps payroll taxes in "all federal taxes" table, the trend is the same. In 2007, for all federal taxes, the 1% paid 28.1%, the bottom 20% paid 0.8%.

We have a more progressive tax system than most of "socialist" Europe and still Obama wants more. Or really, I'm not sure he does, I think all he wants is a public fight and class warfare for the political benefits he thinks it will bring to him. So he'll spew inaccurate bullshit to try to convince people that successful individuals are shafting the poor and that is how they've gotten ahead. What an asshole.

Also the disparity and the progressivity (is that a word? it shouldn't be, its redundant with stupidity) has gotten worse since 2007 because of Obama's earlier increase in income taxes on the rich, and the Obamacare surcharge on high earners. So if the chart continued you would expect a spike up.

Even look at Bush's tax cut, which was in 2003. The 1% paid 22.9% in 2003, and 25.4% in 2004. The bottom 20% went from 1.0 to 0.9 in the same two years.

If you think I'm an asshole, tell me what you think the fair tax burden would be for the various income groups. I want to see some actual numbers.

[Tgo01]

I'm tired of the nebulous word "fair" I want someone to put a number on it.

Higher than whatever the number is now. It can always go higher! The rent is too damn high!

[Androidpk]

50%

[Gelston]

110%

[Parkbandit]

10% flat tax

[Gelston]

10% flat tax

Get rid of money completely and go 100% communist.

[Back]

It does not matter how much we tax the rich. They will find ways to move their money around to avoid it and bribe congress to change laws that make it easier for them to make more money.

Greed will be our undoing. The tiny point oh one percent literally are driving this trainwreck.

[waywardgs]

10% flat tax

We should try this sometime, and analyze it as the country burns to the ground within two years.

[waywardgs]

I'm curious if anyone understands the difference between income and wealth, and just how astronomically uneven wealth distribution actually is in this country. Should we push it till three people have $70 trillion, and the rest of us have 35 cents? Would that make you guys happy?

[Tgo01]

Should we push it till three people have $70 trillion, and the rest of us have 35 cents? Would that make you guys happy?

If I'm one of the three people, yes.

[Gelston]

I'm curious if anyone understands the difference between income and wealth, and just how astronomically uneven wealth distribution actually is in this country. Should we push it till three people have $70 trillion, and the rest of us have 35 cents? Would that make you guys happy?

If I was one of the three people, yes.

[Tgo01]

If I was one of the three people, yes.

Tgo01 > Gelston

[Gelston]

Tgo01 > Gelston

You masturbate all day to animal planet.

[Tgo01]

You masturbate all day to animal planet.

Not true.

I masturbate all night to animal planet.

[waywardgs]

There ya go. The driving force behind american politics: fuck everyone who isn't me. Let's talk about how long such a system would last: I put it at somewhere around three days before Tgo, Gelston and the third person are hung upside down in the town square.

[Tgo01]

There ya go. The driving force behind american politics: fuck everyone who isn't me. Let's talk about how long such a system would last: I put it at somewhere around three days before Tgo, Gelston and the third person are hung upside down in the town square.

I think with 70 trillion dollars I could hire a lot of security.

[Parkbandit]

I'm curious if anyone understands the difference between income and wealth, and just how astronomically uneven wealth distribution actually is in this country. Should we push it till three people have $70 trillion, and the rest of us have 35 cents? Would that make you guys happy?

You should get a job... then you would realize it's not a net sum game and that it doesn't have to be either 70 trillion or 35 cents.

Or, you can continue to live in your mom's basement.. telling the world how unfair life is for you.

[waywardgs]

You should get a job... then you would realize it's not a net sum game and that it doesn't have to be either 70 trillion or 35 cents.

Or, you can continue to live in your mom's basement.. telling the world how unfair life is for you.

Don't worry, PB- I never put any stock in anything you say- it's 90% flailing insults and 10% about how you want to bang tisket. You're boring.

[Gelston]

There ya go. The driving force behind american politics: fuck everyone who isn't me. Let's talk about how long such a system would last: I put it at somewhere around three days before Tgo, Gelston and the third person are hung upside down in the town square.

With 70 trillion dollars, I'd have a private army that has 70 cents each. Those 35 cent plebian bitches won't touch me.

[waywardgs]

I think with 70 trillion dollars I could hire a lot of security.


With 70 trillion dollars, I'd have a private army that has 70 cents each. Those 35 cent plebian bitches won't touch me.

Are you two dating?

[Tgo01]

Are you two dating?

We're watching animal planet together.

[Parkbandit]

Don't worry, PB- I never put any stock in anything you say- it's 90% flailing insults and 10% about how you want to bang tisket. You're boring.

And no one puts any stock into what you say - it's 90% of how unfair life is for you and 10% about how you want to be the shart in Wraithbringer's life. You're pathetic.

[waywardgs]

lol

[Gelston]

Are you two dating?

He wants security. My army will be an offensive force also. I'll use it to get rid of all those damn homeless people trying to clutter my palatial estate lawns.

[Parkbandit]

He wants security. My army will be an offensive force also. I'll use it to get rid of all those damn homeless people trying to clutter my palatial estate lawns.

There's only 3 of those types of lawns in existence according to waywardgs... shouldn't be too difficult.

[Latrinsorm]

A 45% bracket for 700k+, and a 50% bracket for 1m+. The Laffer Curve tells us that the optimal tax rate is somewhere between the 60s regime and the 40s regime if not higher, but going all the way back to 70% brackets seems like too much of a shock, to say nothing of 90% brackets. Start with my brackets, then we can go higher in oh, ten years or so?
Also the disparity and the progressivity (is that a word? it shouldn't be, its redundant with stupidity) has gotten worse since 2007 because of Obama's earlier increase in income taxes on the rich, and the Obamacare surcharge on high earners. So if the chart continued you would expect a spike up.How is Obama to blame for what happened in 2007 and 2008?

[Warriorbird]

How is Obama to blame for what happened in 2007 and 2008?

Obama's to blame for everything ever.

[waywardgs]

And no one puts any stock into what you say - it's 90% of how unfair life is for you and 10% about how you want to be the shart in Wraithbringer's life. You're pathetic.

Show me one post of mine where I talk about how unfair life is for me. One. There's nearly 6,000 to choose from.

You won't find one, because there are none. I do feel badly that you're such a bitter person though.

[Gelston]

Show me one post of mine where I talk about how unfair life is for me. One. There's nearly 6,000 to choose from.

You won't find one, because there are none. I do feel badly that you're such a bitter person though.

N00b.

[waywardgs]

N00b.

I should just pad my post count by posting thousands of clown gifs!

[Gelston]

I should just pad my post count by posting thousands of clown gifs!

I prefer choo choo train pictures.

[Tenlaar]

Choo choo!
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/029/970/trainn.jpg?1260328965

[Gelston]

Choo choo!
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/029/970/trainn.jpg?1260328965

This thread was a train wreck from the start, pal.

[Parkbandit]

Show me one post of mine where I talk about how unfair life is for me. One. There's nearly 6,000 to choose from.

You won't find one, because there are none. I do feel badly that you're such a bitter person though.


Wasn't too difficult. I even bolded the part for the intellectually disabled like yourself:


I'm curious if anyone understands the difference between income and wealth, and just how astronomically uneven wealth distribution actually is in this country. Should we push it till three people have $70 trillion, and the rest of us have 35 cents? Would that make you guys happy?

It's not fair that you only will have 35 cents!

And I have nothing to be bitter over... but I can completely understand why you are.

[Tenlaar]

http://i.imgur.com/Y44EO6L.gif
^

[waywardgs]

Wasn't too difficult. I even bolded the part for the intellectually disabled like yourself:



It's not fair that you only will have 35 cents!

And I have nothing to be bitter over... but I can completely understand why you are.

A hypothetical? That's what you've got? lol, dude, lol.

[Parkbandit]

A hypothetical? That's what you've got? lol, dude, lol.

You clearly see yourself in the "have not" population... something that is very common with people of your ilk. You don't have your fair share!

[Tenlaar]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_max2qfiKy01rrygyoo1_r1_500.gif

^^

[Candor]

A 45% bracket for 700k+, and a 50% bracket for 1m+. The Laffer Curve tells us that the optimal tax rate is somewhere between the 60s regime and the 40s regime if not higher, but going all the way back to 70% brackets seems like too much of a shock, to say nothing of 90% brackets. Start with my brackets, then we can go higher in oh, ten years or so?How is Obama to blame for what happened in 2007 and 2008?

...and then the rich will move to another country. It's not like there isn't precedent. Who are you going to tax when that happens?

[Parkbandit]

http://data6.blog.de/media/452/5379452_3122153f4b_m.gif

Yes, yes... you've made that abundantly clear.

We get it.

[waywardgs]

You clearly see yourself in the "have not" population... something that is very common with people of your ilk. You don't have your fair share!

Maybe it's naptime, PB. You seem fussy.

[waywardgs]

What's funny about this whole thing is that Parkbandit's mind can't possibly fathom why someone who does just fine and enjoys life could possibly give a shit about anyone else, so it must be because I have nothing and just want to steal from him. It's stunningly immature logic.

[Tenlaar]

http://assets.scumbagsteve.com/hashed_silo_content/f42/352/669/resized/always-makes-jokes-about-gay-people-obviously-uncomfortable-with-own-sexuality-a220a7.jpg

^^^

[Latrinsorm]

...and then the rich will move to another country. It's not like there isn't precedent. Who are you going to tax when that happens?I cited actual precedent in my post, whereas you merely SAID there is. Funny, no? :)

[Parkbandit]

What's funny about this whole thing is that Parkbandit's mind can't possibly fathom why someone who does just fine and enjoys life could possibly give a shit about anyone else, so it must be because I have nothing and just want to steal from him. It's stunningly immature logic.

What's funny about this whole thing is that waywardgs' lack of intelligence can't possibly understand that no matter how much money someone has, it has no effect on his own lack of money. It's not someone else's fault that he doesn't have his "fair share", but that doesn't stop him from blaming others. It's stunningly retarded.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/8f/8f218b9e1784ec9523f5aff79ecfab412c3dc3c31f115779c3 b5f501089cb230.jpg

^^^^^

[waywardgs]

You're like a third grader. But with gray hair and one foot in the grave. Arrested development I suppose.

[Candor]

I cited actual precedent in my post, whereas you merely SAID there is. Funny, no? :)

Sure is. It means I'm drunk and too lazy at the moment to do some research and come up with actual names. The only person I can think of in my drunken state at the moment is Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook who moved to Hong Kong (or was it Singapore?).

But that doesn't invalidate my point. If you raise taxes too much, rich folks will find ways to avoid paying them. And moving out of the country, even renouncing citizenship in the process, will be an option some of them will consider.

[waywardgs]

The real point is that the concentration of wealth, if pushed too far, breeds instability. It's not about fairness, or equality, or redistribution, or any of those strawmen. It's about what is sustainable in an economy. The last time wealth was as concentrated as it is today was right before the great depression. Nobody- the haves OR the have nots- liked how that turned out.

[Parkbandit]

You're like a third grader. But with gray hair and one foot in the grave. Arrested development I suppose.

I talk down to the audience. If you had at least a 4th grade level of intelligence, I could up my game a little.

[Androidpk]

The real point is that the concentration of wealth, if pushed too far, breeds instability. It's not about fairness, or equality, or redistribution, or any of those strawmen. It's about what is sustainable in an economy. The last time wealth was as concentrated as it is today was right before the great depression. Nobody- the haves OR the have nots- liked how that turned out.

This.

[waywardgs]

I talk down to the audience. If you had at least a 4th grade level of intelligence, I could up my game a little.

Keep it up. People like laughing at you.

[Parkbandit]

Keep it up. People like laughing at you.

I could never reach your level of being laughed at though, kid.

Ever.

Hypocrisy is another trait very common in people like you.

[Latrinsorm]

Sure is. It means I'm drunk and too lazy at the moment to do some research and come up with actual names. The only person I can think of in my drunken state at the moment is Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook who moved to Hong Kong (or was it Singapore?).

But that doesn't invalidate my point. If you raise taxes too much, rich folks will find ways to avoid paying them. And moving out of the country, even renouncing citizenship in the process, will be an option some of them will consider.Some, sure, and some won't pay any taxes at all. But most won't be in those groups, so the net effect will be increased tax revenue => decreased deficit, decreased income inequality => increased morale. How do I know this? Because that's what happened in the recent American past. That's no guarantee, obviously, but American history is defined as the only evidence we have that relates to America.
I could never reach your level of being laughed at though, kid.

Ever.

Hypocrisy is another trait very common in people like you.Quadripedist.

[Tgo01]

Some, sure, and some won't pay any taxes at all. But most won't be in those groups, so the net effect will be increased tax revenue => decreased deficit, decreased income inequality => increased morale. How do I know this? Because that's what happened in the recent American past. That's no guarantee, obviously, but American history is defined as the only evidence we have that relates to America.

Didn't France pass some high taxes on the rich like a year ago and as a result literally every single rich person left France?

[waywardgs]

I could never reach your level of being laughed at though, kid.

Ever.

Hypocrisy is another trait very common in people like you.

lol!

[Latrinsorm]

Didn't France pass some high taxes on the rich like a year ago and as a result literally every single rich person left France?The French surrender where Americans don't. This is news?

[Parkbandit]

lol!

LOLx3.14159265359

[Tgo01]

The French surrender where Americans don't. This is news?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGoh2aolqhWRUx6JxWTAaQINqJKkOoq QTzw3uaITCzjW0grAYR

[waywardgs]

LOLx3.14159265359

Good effort with the little math joke, but you forgot to call me gay. Please, try harder next time. Thx!

[Parkbandit]

Good effort with the little math joke, but you forgot to call me gay. Please, try harder next time. Thx!

You say it with every post. It's a wonder you don't use pink text.

[waywardgs]

You say it with every post. It's a wonder you don't use pink text.

THEEERRRRE's the third grader we all know and love! I was getting nervous for you, it was almost a page of posts without good ol' PB homophobia!

Haha!

[waywardgs]

A 45% bracket for 700k+, and a 50% bracket for 1m+. The Laffer Curve tells us that the optimal tax rate is somewhere between the 60s regime and the 40s regime if not higher, but going all the way back to 70% brackets seems like too much of a shock, to say nothing of 90% brackets. Start with my brackets, then we can go higher in oh, ten years or so?

What about the lower income tax brackets?

And in general, the laffer curve is structured to maximize government revenue. Why is this the goal?

[JackWhisper]

Oh. My. God.

Obama on replay?! Really?!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_H8wYo2s4

[Parkbandit]

THEEERRRRE's the third grader we all know and love! I was getting nervous for you, it was almost a page of posts without good ol' PB homophobia!

Haha!

Homophobia? It's not surprising you would use big words you clearly can't comprehend.

And you asked me to call you gay. I just assumed you finally were coming out.

Don't be ashamed of being gay. Be proud.

[Parkbandit]

Oh. My. God.

Obama on replay?! Really?!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_H8wYo2s4

I felt like I heard the same exact speech so many times before last night.

[waywardgs]

Homophobia? It's not surprising you would use big words you clearly can't comprehend.

And you asked me to call you gay. I just assumed you finally were coming out.

Don't be ashamed of being gay. Be proud.

Ok ok now I just feel bad for you again. Come on, be funny! Dance, monkey!

[JackWhisper]

YES! DANCE, MONKEY!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E4xXiqyEb0

[Latrinsorm]

What about the lower income tax brackets?They're okay.
And in general, the laffer curve is structured to maximize government revenue. Why is this the goal?It strengthens the government at the expense of the rich. From our current state, this is an improvement.

[Tgo01]

We should tax the poor at 100%, show them what it feels like. Also as any economist will tell you; if you tax something it discourages people from doing that, like booze tax.

Well, what would we rather discourage people from being, poor or rich?

DUH!

[Jeril]

LOL to this whole thread.

[waywardgs]

They're okay.It strengthens the government at the expense of the rich. From our current state, this is an improvement.

Even if our government decides to engage in ridiculous wars that cost a fortune and end up establishing exactly what it was trying to prevent, i.e. a well-funded terrorist state- isis?

[waywardgs]

LOL to this whole thread.

lol U!

[waywardgs]

We should tax the poor at 100%, show them what it feels like. Also as any economist will tell you; if you tax something it discourages people from doing that, like booze tax.

Well, what would we rather discourage people from being, poor or rich?

DUH!

You... you want to tax the poor... to dissuade them from being poor?

Is everyone insane today?

[Androidpk]

It's a bold move, Cotton.

[Tgo01]

You... you want to tax the poor... to dissuade them from being poor?

How else are we going to discourage people from being poor?

[Androidpk]

How else are we going to discourage people from being poor?

Kill them.

[JackWhisper]

I wonder how much of an uproar a lot of people would be in if the government removed the child tax refund *which is like 3-5000 dollars per kid*, and put it into tax relief being employed and such.

Women with 13 kids R SO MADZ NAOW.

[waywardgs]

I wonder how much of an uproar a lot of people would be in if the government removed the child tax refund *which is like 3-5000 dollars per kid*, and put it into tax relief being employed and such.

Women with 13 kids R SO MADZ NAOW.

Also starving. Awesome! Fuck those bitches!!! And their dumb fucking infants too!!

[Tgo01]

Also starving. Awesome! Fuck those bitches!!! And their dumb fucking infants too!!

We'll charge people 15k for each kid they have. BOOM! No more having kids they can't afford.

[waywardgs]

We'll charge people 15k for each kid they have. BOOM! No more having kids they can't afford.

So you think waving a number in someone's face will prevent humans from banging! Hahaha no. it's cute that you think that though!

[Jarvan]

So I hear the rich aren't paying their fair share again, for some reason I'm reminded of my first fight, with Tyler.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/Tax_liability_Shares.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

What do you think is a fair share? I'm tired of the nebulous word "fair" I want someone to put a number on it. Say you make 20% of the nation's income like the 1%, what is a fair share for you to pay of the nation's tax burden?

Look at the first link, for federal income tax (not including payroll taxes which fund benefit programs in which you get your money back (and much more) eventually so long as you don't die).

In 1979 the top 1% paid for 18.3% of government. The bottom 20% paid for 0%. In 2007, the last year listed, the top 1% paid for 39.5% of government, the bottom 20% paid for -3% (yes, negative 3, they got money).

I keep hearing from the left how we're taxing the poor and letting the rich off the hook, but if you look at the list, from the CBO, pulled of actual IRS statistics, you see a pretty steady march with the federal burden increasing for the top end, and decreasing for the bottom.

If you look at the table that keeps payroll taxes in "all federal taxes" table, the trend is the same. In 2007, for all federal taxes, the 1% paid 28.1%, the bottom 20% paid 0.8%.

We have a more progressive tax system than most of "socialist" Europe and still Obama wants more. Or really, I'm not sure he does, I think all he wants is a public fight and class warfare for the political benefits he thinks it will bring to him. So he'll spew inaccurate bullshit to try to convince people that successful individuals are shafting the poor and that is how they've gotten ahead. What an asshole.

Also the disparity and the progressivity (is that a word? it shouldn't be, its redundant with stupidity) has gotten worse since 2007 because of Obama's earlier increase in income taxes on the rich, and the Obamacare surcharge on high earners. So if the chart continued you would expect a spike up.

Even look at Bush's tax cut, which was in 2003. The 1% paid 22.9% in 2003, and 25.4% in 2004. The bottom 20% went from 1.0 to 0.9 in the same two years.

If you think I'm an asshole, tell me what you think the fair tax burden would be for the various income groups. I want to see some actual numbers.

You will generally never get a real answer from those that like to use the word "fair". Which is the reason why they use the word "fair", it allows them to change it based on what they want at the time.

If we had a 60% upper income tax bracket, some would still consider it not "fair". Why? because those that are TRULY wealthy, ALREADY made their money. Taxing Warren Buffet 99.9% on his Income is meaningless. He already has 40 billion, what does he care. High income taxes really only try to prevent new people from reaching those same heights.

Does anyone NEED 40 billion? Or in Waywards case.. 70 trillion? No, no they don't really. Can't ever really spend that much. That said, as long as you do it legally, why shouldn't you be allowed to TRY to obtain that much. After all, when you die, most of it is likely to go to good causes, or the government anyway.

Also in regards to a post from Wayward.. Money makes Money. It's a fact. If you don't like that fact, may want to change the reality you live in. Your best bet is to try to become president, and get congress to pass a law that says that people that have money, are not allowed to use it to make more money. Good luck with that.

Then again.. in your world, we wouldn't have people like Nick Woodman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Woodman We also wouldn't have Apple, Microsoft, GE, Railroads, Gemstone, or pretty much anything.

[Thondalar]

Don't worry, PB- I never put any stock in anything you say- it's 90% flailing insults and 10% about how you want to bang tisket. You're boring.

Too bad he's right this time.

The pie isn't defined...quantitatively it can't be....therefore, it's not either/or. It's a pipe dream for the "have-nots" to assume they can grab a piece of that pie for free and be happy...it doesn't work like that. What is the Communist ideal? Equal sharing, right? Nobody profits more than anyone else, everyone contributes equally to society...right? So...what happens to all the people that don't contribute? Not those who can't, because of mental or physical default...those who choose not to. Do we just carry their load, because...why? Hey, sign me up for the slack-ass class.

Cuba seems to be a big topic these days in the US...how is the above working out for them? Oh, right, our embargo has kept them in the 1950's...well yeah, to a degree. But if that system is so damn good....shouldn't an island nation with tons of natural resources thrive on their own? Except they haven't, because doctors make less than soccer players. That's the Democratic ideal. That's equality. Sure, school is free....but you aren't going to be able to make a living off of it once you graduate.

It's ugly, folks...But it's the truth...competition makes us stronger. It's a fact of the human condition. Be real with yourselves....which is more likely? A genius working pro bono just because he wants to, or a genius working for money? What does history tell you?

[Thondalar]

You will generally never get a real answer from those that like to use the word "fair". Which is the reason why they use the word "fair", it allows them to change it based on what they want at the time.

If we had a 60% upper income tax bracket, some would still consider it not "fair". Why? because those that are TRULY wealthy, ALREADY made their money. Taxing Warren Buffet 99.9% on his Income is meaningless. He already has 40 billion, what does he care. High income taxes really only try to prevent new people from reaching those same heights.

Does anyone NEED 40 billion? Or in Waywards case.. 70 trillion? No, no they don't really. Can't ever really spend that much. That said, as long as you do it legally, why shouldn't you be allowed to TRY to obtain that much. After all, when you die, most of it is likely to go to good causes, or the government anyway.

Also in regards to a post from Wayward.. Money makes Money. It's a fact. If you don't like that fact, may want to change the reality you live in. Your best bet is to try to become president, and get congress to pass a law that says that people that have money, are not allowed to use it to make more money. Good luck with that.

Then again.. in your world, we wouldn't have people like Nick Woodman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Woodman We also wouldn't have Apple, Microsoft, GE, Railroads, Gemstone, or pretty much anything.

Quite possibly your best post ever. A few minor details that I'm not going to ruin the moment debunking, but overall, well done. Kudos.

[JackWhisper]

Then again.. in your world, we wouldn't have people like Nick Woodman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Woodman We also wouldn't have Apple, Microsoft, GE, Railroads, Gemstone, or pretty much anything.



I just want you to know, you just put Gemstone, and the cocaine addict Whatley, in the same category as Bill Gates and Microsoft. You really, really, REALLY need to revise your post because... just damn. That's some cruel and unusual glorification of Whatley's bastard fantasy.

[Jarvan]

I just want you to know, you just put Gemstone, and the cocaine addict Whatley, in the same category as Bill Gates and Microsoft. You really, really, REALLY need to revise your post because... just damn. That's some cruel and unusual glorification of Whatley's bastard fantasy.

Well.. I figured they were all megalomaniacs.

[~Rocktar~]

Some, sure, and some won't pay any taxes at all. But most won't be in those groups, so the net effect will be increased tax revenue => decreased deficit, decreased income inequality => increased morale.

Increased tax rate does not equal or assure equal or greater tax income. This is the elephant in the room that Democrats don't want you to see.

The other elephant in the room Democrats don't want to address is that the American economy has changed the balance of jobs from manufacturing to service/intellectual property and the American work force pretty much has not. Instead of trying to force the economy and the nation to go backwards to reclaim the great times when you could be a an abrasive lout and work on an assembly line for 40 years while smoking, drinking with an 8th grade education and still pull down a good middle class income, we should be focused on developing communication skills, financial skills and developing our workforce to better lead in service and intellectual property.

Instead we are lead by a jackass that wants to continue failed wealth redistribution to try and stay in the past. Want to build the economy, try dumping a lot of money into real stimulus like infrastructure to include, basic services, internet deployment, education and scientific research instead of lining the pockets of race baiters and liberal elite scum who sold the country to big pharma and insurance companies. Scientific research is the largest job creater and economic driver the world has ever seen, in fact, it has made this world possible, so let's do more of it and along the way, let's do something to secure it a bit better so that our rivals don't steal it from under our noses.

[Warriorbird]

Too bad he's right this time.

The pie isn't defined...quantitatively it can't be....therefore, it's not either/or. It's a pipe dream for the "have-nots" to assume they can grab a piece of that pie for free and be happy...it doesn't work like that. What is the Communist ideal? Equal sharing, right? Nobody profits more than anyone else, everyone contributes equally to society...right? So...what happens to all the people that don't contribute? Not those who can't, because of mental or physical default...those who choose not to. Do we just carry their load, because...why? Hey, sign me up for the slack-ass class.

Cuba seems to be a big topic these days in the US...how is the above working out for them? Oh, right, our embargo has kept them in the 1950's...well yeah, to a degree. But if that system is so damn good....shouldn't an island nation with tons of natural resources thrive on their own? Except they haven't, because doctors make less than soccer players. That's the Democratic ideal. That's equality. Sure, school is free....but you aren't going to be able to make a living off of it once you graduate.

It's ugly, folks...But it's the truth...competition makes us stronger. It's a fact of the human condition. Be real with yourselves....which is more likely? A genius working pro bono just because he wants to, or a genius working for money? What does history tell you?

There's a problem with money concentrating in the hands of a few individuals, however. It actually reduces competition. It's the side of the coin that Republicans have forgotten post Roosevelt/Eisenhower.

You want as many people as possible able to be economic actors in an economy.


Increased tax rate does not equal or assure equal or greater tax income.

Tax cuts do not equal or assure greater revenue. Republicans don't want to admit this. Neither point shows much. When we had higher taxes we had a better economy.

[crb]

A 45% bracket for 700k+, and a 50% bracket for 1m+. The Laffer Curve tells us that the optimal tax rate is somewhere between the 60s regime and the 40s regime if not higher, but going all the way back to 70% brackets seems like too much of a shock, to say nothing of 90% brackets. Start with my brackets, then we can go higher in oh, ten years or so?How is Obama to blame for what happened in 2007 and 2008?

1. Nominal tax rates in the back then were much higher... but there were tons of loopholes back then, way more than now. Tax shelters and the like, the tax treatment of real estate depreciation for people who own real estate passively for one. I believe you're confusing nominal tax rates with effective tax rates. Do you have data on effective tax rates from back then?

2. Also the data ends at 2007 for this report, blame the CBO or IRS for that. Since 2007 the stupidity of our tax code has gotten worse because Obama has twice raised levies on high earners, that is his fault. If the report ended in 2009 I would say "since 2009 it has gotten worse" because I believe the two changes were actually in 2010 and 2012. So right now when the chart in 2007 says 39.5% of the tax burden is paid by 1% of the citizens, today it is probably somewhere in the 40s because of the changes since 2007.

Reading comprehension fail.

edit: Also we already almost have a 45% bracket practically with the Obamacare surcharge, and it comes in much lower than $500k.

[crb]

The real point is that the concentration of wealth, if pushed too far, breeds instability. It's not about fairness, or equality, or redistribution, or any of those strawmen. It's about what is sustainable in an economy. The last time wealth was as concentrated as it is today was right before the great depression. Nobody- the haves OR the have nots- liked how that turned out.

Income inequality, wealth concentration, are red herrings. Mark Zuckerberg being rich does not make us poor. And if you were really the altruistic individual you would like to pretend to be you'd be writing checks to people in Africa and Asia because, and I hate to bring you down, you're probably in the global 1%, so as much as you think the US 1% owes you something, you, as a member of the global 1%, owe something to all the truly poor people in the world. I'm not talking about "My iphone is 3 years old and I have to buy my organic quinoa with food stamps so I can save my money for beer poor." Like people in this country think. I'm talking about "I shit in a dirt hole 20 yards away from my drinking water well that requires a bucket and rope poor. "

The fact is that the low end of this country, wages haven't been going up, but quality of life has. If you look at income adjusted with the value of government benefits received you see much higher figures, that increase, and purchasing power has gone up as well. The typical low income family today has a computer, internet, air conditioning, cell phones, cable tv, etc. A lot of that is new but still an example of quality of life increasing, but air conditioning is not new and not cheap, but yet it is found in more households than ever. Then of course there are the regulatory compliance costs of being an employer, which have gone up, and have eaten some wage growth.

It isn't about keeping up with the joneses, or even the kardashians, it is about making progress. You may not be as rich as Mark Zuckberberg, but your life is probably richer for his creation. The question to ask, do you have more than the prior generation? There are undoubtedly exceptions, children of hard working baby boomers who got degrees in puppetry and suddenly find themselves living a poorer life than they grew up with, but I'm talking about in the aggregate, is the newer generation better off than the prior one? Objectively the answer is yes.

One aspect of wealth creation you should be worried about is income mobility, that is what really matters. What are the odds you will be born in one quintile and die in a higher quintile? The good news is, income mobility is as high as it has ever been in our country. People do still climb the ladder, and people also fall off it. Descendants of the poor become rich, descendants of the rich become poor. That is as it should be.

Don't worry so much about how much money someone else has, it doesn't affect you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QTfNEDgusQ

[crb]

They're okay.It strengthens the government at the expense of the rich. From our current state, this is an improvement.

Who is more likely to spend their money efficiently providing the greatest economic benefit?

The person who earned it or some nameless government pencil pusher, or congress?

I don't understand this liberal belief that tax revenue will be spent wisely by the government thus increasing economic growth, but income left untaxed will somehow be stuffed in a mattress.

To the extent that the economy grows because of economic darwinism, where innovation, efficiency, and productivity, have economic rewards. Private spending encourages those things. Government spending is far too often wasted on inefficient cronies (like a billion dollars to build a website that doesn't work), that sort of spending, rewarding the unproductive, surely cannot have as large of a positive effect on the economy.

The point is, the money is going to get spent, so who is better at doing it?

[crb]

I wonder how much of an uproar a lot of people would be in if the government removed the child tax refund *which is like 3-5000 dollars per kid*, and put it into tax relief being employed and such.

Women with 13 kids R SO MADZ NAOW.

I would remove all tax credits. Deductions are fine, refundable tax credits aren't. You shouldn't be paying people for behavior you wish to discourage.

I would take the savings and plow it into free taxpayer funded birth control, including plan B.

I believe simpson bowles removed most tax credits.

[Warriorbird]

Who is more likely to spend their money efficiently providing the greatest economic benefit?

The person who earned it or some nameless government pencil pusher, or congress?

I don't understand this liberal belief that tax revenue will be spent wisely by the government thus increasing economic growth, but income left untaxed will somehow be stuffed in a mattress.

To the extent that the economy grows because of economic darwinism, where innovation, efficiency, and productivity, have economic rewards. Private spending encourages those things. Government spending is far too often wasted on inefficient cronies (like a billion dollars to build a website that doesn't work), that sort of spending, rewarding the unproductive, surely cannot have as large of a positive effect on the economy.

The point is, the money is going to get spent, so who is better at doing it?

Trickle down economics is a myth. The rich are better at NOT spending it.

[Parkbandit]

Quite possibly your best post ever. A few minor details that I'm not going to ruin the moment debunking, but overall, well done. Kudos.

I know! What was he thinking about when he posted this (Bold has been debunked countless times in the past)


Too bad he's right this time.


Change out "this time" with "always" and it was indeed his best post ever.

[Parkbandit]

Trickle down economics is a myth. The rich are better at NOT spending it.

Trickle up economics is a myth. I've never, ever been employed by a poor person.

[crb]

Too bad he's right this time.

The pie isn't defined...quantitatively it can't be....therefore, it's not either/or. It's a pipe dream for the "have-nots" to assume they can grab a piece of that pie for free and be happy...it doesn't work like that. What is the Communist ideal? Equal sharing, right? Nobody profits more than anyone else, everyone contributes equally to society...right? So...what happens to all the people that don't contribute? Not those who can't, because of mental or physical default...those who choose not to. Do we just carry their load, because...why? Hey, sign me up for the slack-ass class.

Cuba seems to be a big topic these days in the US...how is the above working out for them? Oh, right, our embargo has kept them in the 1950's...well yeah, to a degree. But if that system is so damn good....shouldn't an island nation with tons of natural resources thrive on their own? Except they haven't, because doctors make less than soccer players. That's the Democratic ideal. That's equality. Sure, school is free....but you aren't going to be able to make a living off of it once you graduate.

It's ugly, folks...But it's the truth...competition makes us stronger. It's a fact of the human condition. Be real with yourselves....which is more likely? A genius working pro bono just because he wants to, or a genius working for money? What does history tell you?

Better examples for you.

1. North Korea vs South Korea. 60 some years ago they went in different directions, look what happened to their economies. They're technically still at war yet the North relies on aid from the South.

2. China. China was an incredibly poor communist country, then a little over 30 years ago they introduced capitalist reforms and boom, an economic miracle. Almost a billion people lifted out of poverty now, and China is on pace to become the wealthiest country on earth. They still have a communist political system, but their economy is largely capitalist. Anecdote: I live in a college town that. In the last several years the rate of foreign chinese enrollment has dramatically increased. There is something like almost 5000 Chinese nationals living here in East Lansing as students now, you see them everywhere, stores/apartments are starting to advertise in Chinese... and you also see tons of luxury cars, and invariably they're all driven by young chinese men and women. If you see a porsche, or a ferrari, or a nicer BMW or Mercedes, driving around, it is usually a chinese kid driving it. They come here because our universities are so good, and their parents are leasing or buying them luxury cars. They typically drive a nicer car than Tom Izzo (though, he could afford better - or maybe it was a loaner last time I saw him). The point is, this is what capitalism brought to China, were not for those reforms these kids would be working in factories or picking rice, instead they're driving a Ferrari around Michigan.

[Warriorbird]

Trickle up economics is a myth. I've never, ever been employed by a poor person.

Without people spending money business doesn't function.

[crb]

Trickle down economics is a myth. The rich are better at NOT spending it.

Where does the money go? In a mattress?

If it goes into a bank account the bank can lend the money out to a business, home buyer, or someone else, which allows a house to be built, a business to expand, etc etc. This increases economic growth.

If it goes into the stock market or bond market this provides business again the ability to expand. If it goes into a muni bond it provides a local government capital to provide public infrastructure, in a T bill it helps keep our government debt payments lower.

If the rich person just up and spends it it will of course generate economic activity, even private jet manufacturers employee people, buy raw materials, etc.

The only way it isn't doing anything is if it goes into mattress, or maybe is turned into gold coins and goes into a safe in the basement.

The government spends money too, but when the person who earns the money spends the money you can be sure they get better value for it.

[crb]

Without people spending money business doesn't function.

And yet you think the government should be the one spending?

[Parkbandit]

Without people spending money business doesn't function.

https://solutionproblem.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/captain-obvious.jpg

[crb]

CRB's 4 rules of taxation.

1. The rich should pay the most.
2. The poor should pay the least.
3. EVERYONE should pay something.
4. No one should get special treatment.

We currently do 1 and 2, but we fail at 3 and 4.

[Atlanteax]

Trickle down economics is a myth. The rich are better at NOT spending it.


Trickle up economics is a myth. I've never, ever been employed by a poor person.


Without people spending money business doesn't function.


And yet you think the government should be the one spending?

WB supports inefficient/wasteful (government) spending, just as long the rich do not get to keep their earned $$$.

[Latrinsorm]

We should tax the poor at 100%, show them what it feels like. Also as any economist will tell you; if you tax something it discourages people from doing that, like booze tax.

Well, what would we rather discourage people from being, poor or rich?

DUH!Any economist will tell you that people will avoid having less money. If booze tax is increased, people will have less money if they drink the same or more, therefore they will drink less. If income tax is increased, people will have less money if they work the same or less, therefore they will work more.
Even if our government decides to engage in ridiculous wars that cost a fortune and end up establishing exactly what it was trying to prevent, i.e. a well-funded terrorist state- isis?Yes. Nothing in this world is perfect except Kina Grannis, and even she is only a perfect human. Our only hope is the least imperfect solution, and that turns out to be a balance of power between the government, the rich, and the mob (none of whom pursue your interests), and it further turns out that that ideal balance is tipped in favor of the government, and it finally turns out that that ideal tip is a little tippier than our current tip.
It's ugly, folks...But it's the truth...competition makes us stronger. It's a fact of the human condition. Be real with yourselves....which is more likely? A genius working pro bono just because he wants to, or a genius working for money? What does history tell you?It is true that pure capitalism is better than pure socialism. It is also completely irrelevant, because anyone who actually looks at history knows that a mixed economy works much better than either. Knowing where to be on the spectrum requires empiricism. Look at the tax system we had in the 50s-60s, and look at how our economy did compared to today. Being more socialist than we are today works.
Increased tax rate does not equal or assure equal or greater tax income. ... Instead we are lead by a jackass that wants to continue failed wealth redistribution to try and stay in the past.I never assured anything. I merely pointed out that wealth redistribution did not fail, it actually worked really well. So why not stick with what works?
Nominal tax rates in the back then were much higher... but there were tons of loopholes back then, way more than now. Tax shelters and the like, the tax treatment of real estate depreciation for people who own real estate passively for one. I believe you're confusing nominal tax rates with effective tax rates. Do you have data on effective tax rates from back then? It so happens that I do! Originally addressed to Thondalar, but he was making the same point:

In the year of our Obama 1954, taxpayers with >$1,000,000 income (not adjusted for inflation) paid 67% (http://ir.uiowa.edu/law_pubs/5/) (p. 927). The tax code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code#Progressivity_of_the_1954_Co de) that year works out to 88% for >$1,000,000. The ratio of the two is 67 / 88 = .76. By comparison, in 2009 taxpayers with >$1,432,890 paid 24.3% (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/01/31/the-facts-on-tax-rates-who-pays-what/) when the code predicted 33% (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2009.pdf), a ratio of .74. Thus, tax sheltering is about the same in both eras (.74 is about equal to .76) so your point about loopholes does not stand up empirically.
One aspect of wealth creation you should be worried about is income mobility, that is what really matters. What are the odds you will be born in one quintile and die in a higher quintile? The good news is, income mobility is as high as it has ever been in our country. People do still climb the ladder, and people also fall off it. Descendants of the poor become rich, descendants of the rich become poor. That is as it should be.I have an article (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.27.3.79) that disputes your claim. Do you have any that buttress it?
Who is more likely to spend their money efficiently providing the greatest economic benefit?The government, because without any invested interest the government can afford to take the long view, the broad view. When your paycheck is how you eat, it would be ridiculous to expect you to. Neither the government nor the individual will always make the best choice in the short- or long-term, and my suggestion does not imply that the government should have absolute control over the country's wealth. They should just have slightly more, and the rich specifically should have slightly less, because it's worked in the past.

[Atlanteax]

The Roaring 20s did not have massive government spending.

[Latrinsorm]

The Roaring 20s did not have massive government spending.And look how that turned out.

[crb]

I have an article (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.27.3.79) that disputes your claim. Do you have any that buttress it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/upward-mobility-has-not-declined-study-says.html?_r=0

Well, there is the NYT saying it hasn't declined. considering the source, I'll call that a win.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/04/income-mobility-myths

Economists at Harvard and Berkeley crunched the numbers on 40 million tax returns from 1971-2012 and discovered that mobility is pretty much what The Pew Charitable Trusts reported it was 30 years ago.

Today, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile—11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent of people born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives Also, the rich don't get rich at the expense of the poor (unless they steal or collude with government). The poor got richer, too.

Yes, over the last 30 years, incomes of rich people grew by more than 200 percent, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, poor people gained 50 percent. That growth should matter more than the disparity. Piketty's data reveal times in our history when income inequality decreased: during world wars and depression. Do we want more of that?

Actually Harvard Berkeley study:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/files/mobility_geo.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2014/01/31/is-there-a-problem-with-economic-mobility-in-the-u-s/
http://www.cato.org/blog/likely-sources-obamas-misconceptions-about-income-mobility
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/10/09/economic_mobility_isn039t_declining_292556.html

Isn't that nice what the research says, 64%, a majority, almost a veto proof majority, of people born in the poorest quintile don't die in it? I think that is pretty good.

[crb]

And look how that turned out.

Trade protectionism spawning a recession that was then fanned into a depression because of disastrous fiscal policies FDR originally thought would help? Until we had a nice fat war to get us moving again?

Income inequality was really low during those times too... you still pine to relive them..

shit I keep forgetting my rule about not slumming...

[Latrinsorm]

Trade protectionism spawning a recession that was then fanned into a depression because of disastrous fiscal policies FDR originally thought would help? Until we had a nice fat war to get us moving again?

Income inequality was really low during those times too... you still pine to relive them..

shit I keep forgetting my rule about not slumming...Roosevelt took office in March 1933. Real GDP increased in 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937. You can say he impeded the recovery, I suppose, but to blame him for causing the depression makes no sense when he took office AFTER the decline. Cause must precede effect.
Well, there is the NYT saying it hasn't declined. considering the source, I'll call that a win."Sometime after the 1920s, though, social mobility in the United States appeared to have declined, the Ferrie study found." Please note that this is not the Chetty study.
Actually Harvard Berkeley study:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.o...bility_geo.pdfWhat are your thoughts on the part where they say "High mobility areas have less income inequality"?

[Warriorbird]

Where does the money go? In a mattress?

If it goes into a bank account the bank can lend the money out to a business, home buyer, or someone else, which allows a house to be built, a business to expand, etc etc. This increases economic growth.

If it goes into the stock market or bond market this provides business again the ability to expand. If it goes into a muni bond it provides a local government capital to provide public infrastructure, in a T bill it helps keep our government debt payments lower.

If the rich person just up and spends it it will of course generate economic activity, even private jet manufacturers employee people, buy raw materials, etc.

The only way it isn't doing anything is if it goes into mattress, or maybe is turned into gold coins and goes into a safe in the basement.

The government spends money too, but when the person who earns the money spends the money you can be sure they get better value for it.

There's quite a number of areas you're missing.


WB supports inefficient/wasteful (government) spending, just as long the rich do not get to keep their earned $$$.

To both of you: I don't think the government should spend as much as it does. I just disagree with you on the areas to cut.


Trade protectionism spawning a recession that was then fanned into a depression because of disastrous fiscal policies FDR originally thought would help? Until we had a nice fat war to get us moving again?

Income inequality was really low during those times too... you still pine to relive them..

shit I keep forgetting my rule about not slumming...

Ignoring financial deregulation and foolish expansions of credit (which weren't guaranteed, PB, that was part of the problem) is an excessively minimal view of the Depression.

[waywardgs]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/davos-oligarchs-fear-inequality-global-elite-resist


The billionaires and corporate oligarchs meeting in Davos this week are getting worried about inequality. It might be hard to stomach that the overlords of a system that has delivered the widest global economic gulf in human history should be handwringing about the consequences of their own actions.

But even the architects of the crisis-ridden international economic order are starting to see the dangers. It’s not just the maverick hedge-funder George Soros, who likes to describe himself as a class traitor. Paul Polman, Unilever chief executive, frets about the “capitalist threat to capitalism”. Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing director, fears capitalism might indeed carry Marx’s “seeds of its own destruction” and warns that something needs to be done.

The scale of the crisis has been laid out for them by the charity Oxfam. Just 80 individuals now have the same net wealth as 3.5 billion people – half the entire global population. Last year, the best-off 1% owned 48% of the world’s wealth, up from 44% five years ago. On current trends, the richest 1% will have pocketed more than the other 99% put together next year. The 0.1% have been doing even better, quadrupling their share of US income since the 1980s.

This is a wealth grab on a grotesque scale. For 30 years, under the rule of what Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, calls “market fundamentalism”, inequality in income and wealth has ballooned, both between and within the large majority of countries. In Africa, the absolute number living on less than $2 a day has doubled since 1981 as the rollcall of billionaires has swelled.

[Jarvan]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/davos-oligarchs-fear-inequality-global-elite-resist

I love this line....


"It’s not just the maverick hedge-funder George Soros, who likes to describe himself as a class traitor."

So... let me know when he gives away all of his "Ill gotten evil money" while he is still alive, and before he is told he has x months to live due to Y disease.

I would hazard a guess that right before that happens, a Wisconsin farmer will discover cold fusion using cheddar cheese and solve the entire world's energy problems.


If you somehow feel that people should not be allowed to make money, let me know how you plan to solve this problem. While you are at it.. I recommend working on a device like the TV show Sliders.. so you can go to a world you envision, because it will never happen here.

[Warriorbird]

I love this line....



So... let me know when he gives away all of his "Ill gotten evil money" while he is still alive, and before he is told he has x months to live due to Y disease.

I would hazard a guess that right before that happens, a Wisconsin farmer will discover cold fusion using cheddar cheese and solve the entire world's energy problems.


If you somehow feel that people should not be allowed to make money, let me know how you plan to solve this problem. While you are at it.. I recommend working on a device like the TV show Sliders.. so you can go to a world you envision, because it will never happen here.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are giving theirs away.

I don't believe that waywardgs's ever said "people should not be allowed to make money" so that rest of your discussion seems pretty strange.

[waywardgs]

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are giving theirs away.

I don't believe that waywardgs's ever said "people should not be allowed to make money" so that rest of your discussion seems pretty strange.

I say "the extreme concentration of wealth is a bad thing," they hear "I want to steal all your money so I don't ever have to work."

It's pretty humorous.

[Jarvan]

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are giving theirs away.

I don't believe that waywardgs's ever said "people should not be allowed to make money" so that rest of your discussion seems pretty strange.

When they die. They are giving the vast majority away when they die. In the mean while.. Warren is trying his hardest to make even more money.



I say "the extreme concentration of wealth is a bad thing," they hear "I want to steal all your money so I don't ever have to work."

It's pretty humorous.

Now let's see... nope. He is perfectly fine with people using money to make money. Oh wait.. maybe he has a specific limit people are allowed to make before they are required by his morale law to stop.

So Wayward.. at what point is a person required by your law to stop making money? At what point is a Company required by your morale law to stop making money?

Please let us know, so we can tell the rich people, and they can fire everyone once they reach this magic number.

[Kembal]

I'm having fun watching a bunch of people who don't know economics trying to argue economics.

Newsflash: Income inequality is going to be the driving issue in US politics for the next few years, even if most voters don't understand the specifics. They know their standard of living is not going up, but they see a few billionaires seemingly getting richer and richer, and Wall Street doing everything they can to keep it that way.

Whichever party gives them a policy proposal that gives them the belief that their standard of living will start improving again will win the presidency and possibly Congress in 2016. Obama's proposal was the first shot across the bow.