Easy way to double the net worth of 60% of all US households

Quote from Maverick74:

Futurecurrents, are you trying to play the ignorant card? It's the left that has done this. The reason we have this inequality is because of the central banking system and the print at all cost mantra of the left. The rich are not "earning" any income. They are "making" it via asset inflation. Get rid of the FED, assets go to shit, the world returns to equilibrium. Remember, it's Krugman that says we are not printing enough. It's Krugman that says we need more debt not less. It's Krugman that says we need to generate more inflation. So who is that going to benefit? The RICH!!!!!!!!!! So you ARE playing the ignorance card right?

Second, let me address the other bullshit point you brought up. All this money is sitting in some vault somewhere not adding value. Well, I don't know about that. Most of that wealth is invested in productive assets. Yes, that wealth is benefiting from asset inflation from the left. But that money IS being invested I assure you. It's invested in stock, real estate, private equity and even government bonds. ALL of that is adding value to the economy. It is NOT simply sitting there.

Third, as I've stated many times in which neither you, nor Ricter nor any of the commies on the left, that the cure for poverty is not MONEY!!!!! It's education. The poor have to become productive. If they are not, simply handing them money will not make them so and therefore will have ZERO long term effects. Hence why some posters brought up the lottery paradox. The reason lottery winners go broke is because they are receiving money that they did not earn. In other words, had they acquired the money through productive means, then they would have had the ability to put it to work in a productive fashion and either grow or at least preserve their wealth. Unfortunately they were just handed the money and due to their negative productivity, the money was squandered and most ended up either broke or dead (suicide).

All it takes is a basic understanding of economics to get this. For some reason, there is not a single commie on this board that has a background in economics so they make these outlandish suggestions that are completely devoid of logic and facts.

this is where their money actually is....after being "made" by manipulating their other money. Ie Wall St/banking/financial sector.

"Global offshore wealth, defined as assets housed in a country where the owner has no legal or tax residence, grew by 6.1 percent to $8.5 trillion last year, according to the Boston Consulting Group. And what was the top destination of that wealth? Switzerland, which houses about one-quarter of all offshore assets.
The approximation may even underestimate the true scale of offshore wealth, as a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network found that the world’s wealthy are stashing up to $32 trillion offshore, or roughly four times the BCG's estimate.
The issue of offshore wealth has come into sharp focus recently as critics have accused notable figures, including former Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, of housing their money in countries with lower tax rates so they don't have to pay higher tax rates at home."
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh BTW, my suggestion was not serious but was simply a way to make a point. I should know better than to assume righties would understand an oblique argument.

Since the 1980s, rich households in the United States have earned a larger and larger share of overall income. The 1 percent earns about one-sixth of all income and the top 10 percent about half. This is not good from an ethical standpoint or an economic one.
yes, but that is the way it should always go

the rich should just keep getting richer and richer, far outperforming the average

how does that hurt me in any way?

Am I any poorer because Warren Buffet made 60 billion?
 
Quote from kid.fx.cross:

yes, but that is the way it should always go

the rich should just keep getting richer and richer, far outperforming the average

how does that hurt me in any way?

Am I any poorer because Warren Buffet made 60 billion?


Since the 1980s, rich households in the United States have earned a larger and larger share of overall income. The 1 percent earns about one-sixth of all income and the top 10 percent about half. This is not good from an ethical standpoint or an economic one.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Since the 1980s, rich households in the United States have earned a larger and larger share of overall income. The 1 percent earns about one-sixth of all income and the top 10 percent about half. This is not good from an ethical standpoint or an economic one.

What would you know about ethics, you clearly demonstrate only dogma and propaganda.

There is no truth in you.
 
Quote from HarbingerQ:

What would you know about ethics, you clearly demonstrate only dogma and propaganda.

There is no truth in you.

And you clearly demonstrate that you are an idiot and/or craZY.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Since the 1980s, rich households in the United States have earned a larger and larger share of overall income. The 1 percent earns about one-sixth of all income and the top 10 percent about half. This is not good from an ethical standpoint or an economic one.
yes my friend, but that is a sustainable model

1% earns 1/6

and 10% earns one half

it can go on forever and ever
 
Quote from Maverick74:


All it takes is a basic understanding of economics to get this. For some reason, there is not a single commie on this board that has a background in economics so they make these outlandish suggestions that are completely devoid of logic and facts.

Truer words have never seen print on this forum.
 
Quote from kid.fx.cross:

yes my friend, but that is a sustainable model

1% earns 1/6

and 10% earns one half

it can go on forever and ever

No it's not. Certainly not with an ever expanding division as we are seeing. The last time it was this bad was in 1928 and we know what happened next. So much money in the hands of a few a the top leads to plutocracy and a stagnant economy. Citizens United adds to the danger.
 
Inequality -- Crisis or Scam
December 31, 2013


"...Lest we forget, it is freedom that produces inequality.

Even a partly free nation unleashes the natural and acquired abilities of peoples, and the more industrious and talented inevitably excel and rise and reap the greater rewards. "Inequality ... is rooted in the biological nature of man," said James Fenimore Cooper.

Yet for many people, from New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio to President Barack Obama to Pope Francis, income inequality is a curse in need of a cure, as there is today said to be an intolerable measure of such inequality.

But let us first inspect the measuring rod.

Though a family of four with $23,550 in cash income in 2013 qualified as living in poverty, this hardly tells the whole story.

Consider the leveling effect of the graduated income tax, about which Karl Marx wrote glowingly in his "Communist Manifesto."

The top 1 percent of U.S. earners pay nearly 40 percent of U.S. income taxes. The top 10 percent pay 70 percent. The top 50 percent pay more than 97 percent of income taxes. The poor pay nothing.

Surely, trillions of dollars siphoned annually off the incomes of the most productive Americans — in federal, state and local income and payroll taxes — closes the gap somewhat.

Secondly, though 15 percent of U.S. families qualify as poor, measured by cash income, this does not take into account the vast assortment of benefits they receive.

The poor have their children educated free in public schools, from Head Start to K-12 and then on to college with Pell Grants. Their medical needs are taken care of through Medicaid.
They receive food stamps to feed the family. The kids can get two or three free meals a day at school.

Housing, too, is paid for or subsidized. The poor also receive welfare checks and Earned Income Tax Credits for added cash.

In the late 1940s, our family had no freezer, no dishwasher, no clothes washer or dryer, no microwave, no air conditioning. We watched the Notre Dame-Army game on a black-and-white 8-inch DuMont.

Among American families in poverty today, 1 in 4 have a freezer. Nearly half have automatic dishwashers. Almost 60 percent have a home computer. About 2 in 3 poor families have a clothes washer and dryer. Eighty percent have cellphones.

Ninety-three percent of the poor have a microwave; 96 percent a color TV, and 97 percent a gas or electric stove. Not exactly les miserables.

Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation added up the cost in 2012 of the means-tested federal and state programs for America's poor and low-income families. Price tag: $927 billion.

There are 79 federal programs, writes Rector, that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, training and targeted education to poor and low-income Americans.

"If converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than sufficient to bring the income of every lower-income American to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, roughly $44,000 per year for a family of four."

Then there are the contributions of churches, charities and foundations.

Where in history have the poor been treated better?

Certainly not in the USA in the 1950s or during the Depression. Why, then, all this sudden talk about reducing the gap between rich and poor?..."

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/node/748355#sthash.Bpn32R1a.dpuf
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

No it's not. Certainly not with an ever expanding division as we are seeing. The last time it was this bad was in 1928 and we know what happened next. So much money in the hands of a few a the top leads to plutocracy and a stagnant economy. Citizens United adds to the danger.
check out what happens to that chart during a depression

the rich lose a lot more than the poor
 
Back
Top