Nobel Peace Prize

[MoBoost]

Oh, how short memories are, how history fades away ... tell me what was one the main causes of great depression, hint it has to do with taxes:

I don't know how you guys get programmed to dance to "the rich" tune. But when the middle class disappears - remember, only the rich will become SUPER rich - everybody else gets to be VERY poor - welcome to the third world country.

 

[aeropb]

tax those rich ****ers

 

[patrickcudd]

Oh, how short memories are, how history fades away ... tell me what was one the main causes of great depression, hint it has to do with taxes:

I don't know how you guys get programmed to dance to "the rich" tune. But when the middle class disappears - remember, only the rich will become SUPER rich - everybody else gets to be VERY poor - welcome to the third world country.

I love that chart! It looks correct. BUT, insert the Democratic presidents and the arrows will show what the tax rate was when those Republicans took over. Now notice the dips in the rate right after the arrow!

And you were previously saying something about using misinformation??? LOL!

 

[doctorjj]

Oh, how short memories are, how history fades away ... tell me what was one the main causes of great depression, hint it has to do with taxes:

I don't know how you guys get programmed to dance to "the rich" tune. But when the middle class disappears - remember, only the rich will become SUPER rich - everybody else gets to be VERY poor - welcome to the third world country.

Taxing the rich has never improved the middle class.

 

[MoBoost]

I love that chart! It looks correct. BUT, insert the Democratic presidents and the arrows will show what the tax rate was when those Republicans took over. Now notice the dips in the rate right after the arrow!
And you were previously saying something about using misinformation??? LOL!

I didn't bring up a chart as some sort of political statement - only as economical. The rich got it as good as ever - and yet present it as an opposite.

Taxing the rich has never improved the middle class.

But not taxing them put the country into depression of the 1930s and recession of the 2000s ...
Like it or not - country takes $X to run and it can "produce" only $Y. Not taxing the rich has to come at the expense of the rest. Rich are not in the "production" - they are in management and investment. You burden the "workers" and the $Y goes down and therefore the $X goes down - and there you go - budget deficit and recession.

 

[Johnjosiah]

If you don't spend more than you take in it isn't a problem. Government redistribution of wealth never works because government is so inefficient. People are inherently self serving and so is government. Historically speaking it appears dictators that care about their people are best but they always turn it over to the children who screw it up. Also, someone needs to define rich....90% on 250K income or 90% on 250M income. Also, if you start taxing me more I'm going to quit producing and there goes your revenue. I could also argue part of the shrinking middle class is lack of incentive to produce and move from lower income to higher income. Too many people just want what the government gives them. I agree there needs to be a redistribution there is no reason for anybody to 50B in net worth, but that should come at their demise and is a different discussion for now. There should be no something for nothing. I don't care if it is picking up trash on the side of the road. If you want a check you produce something.

 

[MoBoost]

Good data here (not necessarily interpretation) : http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

 

[ripnbst]

When those who are 50B in net worth die the wealth is typically distributed.

 

[EFsDad]

I didn't bring up a chart as some sort of political statement - only as economical. The rich got it as good as ever - and yet present it as an opposite.

Here's your economical statement

To paraphrase: It's a spending problem stupid.

But not taxing them put the country into depression of the 1930s and recession of the 2000s ...
Like it or not - country takes $X to run and it can "produce" only $Y. Not taxing the rich has to come at the expense of the rest. Rich are not in the "production" - they are in management and investment. You burden the "workers" and the $Y goes down and therefore the $X goes down - and there you go - budget deficit and recession.

This is nonsense, the depression was because we did not tax enough and that is the cause of the recession in the 2000s???

You need to quit drinking the Kool-aide and take a deep breath to clear your head.

 

[Johnjosiah]

Depends on how you set up your trust fund for the 50B. The Walton family still controls many many billions. Sam would probably be worlds richest person but instead probably worlds richest family. Warren Buffett is leaving his to Bill Gates charity combining their billions and not much it appears will be redistributed the middle class.