The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

If they are two distinct, separate statements, not connected, they should not be in the same paragraph immediately following each other.

Also, while both may be true statements and both options afforded the truly wealthy very few truly wealthy would desire to live on $100k a year.

And you're a Sweety. :D


It was two statements- both of which inferred that the truly wealthy can sit back and do nothing more then enjoy their wealth if they wish to.
 
It was two statements- both of which inferred that the truly wealthy can sit back and do nothing more then enjoy their wealth if they wish to.

Yes, they can but it's highly unlikely unless one is quite elderly. That's why this whole conversation about taxes discouraging the wealthy is an aberration. They seldom retire and sit at the beach (do nothing). The truly wealthy stay involved.
 
Yes, they can but it's highly unlikely unless one is quite elderly. That's why this whole conversation about taxes discouraging the wealthy is an aberration. They seldom retire and sit at the beach (do nothing). The truly wealthy stay involved.

I have no problem with closing tax loopholes- but the facts show lowering the corporate tax will stimulate business growth. As to individual tax rates? We already tax the wealthy higher then the non wealthy. If we shrink government including: military; welfare; and entitlements- lower corporate tax rates- close tax loopholes- we could then begin to climb out of this morass.
 
This is what he wrote.

"generates sufficient resources to maintain whatever opulent lifestyle you have become accustomed to. Like I said, you can live pretty large on $100k a year,"

It's reasonable to conclude Dix is referring to $100k a year as income generated from acquired resources and will be sufficient to maintain an "opulent" lifestyle. As Dune explained maintaining anything that resembles an "opulent" lifestyle takes far more than $100k a year.

It's upper middle class. Perhaps an upscale car and the ability to take nice annual vacations. And let's not forget what is the average, healthy, motivated individual going to do all day? If they aren't working Monday to Friday what are they going to do? Most activities take money and being predisposed to "being busy" we can't expect them to be sitting around all week doing nothing.

As I've said before Dixie has no idea about the "inner workings" or day-to-day realities of the well-to-do. His posts are imaginings, how he imagines things are or should be. Once again, that's obvious from his "$100k living large" comment.

You're still not getting the point, which is amazing since I dumbed it down about as much as possible. Rich people don't need to earn income, they are already wealthy. People who aren't yet rich, need to earn incomes to become rich, middle class and poor people need to earn income to survive, but rich people don't need to earn income, they already did. Now, I tried to illustrate how a rich person might choose to get by without earning an income, by throwing out a random figure of $100k, but you took that to be me literally saying that any and all rich people could maintain opulent lifestyles on $100k, and that's not what I said, nor the point I was trying to make. I don't know how else to make this point to a stupid person... A rich person could live whatever lifestyle they wanted to live, and spend whatever amount of their wealth to live it, pay all their bills, pay whatever taxes and fees they owe, and never touch the principle of their wealth. They do not have to earn incomes! That's the point! They can live whatever lifestyle they please... maybe they spend $100k... maybe they spend $1 million... they will pay whatever tax they owe, and pay their gardeners and housekeepers, and take the yacht to Europe... but they still won't have the need to earn an income, their wealth generates enough income for them to do pretty much whatever they please. Raise their income tax rates back up to 91% ...or 100%... it really doesn't matter to people who don't need to earn an income.
 
The wealthy don't have an uncontrollable need to earn money, however, they will do their best to make money regardless of the situation. I think it was you who previously said some people are motivated and others aren't. The wealthy are motivated. They will not give up if they have a chance to make money.

Wealthy people are not motivated to give you the majority of the income they earn. You correctly stated, rich people like to MAKE money, they will indeed do their best to MAKE money, if that happens to be in foreign investment, that's how they will do it, but they do not HAVE to make money by earning taxable income, they have plenty of other options. If you lower top marginal rates, if you reduce corporate and cap gains taxes, you are encouraging the wealthy to earn an income, and since we both agree they like making money, we can presume this is what they would do. When you raise their taxes and burden them excessively, they simply find another way to make money, or maybe they don't make incomes, they don't really need to.
 
You're still not getting the point, which is amazing since I dumbed it down about as much as possible. Rich people don't need to earn income, they are already wealthy. People who aren't yet rich, need to earn incomes to become rich, middle class and poor people need to earn income to survive, but rich people don't need to earn income, they already did. Now, I tried to illustrate how a rich person might choose to get by without earning an income, by throwing out a random figure of $100k, but you took that to be me literally saying that any and all rich people could maintain opulent lifestyles on $100k, and that's not what I said, nor the point I was trying to make. I don't know how else to make this point to a stupid person... A rich person could live whatever lifestyle they wanted to live, and spend whatever amount of their wealth to live it, pay all their bills, pay whatever taxes and fees they owe, and never touch the principle of their wealth. They do not have to earn incomes! That's the point! They can live whatever lifestyle they please... maybe they spend $100k... maybe they spend $1 million... they will pay whatever tax they owe, and pay their gardeners and housekeepers, and take the yacht to Europe... but they still won't have the need to earn an income, their wealth generates enough income for them to do pretty much whatever they please. Raise their income tax rates back up to 91% ...or 100%... it really doesn't matter to people who don't need to earn an income.

Damm you are stupid. Interest is income retard.
 
obama is destroying the economy?

when did you come to this realization kenneth?

No Yurt, the economy was already destroyed before Obama tool office by corporations.

What we needed was an FDR, instead we got a Hoover.

Obama is pandering to Republicans, who are focused on total destruction of the economy through massive debt reductions and cutting programs people need the most in this economy.

FDR saved the banks asses, then he gave them the new rules.
 
You're still not getting the point, which is amazing since I dumbed it down about as much as possible. Rich people don't need to earn income, they are already wealthy. People who aren't yet rich, need to earn incomes to become rich, middle class and poor people need to earn income to survive, but rich people don't need to earn income, they already did. Now, I tried to illustrate how a rich person might choose to get by without earning an income, by throwing out a random figure of $100k, but you took that to be me literally saying that any and all rich people could maintain opulent lifestyles on $100k, and that's not what I said, nor the point I was trying to make. I don't know how else to make this point to a stupid person... A rich person could live whatever lifestyle they wanted to live, and spend whatever amount of their wealth to live it, pay all their bills, pay whatever taxes and fees they owe, and never touch the principle of their wealth. They do not have to earn incomes! That's the point! They can live whatever lifestyle they please... maybe they spend $100k... maybe they spend $1 million... they will pay whatever tax they owe, and pay their gardeners and housekeepers, and take the yacht to Europe... but they still won't have the need to earn an income, their wealth generates enough income for them to do pretty much whatever they please. Raise their income tax rates back up to 91% ...or 100%... it really doesn't matter to people who don't need to earn an income.

"A rich person could live whatever lifestyle they wanted to live, and spend whatever amount of their wealth to live it, pay all their bills, pay whatever taxes and fees they owe, and never touch the principle of their wealth."

You don't even know what you're saying. "spend whatever amount of their wealth to live it," followed by "never touch the principle of their wealth".

OK. Dix. Dumb it down just a little bit more. What are they spending? Try to be specific. Where are they getting their money to spend?
 
Wealthy people are not motivated to give you the majority of the income they earn. You correctly stated, rich people like to MAKE money, they will indeed do their best to MAKE money, if that happens to be in foreign investment, that's how they will do it, but they do not HAVE to make money by earning taxable income, they have plenty of other options. If you lower top marginal rates, if you reduce corporate and cap gains taxes, you are encouraging the wealthy to earn an income, and since we both agree they like making money, we can presume this is what they would do. When you raise their taxes and burden them excessively, they simply find another way to make money, or maybe they don't make incomes, they don't really need to.

You keep repeating the same nonsense. Again, what money are they spending?

If they acquire money in a foreign country they have to bring it here to pay the gardener and the housekeeper and the taxes on their property which is here.

As I have continually stated ALL money should be taxed as income. That is the problem.
 
You keep repeating the same nonsense. Again, what money are they spending?

If they acquire money in a foreign country they have to bring it here to pay the gardener and the housekeeper and the taxes on their property which is here.

As I have continually stated ALL money should be taxed as income. That is the problem.

Yes. Corporations as a different legal entity allowed a different legal relationship with money are inherently anti-individual and collectivist.
 
Ever since the Great Recession shook the foundations of the U.S. economy, President Obama has been promising recovery. Evidence of this recovery, we were told, was manifested in the massive post-bailout profits corporations made. Soon enough, the President assured us, these corporations would tire of hoarding mountains of cash and start a hiring bonanza, followed by raising wages and benefits. It was either wishful thinking or conscious deception. The recent stock market meltdown has squashed any hope of a corporate-led recovery.

The Democrats fought the recession by the same methods the Republicans used to create it: allowing the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts. This strategy, commonly referred to as Reaganomics or Trickle Down Economics, is now religion to both Democrats and Republicans; never mind the staged in-fighting for the gullible or complicit media.

When it becomes obvious to even the President that the economic recovery never existed beyond the bank accounts of the rich, questions will have to be answered. Why, for example, did nobody in either political party foresee the disastrous consequences of the bailouts? Not only did the U.S. deficit drastically increase but the same U.S. corporations that caused the recession were given reinforcement for their destructive actions, ensuring that it would continue unabated.

In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats. Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of "moral hazard" was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember? Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the "too big" banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.

Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession. Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).

This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole. This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery.

Another mainstream economist, Paul Krugman, also admits that the rich's death-grip on the U.S. political and economic system is causing pain for everybody else:

"Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending - destroying jobs in the process - with the only difference being one of degree...policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers [rich investors] - those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else's expense." (June 10, 2011)

Krugman explains that this process continues because the rich dominate the political system through campaign contributions, "access to policy makers,” promises of high paying corporate jobs after their congressional term is over, and good o'l fashion corruption. Because he's a true blue Democrat at heart, Krugman nevertheless focuses most of his rage on Republicans.

Krugman's repeated calls to Democrats and Republicans to create jobs have fallen on deaf ears. Both parties agree that the "private sector" [corporations] should create jobs; until they decide to hire, nothing will happen. This is not merely "bad policy,” as liberals like Krugman like to fret about, but the conscious agenda of the rich. Corporations and rich investors love high unemployment. The Kansas City Star explains why:

"Last year [2010], for the second year in a row, U.S. companies got more work out of their employees while spending less on overall labor costs." (February 3, 2011)

It really is that simple. High unemployment creates a downward pressure on wages, allowing employers to work the remaining employees harder and thus to increase profits. This dynamic, combined with the above commodity speculation, has been the entire basis for the corporate recovery, while working people have literally seen nothing beneficial.

This process is an extension of the bailouts, in the sense that more wealth is being transferred from working people to the corporations. Since consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, policies like these ensure that another crisis is inevitable.

Further complicating matters is the ending of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing program (printing money), which amounted to the Fed buying $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds since last fall, essentially funding the U.S. debt and driving down interest rates.

Since the Fed was buying 60 percent of the bonds, a new creditor will need to be found; and this lender will likely require higher interest rates before loaning to the U.S. government, to make sure the loan is profitable. And although different nations buy U.S. debt for different reasons, much of this debt is bought by rich U.S. citizens, who will put the squeeze on the rest of us that have to pay back this debt. The Washington Times explains:

"...Bill Gross, the head of America's own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco's holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren't yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending." (June 7, 2011)

When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to satisfy these rich investors, the economy will likely take a further nosedive. It appears, then, that the rich have a win-win situation: they got free bailout money, which increased the deficit; and because the deficit is too high, the rich want higher interest rates for investing in U.S. Treasury Bonds. In both instances working people pay the bills.

This insanity cannot be stopped by conventional measures, since politicians are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash. The jobs crisis continues as a result of the policy agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. The labor movement has a special role to play in reversing the above policies.

The corporate-led discussion around cutting social programs to fix the deficits -- on a state and national level -- can be challenged by a nationally coordinated campaign of unions and community allies demanding: Tax the Rich! This demand is significant because it can address both the deficits and the jobs crisis: a massive public works program can be funded by taxing the corporations and the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top. The rich have plenty of money to spare.

Organized labor needs to bring masses of people in the street all over the country in order to get attention and pressure the government to respond to these demands. And it can succeed, especially if it organizes a serious, protracted campaign and especially if this campaign does not get funneled into supporting Democratic candidates, the surest way to kill campaign momentum.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently spoke in favor of a strong, independent labor movement. This is the direction it must take, rather than relying on the Democrats. The labor movement must get its act together, unite to put up a fight and demand specific policies that can concretely address the crisis faced by millions of working people.

By Shamus Cooke

The Federal Reserve, 16th Amendment, the democrat-republican party, and OBAMA are killing our economy.
 
Damm you are stupid. Interest is income retard.

Yep, you are right! Didn't I clarify that rich people will pay whatever taxes they need to pay in order to live their lifestyles?

Are you still missing the point? I think you may be! Perhaps an analogy is in order?

*POOF* The magical money fairy has just deposited $50 million dollars in a tax-free account for you. If you take any of the money out, it is immediately subject to 39% income tax. The account earns you 3% interest per year, which is $1.5 million. You can leave as much of the money in the account as you like, and there will be no tax liability until you withdraw it. Several possibilities present themselves here... Do you withdraw just enough to live a fairly lush lifestyle..say $500,000? This would allow your fortune to increase by $1mil per year, and you could live pretty comfortably on $500k, and your tax bill would be $195k, leaving an actual $305k to spend. OR maybe you take $1 mil a year, leaving your fortune to grow by $500k, and a tax liability of $390k? Either case, your fortune is growing, you are living large, and paying taxes. Following so far???

Okay... your accountant has approached you with a very interesting business proposition... A small company has developed the newest latest innovative electronic device, which will soon be found in every home, it is certain to make you a fortune if you get in on the ground floor. They need a generous investment from you of $25 million. They estimate that you will recover your investment in a few years, and the potential profits could be more than a million per year from there on out... but there is always risk you could lose money, the economy could tank, the company could become entangled in litigation over copyright... nothing is ever a sure thing in the world of business, but this seems like a very good opportunity.

So here is your dilemma... Do you play it safe, keep the money in security investments, live off the interest, pay the low tax... or do you invest in this opportunity? Let's say you invest... Right away, you have to pay the tax on the withdrawal of $25 mil... ($9.75 mil) Within a few years, you are indeed (best case scenario) earning $1 mil, and paying $390k in taxes... you keep $610k (Your $25 mil would be earning 3% in the security account, or $750k, and you never had to pay tax or take a risk.)

If Rich People LIKE making money, why would they do something to LOSE money?
 
Most interest that you either receive or is credited to your account and that can be withdrawn without penalty, is taxable income. Examples of taxable interest are interest on bank accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, and deposited insurance dividends.


http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc403.html

Interest on insurance dividends left on deposit with the Department of Veterans Affairs, however, is not taxable. Interest on Series EE and Series I U.S. Savings Bonds generally does not have to be reported until the bonds mature or are redeemed....interest on some bonds used to finance government and issued by a state, the District of Columbia, or a U.S. possession is not taxable at the federal level.
 
Interest on insurance dividends left on deposit with the Department of Veterans Affairs, however, is not taxable. Interest on Series EE and Series I U.S. Savings Bonds generally does not have to be reported until the bonds mature or are redeemed....interest on some bonds used to finance government and issued by a state, the District of Columbia, or a U.S. possession is not taxable at the federal level.



So? Dumb Yankee claimed that interest isn't income "unless you take it out of the account".
 
Right, he was assuming you are smart enough to have your money in a tax-free security... I realize his thinking you were smart was a stretch.



Did he say that? Or did Yurskin lend you his amazing psychic powers?
 
Back
Top