Ask Detroit what happens when you ignore economic realities. Regarding Norway, it's a problem if you create doctors who leave the country.
i've found most people who feel the need to state they aren't rich are in fact rather wealthy. usually in the top 20%
Fortunately we can and do tax the wealthy. Indeed, the top 10% pay 68% of all the income taxes in the US; they carry most of the burden. Most of the working population of the US is doing fine by any reasonable measure. Not being able to buy a second car, or a 70" TV, does not equate to "not doing fine." (Most people's wages have stagnated since 2008 due to the recession - but taking a longer view, every quintile except the bottom 20% has improved over the last 40 years.) That is akin to saying "the only way to cure cancer is to sicken the healthy." In reality you do not improve society by trying to "pull down" any minority, no matter how much you dislike them. Solutions that help everyone, and not just your favorite special-interest group, are what we should concentrate on. There seems to be this odd idea that if somehow we could improve everyone's income by 1% (in real dollars) that would be some sort of cataclysm - because the rich would make more money as well. That's simple class jealousy, and has no place in any serious discussion of economic realities.
P.J. O'Rourke wrote a humorous and truthful book called "Eat The Rich". The idea is that it does no one any good to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Eliminating the Bill Gates of this world doesn't help the poor and only makes our "pie" smaller. The economy is larger due to Gates, not smaller. He got his money from making the pie larger for everyone. If you tax all incentive out of our system no one will take the risks to create new businesses. Look at how few innovations come out of France and the Scandinavian countries.
you do realize bill gates is one those advocating for higher taxes on the rich right? what incentives are there in our current system slave a way to make a rich guy richer. your just mouthing the same platitudes the right has been for the past 3 decades while income remains stagnate for everyone but the rich. the simple fact remains if you took 200 million from the richest 1% and just gave it to the poorest 20% you'd probably grow the economy by a billion dollars. again economic illiterates like your self don't seem to get it that if you pay people decent wages instead of squeezing every ounce you can out of them the economy grows. rich people don't do shit for the economy. the poor and the middle class drive it. so why protect the people who are lucky instead of the truly important people. want to know what happens in the long run if all the rich people go away...... nothing because for the most part the rich people you defend don't create anything.
the income of most americans has been stagnate for 30 years in real terms. most of the US is not doing fine. no is saying improving everybody is a bad idea. but its tiring to see the one percent being the only people whose income is rising.
Except employ poor people, and pay most of the taxes in the US. We shouldn't be trying to protect or destroy everyone. Instead we should provide a framework so that anyone, rich or poor, can be successful through their own hard work. Well, except you wouldn't be able to use your PC to post on the Internet to complain about all the successful people who developed the computers, wrote the code and set up the network that lets you complain.
Since 1984? Top 4 quintiles are up. Bottom 20% are flat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i'm really fucking tired of this lie. no the rich don't create jobs. poor and middle class people do by buying things with their increasing smaller incomes. all the rich do is fill jobs created by others. they themselves don't create them. of course they make the most money. the top 10% make over half of all the income. your wealthy aren't you. its real easy to say that when your the one on top. and the wealthy having been making sure nothings a meritocracy for decades. its cute really that you still believe these lies. but its time to grow up and deal with reality that it doesn't matter how hard you work success is not going to come your way unless you have the right connections. the poor work the hardest where does it get them. you mean all the people funded by the american and british governments? you mean those ones? the rich had nothing to with those government did.
The top 4 look pretty flat to me too, at least since 1998. The reality is that if you look closer, all of the quintiles peaked in around 1999, then with the economic cycles didn't quite or just barely reached that peak again the next time they cycled-up.
you can roll your eyes all you want it doesn't change the facts and the facts are the rich can't create jobs. the poor and middle class create jobs with their spending. but as the rich continue to depress their incomes there will come a point where they can no longer do that
You do realize that you calling someone illiterate is ironic? Are you arguing that you have done as much for society and the economy as Bill Gates? Most people who are upper middle class and up didn't get there from being lucky. I'm not arguing that there should be no ongoing adjustments in tax rates and/or public policies. Just tearing down those who have been successful in a monetary sense (something that you would like for yourself as well presumably) doesn't do anything positive for anyone else.
i see in addition to misunderstanding how the word was being used and the point in general you also don't seem to know what ironic means. and know i don't. because contrary to your implication i do actually know what the hell I'm talking about. instead of insulting me poorly because you never even made the attempt to understand the point try thinking. i'll leave the egomania to those who believe we owe the rich and they actually add something meaningful. that you even asked this only goes to show how little you understand the point. I'm really getting tired of getting responses that are knee jerk partisan answers. yeah actually they did. either by being born rich( the US has the highest amount of wealth transferred from generation to generation of the first world) or by being lucky to find the circumstances that their talents are best at. Warren buffet admits he was lucky why can't you. its not about tearing any body down. but when 95% of income gains go to the top 1% that's problematic. a more equitable distribution of income gains benefits everyone in the long run. the wealthy have been keeping everyone else down these past 3 decades the sooner people realize that instead of defending their harmful antics the better off we all will be.
I find it interesting that you keep identifying with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and yet they wouldn't agree with your points. Sure, they say they are willing to pay a little more in income tax (I've said nothing that would rule that out as well) but they wouldn't be in agreement with your general (angry and dismissive of everyone else) argument. So, it sounds like you would be fine if we simply turned the clock back 30 years? Our system hasn't changed that much since then.
i paraphrased one of warren buffet's own points. do you not pay attention. once again your wrong. warren buffet at least has said most of the points I've brought up. and if i sound angry and dismissive it because i am. i'm tired of people trotting own old arguments that have been shown false years ago. and i am generally dismissive toward bad ideas. instead of whining about my tone since you seem offended i won't bow down to the alter of the rich try making a better argument. on the surface perhaps but the details have and that you think things haven't changed radically in our system is telling. probably why you seem intellectual incapable of understanding my argument and making shit up. I never identified with buffet or gates. you seem to think because i think you know the people that spend money create jobs rather than the people who have the funds to take advantage of the opertunties the lower classes create means i think i'm bill gates. so instead of sniping at me. take a step back and actually think about what i said instead of what you want me to have said.
Please correct me if I'm wrong... You want to increase income taxes on those making more than you. At what income level do you want the increase to start at? Shall we end the mortgage interest exemption for buying a house? I'd be OK with that. House prices would just come down by the amount of the exemption and not much else would change. If you have a house, I'm assuming you don't want that. You want that benefit to stop for houses that cost more than yours. There is already an upper limit so it doesn't benefit the rich by the way. If you own any stocks you are OK with capital gains taxes as long as it applies to the amount of stock that you own (if any) and don't want there to be capital gains taxes above a certain amount. What amount is that? If you don't own any stocks you want all stock gains to be taxed as regular income even though many other people at your same income level who do own some stocks will now have their taxes go up because you are pissed off at the rich. What other specific changes are you for?
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Irwin Jacobs, Elon Musk - these people didn't create jobs? Not in the top 20% but I am sure you would consider me rich. My parents were schoolteachers; my grandparents were immigrants. Since I know several people for which this is provably false, you'll have to do better than that. Apple was created by the government? Microsoft is a government program? Intel was created through government funding? Firefox? Interesting theories you have there.
I don't think anyone of merit is arguing for the destruction of the wealthy. When wealth becomes an obstruction or hindrance to growth, competition, and social stability as appears to be the case in the US, then corrective action is needed. Unfortunately, under Republican administrations and congresses the wealthy have become sacrosanct...sacred cows. If one even observes or suggests anything that might be limit or hinder the political power or increase the taxes of our wealthiest citizens, they are accused promptly of "class warfare" - courtesy of right wing entertainment. Our wealthiest citizens might be talented folks, but they are not gods and they certainly shouldn't be the sacrosanct icons the Republican entertainment industry has made them. I don't think our current tax rates, especially for the wealthy, are anywhere near the point of endangering competition given that they are near historic lows. No one of merit is arguing for a Soviet style economy. And the fact is during the most prosperous time in American history marginal tax rates on America's wealthiest were as high as 94% and those high rates didn't stymie competition and economic prosperity. Even as recently as 1981 the top marginal tax rate was 70% and it didn't stop innovators like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Paul Allen. Microsoft was founded in 1975 when the top marginal tax rate was 70% and the highest long term capital gains rate was 40%. Given the highest marginal tax rate is now 39.6% and the highest long term capital gains tax is 20%, the US government has a lot of latitude to raise taxes on the nation's wealthiest citizens. Higher tax rates didn't hinder all the innovators and entrepreneurs of 70's, 80's, and 90's.
Labeling an argument that you disagree with as "right wing entertainment" does nothing to strengthen your argument. Middle class individuals and small businesses legitimately shouldn't favor raising capital gains taxes and marginal income tax rates on themselves. It's not a matter of raising the taxes on the wealthiest 5%. You can do it but it doesn't solve any problems. You need to raise it on the middle class to make a large difference and I don't favor that. Raising taxes to do what? To start another war or to reduce the debt? The most efficient use of funds isn't to transfer them from the private sector to the public sector. Sports figures make a lot of money compared to what the average person makes. Does it some how make your life better if they make less? It's not as straightforward as saying that ticket prices would be reduced. TV contracts are what pays their salary for the most part. The salary of a sports star doesn't reduce your salary in any way. I've noticed (this is just a general comment not personal to you) that many think that anyone who has any knowledge of economics is right wing or a Fox viewer or lumped into the craziness that is the current Republican party. It's a misleading and incorrect assumption. One can be progressive and not think that the solution is to raise taxes. People never want to raise tazes on themselves but feel it's OK to do it on someone just above them until they get there and then it should be done on people just above thatPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
