Hedge Fund Manager Says Rich Should Pay More

[NJ Stinks]

Below is an excerpt from an editorial pasted from the Washington Post website today:
__________________________________________________ _____

This country is running enormous and unsustainable budget deficits that will bankrupt us all if they are not narrowed — and there is no way to do that without both cutting spending and raising revenues. (Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/out-from-under-the-anti-tax-pledge/2011/07/20/gIQAoudbQI_story.html) is pie-in-the-sky fantasy and dangerous demagoguery.) Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices as part of a comprehensive budget deal along the lines of Simpson-Bowles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-advice-to-the-debt-supercommittee-go-big-be-bold-be-smart/2011/09/30/gIQAPzjBBL_story.html), with tens of millions of people getting smaller entitlement benefits, for example, and tens of millions of people paying higher taxes.

It’s not class warfare to say that people like me — who aren’t suffering at all in these tough economic times, who are in many cases doing the best we’ve ever done and who can easily afford to pay more in taxes with no impact whatsoever on our lifestyles — should be the first to step up and make a small sacrifice.

I think most people agree with the idea of shared sacrifice, but for many, when push comes to shove, that principle goes out the window. I don’t kid myself that I’m making any real sacrifices. The men and women who have been fighting for the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan — thousands of them coming home in coffins or with missing limbs — are making true sacrifices. And when they enter the domestic workforce, they shouldn’t have to pay taxes at a significantly higher rate than the vast majority of millionaires.

Some critics of the Buffett rule legislation point out that it would raise only an estimated $47 billion (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-taxes-millionaires-idUSBRE82K0SD20120321) over 10 years, which is a mere sliver of the 2011 deficit of $1.3 trillion, let alone the national debt of $15.6 trillion. They’re right that the Buffett rule, by itself, won’t be enough. But we have to start raising money somewhere, and if it isn’t raised from people like me, it will have to be raised from people less fortunate than me. Think of it this way: For every billion dollars not raised from millionaires, that’s equal to a million average American families each paying an extra $1,000 in taxes. That would be real hardship for a lot of families that, unlike mine, are struggling to make ends meet.

Link to entire article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-millionaire-for-higher-taxes/2012/04/11/gIQA07jLAT_story.html?hpid=z3

[bigmack]

Whitney Tilson is a hedge fund manager and a member of the Patriotic Millionaires.

cH7EQs4kzpA

[JustRalph]

Try a 1% cut in every department of the federal government

36 billion a year would be the immediate result. 366 billion over ten years

Yep, we gotta start somewhere.......


How about 10% ?

Do the math........

Btw, every millionaire is free to pay extra taxes if they want. Nobody stopping them

[bigmack]

Try a 1% cut in every department of the federal government

Don't you get it? They need that money for the Solyndra's.

http://jamiekilleen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/money_down_toilet-2.jpg

Ask NJ Stinks to look up numbers in California after they raised taxes. Revenues went down as people choose to do other things with their money.

[ArlJim78]

why would you give any additional revenue from any source to a government that wastes it by the truck load every day of the week? additional revenue will not fix our problems, not even close. the feds are like an out of control addict, they will siphon dry anything and anyone they come in contact with, and lie cheat or steal if they have to.

[lamboguy]

if they want to get rid of deficits, you got to get rid of hedge funds, banks and insurance company's. if you got rid of the above, i guarantee you there would be no deficits within 5 years, and gold would be about $50 an ounce.

[JBmadera]

Try a 1% cut in every department of the federal government

36 billion a year would be the immediate result. 366 billion over ten years

Yep, we gotta start somewhere.......


How about 10% ?

Do the math........

Btw, every millionaire is free to pay extra taxes if they want. Nobody stopping them


Exactly, this whole tax increase crap makes me nuts. FIRST cut out all the waste and BS and then see where you are. Also, I hate when folks that already have more money than god are squawking about increasing taxes - maybe they should think back to when they were first starting out, before the inheritances and trust fund payouts began

[badcompany]

Exactly, this whole tax increase crap makes me nuts. FIRST cut out all the waste and BS and then see where you are. Also, I hate when folks that already have more money than god are squawking about increasing taxes - maybe they should think back to when they were first starting out, before the inheritances and trust fund payouts began

I'd like to see some evidence that increasing taxes will result in the lowering of the deficits. The Federal Government's past performance is appalling.

[bigmack]

Funny how NJ, a retired IRS employee, Mostie, a retired postman, and BO, a soon to be retired community organizer, spend a large portion of each and every day of their existence thinking of ways to get taxes higher.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/thSTFU.gif

[gm10]

Taxing billionaires is a nice gimmick, but certainly not the answer. A system that allows such excessive wealth to be developed alongside shocking poverty, is in desperate need of reform.

[JustRalph]

Taxing billionaires is a nice gimmick, but certainly not the answer. A system that allows such excessive wealth to be developed alongside shocking poverty, is in desperate need of reform.

no it doesn't. It's called capitalism.

[bigmack]

A system that allows such excessive wealth to be developed alongside shocking poverty, is in desperate need of reform.
Shocking indeed.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

[Valuist]

Taxing billionaires is a nice gimmick, but certainly not the answer. A system that allows such excessive wealth to be developed alongside shocking poverty, is in desperate need of reform.

The last time England was relevant was at the turn of the century.......the 19th century.

[gm10]

Shocking indeed.

I'm talking about the entire world, not any country in particular. Capitalism anno 2012 is rotten to the core. I don't know what the answer is. Even a compassionate and deeply intelligent leader like Obama doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.

As for your stats ... they are propaganda, and say nothing about the bottom 5%, which is where SHOCKING starts to mean something.

[gm10]

The last time England was relevant was at the turn of the century.......the 19th century.

Nonsense. They were influential at least until the 1950's, 1960's (I'm a neutral observer).
Anyway what is the point of a remark like that. Has nothing to do with the discussion.

[ArlJim78]

Taxing billionaires is a nice gimmick, but certainly not the answer. A system that allows such excessive wealth to be developed alongside shocking poverty, is in desperate need of reform.
how do you reform the system to prevent the wealth of billionaires, other than taxing it away?

and FYI, we don't have shocking poverty over here, I don't know where you get your information.

[ArlJim78]

I'm talking about the entire world, not any country in particular. Capitalism anno 2012 is rotten to the core. I don't know what the answer is. Even a compassionate and deeply intelligent leader like Obama doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.

As for your stats ... they are propaganda, and say nothing about the bottom 5%, which is where SHOCKING starts to mean something.
compassionate deeply intelligent leader:lol: :lol:
you better lay off the Brawndo.

[gm10]

how do you reform the system to prevent the wealth of billionaires, other than taxing it away?

and FYI, we don't have shocking poverty over here, I don't know where you get your information.

It depends on what you mean by 'here' ... we certainly have it over here, (Western Europe). I doubt it's any better over 'there' when you're poor (no disrespect).

[gm10]

how do you reform the system to prevent the wealth of billionaires, other than taxing it away?



Easy ... you distribute the wealth so that the billionaires only end up with 100 million to begin with (poor sods). Why would they need the other 900 million anyway?? I'd be happy with just 10 to be honest, you can keep the 990 remaining millions.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Easy ...

Yes, that would be simple. And probably work just perfectly also. :lol:

[Lefty]

Obama is right, there is a huge tax inequality in this country.
He's just got the names of the guilty wrong.
I don't remember the exact stats but doesn't the top 10% pay about 48% of the taxes.
And isn't it about 47% of the people that pay NOTHING?
Yep, Tax Inequality.

And Warren Buffet who's out there saying he needs to pay more taxes is being
sued by the IRS for a Billion Dollars.
Pay Up, Warren!

[boxcar]

Try a 1% cut in every department of the federal government

36 billion a year would be the immediate result. 366 billion over ten years

Yep, we gotta start somewhere.......


How about 10% ?

Do the math........

Btw, every millionaire is free to pay extra taxes if they want. Nobody stopping them

Makes too much sense. Instead, the Dems want to tax the rich to raise a meager 5 billion. :lol: :lol:

Even Obama gets it. He starting to back away from the paltry revenue the law would produce and instead try to justify the tax increase on the grounds of fairness. :lol:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I'd like to see some evidence that increasing taxes will result in the lowering of the deficits. The Federal Government's past performance is appalling.

1993 to 2000. Top tax rate raised from 31% to 39.6%
We went from a deficit of $290B to a surplus of $236B.

All while expenditures increased from $1.381T to $1.789T
Tax revenues in 2000 were nearly double what they were in 1992.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
page 29.
I tried to copy and paste but the format did not work.

[mostpost]

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Own? Or have a mortgage which they can barely pay?

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
What does air conditioning mean? Central air or one small room air conditioner?
Comparing the number of air conditioned homes in 2012 with the number in 1970 is ridiculous.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
How does the living space of the poor compare to the living space of other Americans. Europe is not relevant to the discussion.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
A VCR costs $60 a DVD slightly more.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Nobody says how old these items are, how long the people have had them, or what they paid for them probably many years ago,

[rowboat]

AND HOW Mny peoplewill gwt togwthwe to back this.trillionx of us corps holding money overseas

[badcompany]

1993 to 2000. Top tax rate raised from 31% to 39.6%
We went from a deficit of $290B to a surplus of $236B.

All while expenditures increased from $1.381T to $1.789T
Tax revenues in 2000 were nearly double what they were in 1992.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
page 29.
I tried to copy and paste but the format did not work.

Nice try.

During that period interest rates were at a twenty year low, coming down from almost 20% to 3%.

This extreme monetary easing created the bubble of the late 1990s. During bubbles a large percentage of that freshly printed money find its way into government cofers. Of course, this type of inflation is unsustainable and when the bubble finally bursts tax receipts decrease as was the case in the years following the time period you cite.

Just because you can get away with something for a little while doesn't make it good policy.

[mostpost]

Obama is right, there is a huge tax inequality in this country.
He's just got the names of the guilty wrong.
I don't remember the exact stats but doesn't the top 10% pay about 48% of the taxes.
And isn't it about 47% of the people that pay NOTHING?
Yep, Tax Inequality.

And Warren Buffet who's out there saying he needs to pay more taxes is being
sued by the IRS for a Billion Dollars.
Pay Up, Warren!

Your comparing apples and kumquats. The top 10% refers to the 10% which earns the most money and has the greatest financial wealth. It does not refer to the amount of money the have. I didn't find the numbers for 10% exactly, but here is what I found.
In terms of net worth:
The top 1% has 34.6% of the total wealth of the country
The next 19% has 50.5%
Together they have 85.1% of the total wealth.
That means that the remaining 80% must share 14.9% of the nation's wealth.
Yet you think they should pay the same % of taxes.

Let's look at financial wealth.
Top 1% controls 42.7% of the nations financial wealth.
The next 19% controls an additional 50.3%
That leaves 7% to be shared by 80% of the population.
Somehow that makes you think the 80% should pay the same % of taxes as the 1%.
That is hard to believe.

[mostpost]

Nice try.

During that period interest rates were at a twenty year low, coming down from almost 20% to 3%.

This extreme monetary easing created the bubble of the late 1990s. During bubbles a large percentage of that freshly printed money find its way into government cofers. Of course, this type of inflation is unsustainable and when the bubble finally bursts tax receipts decrease as was the case in the years following the time period you cite.

Just because you can get away with something for a little while doesn't make it good policy.
And of course the decrease in tax receipts had nothing to do with the fact that tax rates were 8% lower.

And your "Facts" are definitely not.
The 20% prime rate occurred in 1981 under Reagan. the 3% under Bush.
The prime rate actually went up under Clinton from 6% when he took office to 9% when he left office. So much for that theory.

[lsbets]

AND HOW Mny peoplewill gwt togwthwe to back this.trillionx of us corps holding money overseas

I agree!

Well, maybe.

Maybe I don't agree, but I love this post.

It made me stop and think.

[bigmack]

That is hard to believe.
One of your favorite subjects, Taxing the rich and "Wealth inequality," and you still can't get your facts straight.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI equal to or greater than $154,643), however, still pay far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

[Tom]

Easy ... you distribute the wealth so that the billionaires only end up with 100 million to begin with (poor sods). Why would they need the other 900 million anyway?? I'd be happy with just 10 to be honest, you can keep the 990 remaining millions.

What ratio do you use to distribute the WORK that is required to create that wealth in the first place? Convenient to allege that people do not gain wealth because others are unfair to them. But not true.

That was the plan of the British Empire, right? Force one group of people to do all the work and give the wealth to another group? Colonization they called it, I think.

How'd that work our fer ya?

[Lefty]

You libs talk about rich people like they were given something; as if some special
powers gave them the money. Most Rich people either got themselves well educated, worked their butts off, or both.
Since we have more millionaires than we did 5 yrs ago, they had to come from another economic group didn't they?

Myself, I'm not rich because when I was younger I spent too many hours in the bars and not enough trying to make my own fortune. But I do not envy people who gave up a lot of their time making themselves rich instead of basking in bars, watching TV or Whatnot...

I absolutely ADMIRE THEM!
They did the things I was not willing to do.

[NJ Stinks]

The last time England was relevant was at the turn of the century.......the 19th century.

I'm sure you remember the last major world war, Valuist.

Here's a list of countries that does not include Great Britain. There is a very good reason why Great Britain is not on the list below and it has nothing at all to do with being irrelevant.
____________________________________


Occupied countries
The countries occupied included all or most of:

[b]Country of
occupation See for further details
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Flag_of_Albania_%281939%29.svg/22px-Flag_of_Albania_%281939%29.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania) Albanian Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Kingdom)Albania under Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania_under_Germany)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Flag_of_Austria.svg/22px-Flag_of_Austria.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria) Federal State of Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_State_of_Austria)Anschluss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg/22px-Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg.png Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium)Military Administration in Belgium and North France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Administration_in_Belgium_and_North_Franc e)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Flag_of_the_Byelorussian_SSR_%281937%29.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Byelorussian_SSR_%281937%29.svg.png Byelorussian SSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byelorussian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic)Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Belarus_by_Nazi_Germany)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Flag_of_Czechoslovakia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Czechoslovakia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) Czechoslovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Republic_(1918-1938))German occupation of Czechoslovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Denmark.svg/22px-Flag_of_Denmark.svg.png Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark)Occupation of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Denmark)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Flag_of_Estonia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Estonia.svg.png Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia)Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Estonia_by_Nazi_Germany)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Flag_of_France.svg/22px-Flag_of_France.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic)German occupation of France during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_France_during_World_War_II)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Kingdom_of_Greece_Flag.svg/22px-Kingdom_of_Greece_Flag.svg.png Kingdom of Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Greece)Axis occupation of Greece during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_occupation_of_Greece_during_World_War_II)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_Guernsey.svg/22px-Flag_of_Guernsey.svg.png Guernsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey)Occupation of the Channel Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Flag_of_Hungary_1940.svg/22px-Flag_of_Hungary_1940.svg.png Kingdom of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1920%E2%80%931946))Hungarian State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_State)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Flag_of_Italy_%281861-1946%29_crowned.svg/22px-Flag_of_Italy_%281861-1946%29_crowned.svg.png Kingdom of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946))Italian Social Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Flag_of_Jersey.svg/22px-Flag_of_Jersey.svg.png Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey)Occupation of the Channel Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Flag_of_Latvia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Latvia.svg.png Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia)Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Latvia_by_Nazi_Germany)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Flag_of_Lithuania.svg/22px-Flag_of_Lithuania.svg.png Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania)Occupation of Lithuania by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Lithuania_by_Nazi_Germany)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg/22px-Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg.png Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg)German occupation of Luxembourg in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Luxembourg_in_World_War_II)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Flag_of_Monaco.svg/22px-Flag_of_Monaco.svg.png Monaco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco)History of Monaco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Monaco)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands)German occupation of the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Netherlands_(1939%E2%80%931945)#Ger man_occupation)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Flag_of_Norway.svg/22px-Flag_of_Norway.svg.png Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway)Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/Flag_of_Poland.svg/22px-Flag_of_Poland.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Polish_Republic)German military administration in occupied Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_administration_in_occupied_Poland)
Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany)
General Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Government)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Flag_of_San_Marino.svg/22px-Flag_of_San_Marino.svg.png San Marino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino)San Marino in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_San_Marino#World_War_II)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Flag_of_Slovakia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Slovakia.svg.png Slovak Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)Slovak National Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_National_Uprising)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Flag_of_the_Ukrainian_SSR_%281927-1937%29.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Ukrainian_SSR_%281927-1937%29.svg.png Ukrainian SSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic)Reichskommissa riat Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat_Ukraine)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia.svg.png Kingdom of Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia)Invasion of Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Yugoslavia)

Forgot to add I got this list from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe

[mostpost]

One of your favorite subjects, Taxing the rich and "Wealth inequality," and you still can't get your facts straight.

Here is where I got my figures, where did you get yours.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

It's also here:
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
page 44 table 2

[bigmack]

Here is where I got my figures, where did you get yours.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Go on, get outta here with that.

I've implored you to abandon that source in the past. Did ya ever stop to wonder why you choose to get economic numbers from a sociologist @ UC Santa Cruz?

Don't get me wrong, I ADORE Santa Cruz, but for whole other reasons.

Me source, since 1937:http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[Tom]

We should start re-distributing wealth by taking from union boys and giving to non-union workers. Union wages should be taxed at a higher rate than non union jobs because they pay more and have more benefits. Only fair. Union boys can AFFORD to pay more.

[NJ Stinks]

We should start re-distributing wealth by taking from union boys and giving to non-union workers. Union wages should be taxed at a higher rate than non union jobs because they pay more and have more benefits. Only fair. Union boys can AFFORD to pay more.

Are you trying to illustrate reasons why people should unionize? If so, thanks.

[mostpost]

I agree!

Well, maybe.

Maybe I don't agree, but I love this post.

It made me stop and think.

An infinite number of monkeys typing at an infinite number of typewriters will eventually write AND HOW Mny peoplewill gwt togwthwe to back this.trillionx of us corps holding money overseas or something similar.

[mostpost]

Go on, get outta here with that.

I've implored you to abandon that source in the past. Did ya ever stop to wonder why you choose to get economic numbers from a sociologist @ UC Santa Cruz?

Don't get me wrong, I ADORE Santa Cruz, but for whole other reasons.

Me source, since 1937:http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Your figures are for annual income. Mine are for net worth.
Why did you fail to post my second source which was the Levy foundation? They come up with the same numbers as UCSC.

[bigmack]

Your figures are for annual income. Mine are for net worth.
Why did you fail to post my second source which was the Levy foundation? They come up with the same numbers as UCSC.
Dude, PLEASE. They got 'em FROM the nerd at UC Santa Cruz.

Good Gawd, don't you get it? I don't give a rats ass about winning or losing a debate with you. Just bring me honesty in exchange. When you search for figures & see numbers to your liking, don't just post those as gospel. Dig more. BE HONEST in debate.

I know I've had an effect on you, as your initial arguments had little substance. Now, you're well researched but your research is from the same sketchy sources.

K?

[mostpost]

What ratio do you use to distribute the WORK that is required to create that wealth in the first place? Convenient to allege that people do not gain wealth because others are unfair to them. But not true.

That was the plan of the British Empire, right? Force one group of people to do all the work and give the wealth to another group? Colonization they called it, I think.

How'd that work our fer ya?

It worked out quite well for a long time. The British forced the colonial people in Africa and India and other places to work for much lower wages than a similar job would pay in Great Britain. Then they took the products of those labors and shipped them to Great Britain where they sold them for a much higher price than they would have gotten in the colonies.

So you are correct, One group, the colonials, is forced to do all the work. The second group, the British, is given all the wealth. Congratulations on finally getting it.

The same thing is happening here. One group, the workers, is working for less than they are worth. The second group, the corporation, is accumulating the wealth. And the gap between the two is ever increasing.

[Lefty]

You just gotta cringe when mosty writes lines like
"the corporation is accumulating all the wealth"

Who in hell do you think the corporation is, mostie?

It's investors that put up their money and buy stock. Over 50% of us own stock
in some form or another. Mutual funds etc. So what's wrong with us making a profit on our investments? Don't answer, it won't make any sense.

[mostpost]

Dude, PLEASE. They got 'em FROM the nerd at UC Santa Cruz.

Good Gawd, don't you get it? I don't give a rats ass about winning or losing a debate with you. Just bring me honesty in exchange. When you search for figures & see numbers to your liking, don't just post those as gospel. Dig more. BE HONEST in debate.

I know I've had an effect on you, as your initial arguments had little substance. Now, you're well researched but your research is from the same sketchy sources.

K?

Don't flatter yourself. Your only effect on me is to make me shake my head at your insecurity.

Levy did not get their figures from UCSC, and UCSC did not make them up.
Both got their figures from various government sources including the Bureau of Labor Statisics, the Federal Reserve Board and various peresidential commissions. References are found on page 38 and 39 of the Levy paper and at the end of Professor Domhoff's paper.

The truth is both our numbers are accurate. They are just measuring different things.

[bigmack]

Don't flatter yourself. Your only effect on me is to make me shake my head at your insecurity
Sure, Babe. Would you like for me to crack out your early arguments?

Hapless, they were. Still are, but you at least bring links.

Too bad those links are as shot-out as an old Buick on a Southern ranch.

On a scale between you & DumbDumb here (Your hero), you still fall WAY short. Maybe someday you can be as dishonest and ignorant as Eddie.

Keep your hopes lofty. :D

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001174153/ed_shultz_xlarge.jpeg

[mostpost]

You just gotta cringe when mosty writes lines like
"the corporation is accumulating all the wealth"

Who in hell do you think the corporation is, mostie?

It's investors that put up their money and buy stock. Over 50% of us own stock
in some form or another. Mutual funds etc. So what's wrong with us making a profit on our investments? Don't answer, it won't make any sense.

OK you owned stock. Let me ask you a few questions. I don't expect you to answer these questions to me because the answers are none of my business. I just want you to answer them to yourself.

If my memory is correct, you worked as a dealer in a casino. Casinos have stock holders. Regardless of whether you owned stock in the casino where you were employed, was the money you earned on your stocks greater than what you would have earned had the casino paid you two or three dollars an hour more? Was the money you earned on your stocks a guaranteed source of income or were you at the mercy of the market.

Money you make as a dealer is money you worked for. Money you made on your investments is money someone else worked for. I'm not saying your investment is not important, but it is not what caused your bankroll to grow.

It's like being at the track. You put two bucks on a horse. The horse does the work of running faster than the other horses. The Jockey does the work of guiding him most efficiently around the track. You make a profit. Now you could not have made that profit had you not invested, but you also could not have made that profit had not a lot of people put in a lot of work.

[johnhannibalsmith]

O...

It's like being at the track. You put two bucks on a horse. The horse does the work of running faster than the other horses. The Jockey does the work of guiding him most efficiently around the track. You make a profit. Now you could not have made that profit had you not invested, but you also could not have made that profit had not a lot of people put in a lot of work.

You left out the part where none of these scenarios unfold without the guy betting the $2.

[Lefty]

OK you owned stock. Let me ask you a few questions. I don't expect you to answer these questions to me because the answers are none of my business. I just want you to answer them to yourself.

If my memory is correct, you worked as a dealer in a casino. Casinos have stock holders. Regardless of whether you owned stock in the casino where you were employed, was the money you earned on your stocks greater than what you would have earned had the casino paid you two or three dollars an hour more? Was the money you earned on your stocks a guaranteed source of income or were you at the mercy of the market.

Money you make as a dealer is money you worked for. Money you made on your investments is money someone else worked for. I'm not saying your investment is not important, but it is not what caused your bankroll to grow.

It's like being at the track. You put two bucks on a horse. The horse does the work of running faster than the other horses. The Jockey does the work of guiding him most efficiently around the track. You make a profit. Now you could not have made that profit had you not invested, but you also could not have made that profit had not a lot of people put in a lot of work.

It's not important whether or not that I own stock or not. The important part is that you denigrate corporations, you make them sound like some evil entity, when all they are is investors investing in various businesses. If no business made a profit there would be no money for the govt. So when you denigrate corporations, you denigrate over 50% of us. I've worked and i've worked hard for corporations and their investors. Now I'm a small investor. Nobody is stopping any worker from also becoming an investor too, big or small. Without investors there are not any corporations. Without corporations we lose an awful lot of jobs, eh what? Also a lot of small business eventually incorporate.

And no, I never was a dealer. I was a shift boss. In my time i've also worked in factories, been in sales and been a bartender that had to be his own bouncer. I've been underling and i've been boss, and i've never envied what the "other guy had" because the opportunity in this country is available to every damn one of us.

[lsbets]

An infinite number of monkeys typing at an infinite number of typewriters will eventually write AND HOW Mny peoplewill gwt togwthwe to back this.trillionx of us corps holding money overseas or something similar.

But mostie, do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[bigmack]

You left out the part where none of these scenarios unfold without the guy betting the $2.
Can you believe the mind of Mostie?

He NEVER mentions those putting up EVERYTHING to make the whole clambake spin.


Golly, I wish I could see only what I wanted to see as he does.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqdi3t22Pa1qe0eclo1_r4_500.gif

[newtothegame]

Easy ... you distribute the wealth so that the billionaires only end up with 100 million to begin with (poor sods). Why would they need the other 900 million anyway?? I'd be happy with just 10 to be honest, you can keep the 990 remaining millions.
So GM10, an honest question.....what would prevent someone (say me for example so I hurt no ones feelings) from just sitting back and doing nothing, waiting on my "fair share" from those "poor sods" who made too much because of their inginuity?

[ArlJim78]

"In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients." --Thomas Sowell (http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/apr/11/heres-thomas-sowell-quote-yall-wanted/)

[elysiantraveller]

Said hedge fund manager in the article also says that shared sacrifice should be made by all a la the Simpson-Bowles plan.

Most Republicans on here shouldn't have a problem with that. Everyone pays more in taxes and the government spends less and reforms entitlements.

[Valuist]

Nonsense. They were influential at least until the 1950's, 1960's (I'm a neutral observer).
Anyway what is the point of a remark like that. Has nothing to do with the discussion.

It has everything to do with it. I find it funny someone from the UK would tell us how to live our lives. You have your own problems to worry about.

[gm10]

What ratio do you use to distribute the WORK that is required to create that wealth in the first place? Convenient to allege that people do not gain wealth because others are unfair to them. But not true.


I'm not alleging that. I'm just saying that a more even distribution is a much better solution for everyone involved, in the long term.

That was the plan of the British Empire, right? Force one group of people to do all the work and give the wealth to another group? Colonization they called it, I think.

How'd that work our fer ya?

Tom, I'm really not British. You are right about colonization.

[gm10]

So GM10, an honest question.....what would prevent someone (say me for example so I hurt no ones feelings) from just sitting back and doing nothing, waiting on my "fair share" from those "poor sods" who made too much because of their inginuity?

You need to find the right balance between rights and obligations, I guess. That's what the Scandinavians do so well. They can get a lot of help, a lot of benefits, but only when they need it. If they don't need it and they try to abuse the system, they are in trouble. I think most people are willing to help a little when they can be relatively sure that they're not being taken advantage of.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I'm just saying that a more even distribution is a much better solution for everyone involved, in the long term.
...

Even if it was decided that this was the route to take philosophically, you still have this little problem known as the "middleman". The mechanism for who gets how much and the way in which it is distributed is the ultimate flaw in the concept. The smaller scale variation of your concept has already turned the electorate into a collection of extortionists ready to endorse the least qualified, but most unrestrained spinner of promises for votes on the ballot. It has turned those on the ballots into masters of absorbing wealth and power without producing a thing but those promises of payback. I guess that's why law graduates seem to be drawn like homing pigeons to the life.

[ArlJim78]

The income inequality argument is only correct if you ignore many things according to a Cornell study (http://blog.american.com/2012/04/obamas-inequality-argument-just-utterly-collapsed/).

The apparent failure of the median American to benefit from economic growth can largely be explained by the use of an income measure for this purpose which does not fully capture what is actually happening to the resources available to middle class individuals … When using the most restrictive income definition – pre-tax, pre-transfer tax unit cash (market) income—the resources available to the middle class have stagnated over the past three business cycles. In contrast, once broadening the income definition to post-tax, post-transfer size-adjusted household cash income, middle class Americans are found to have made substantial gains.