We're NOT Number 1: Guess Which Country Now Has a More Affluent Middle Class Than....

[Jarod]

It's the best way to deal with income inequality. I mean, the basic idea is that the benefits of economic growth accure to the high end of income distribution and not to the low end of the income distribution. The best way to correct that is to lower the benefits accruing to the high end and increase the benefit accruing to the lower end. Redistribution, through taxation on the upper end of income earners and benefits provided to lower income earners, is a fairly efficient way of doing it.

P.S. - I'm ignoring your "going after" rhetoric becuase I think it's stupid.

The term "going after" was ignored by me also. It was thrown in to make it look like this is based on envy or something. Its based on very sound economic principals... and its not the individuals who achieved the most who I am talking about.... Its the individuals whos parents or Grandparents or Greatgrandparents achieved the most, or stole the most.

I come from a very long line of wealthy people. The money was mostly all lost in my grandparents generation, if you trace it back, they had the money going back to the 1500's. One direct descendent was a Welsh Provencal king who basically garnered huge wealth by exploiting the surfs on his land. Had my grandparents been more diligent with protecting the assets, it would have been fairly easy, I would still be living off of the fact that this particular welsh king was able to garner so much.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You have a bad habit of not answering questions and instead posing questions of your own.

I would think a person would be able to tell by the question that theirs was answered. There is a huge difference between saying something 'deteriorated' and something 'stagnated'. So yes you fucking retard, it is better to stay stagnated, though when accounting for benefits etc... it is still not entirely accurate.

 

[wiseones2cents]

The real reason Canada's middle class is thriving is OIL.

We are rich in all resources period. Oil plays a major part in our currency strength and buying power, but that somehow does not percolate down to the consumer.

Even with our dollar up like 35 cents to the US dollar? Prices still continue to climb. That's not how capitalism works, is it?

 

[putsometrebleinit]

Nice story Jarod. So you should be able to understand that vast sums of money can be blown and that it requires some sort of business acumen to retain that fortune. Very few of the wealthiest in America inherited their wealth. The Waltons, and Mars family have grown the business that their parents started, hell even the evil scary devilish boogeymen the Koch brothers have grown their fathers company to 2600 times what it was when their father was in charge. So why paint the ones who have inherited their wealth in a bad light if it's not jealousy? Why shouldn't successful people be allowed to leave their children with the money that they earned? Will you leave your children an inheritance or give your assets away and tell them that it just wasn't fair that they have more than everyone else because you planned well for your future?


Why don't we take everything away from the wealthiest Americans while we're at it. It would shave about 2 trillion dollars off of our 17 trillion dollar debt. Or we could just redistribute it and watch everything slowly return to the status quo here. Because the best and brightest will always rise to the top and there is nothing you can do to change it. The unproductive will continue to be so. Hell if having money you didn't earn was enough to make you super wealthy then there would never be a bankrupt lottery winner and the Super jackpot winners would replace the Waltons and the Kochs.

I wish we could have an Atlas Shrugged moment come to life in America and then maybe it would shut all the ideologues up when the reality of who the drivers and innovators of our economy are sets in.

 

[cawacko]

No, that is clearly not what I said.

Creating a system that allows those who work hardest, or are able to accomplish the most is the best way to boost the middle class. If you look at the nations who are inching up on us with regards the wealth of the middle class, you will see that they all have a very large inheritance tax, and the percent of tax paid by the upper class is much higher, percentage wise than what our wealthy pay.

One of the major problems economically currently is that huge amounts of wealth is stuck with the wealthy and they are sitting on it, because of low interest rates. If they were investing there would be an argument that they help the economy. I would argue that the money would still provide more benefit if it were with the middle class. Currently, a person born middle class can work very hard, achieve a great amount of benefit to society, yet will have very little different to show for it than what he started with. That is why our middle class does not grow as fast as those nations whose tax structure is based on a "Scandinavian socialist model."

If the wealthy are just sitting on their money then whose money is fueling the stock market and real estate boom?

 

[Bonestorm]

If the wealthy are just sitting on their money then whose money is fueling the stock market and real estate boom?

I don't think it's accurate to say that they are just "sitting on" their money and not investing. They're investing. And the returns on their capital investments exceed the returns on labor, and those returns are subject to favorable tax treatment (not to mention various loopholes that the wealthy take advantage of) such that the ultrawealthy don't really have to do much to perpetuate thier wealth, which continues grow at a pace substantially higher than the return on labor. The net result is ever increasing inequality.

This guy wrote a book about it recently. But he's about your age and French and Socialist so maybe you never heard of it.

 

[Jarod]

If the wealthy are just sitting on their money then whose money is fueling the stock market and real estate boom?

They are starting to put it out there, but much of that comes from the middle class.

 

[cawacko]

They are starting to put it out there, but much of that comes from the middle class.

So even though our middle class is shrinking it has enough money to send the stock market to record levels as well as real estate prices in certain parts of the country? And because there are low interest rates are the rich and wealthy just putting their money under their mattresses?

 

[Bonestorm]

They are starting to put it out there, but much of that comes from the middle class.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Jarod]

So even though our middle class is shrinking it has enough money to send the stock market to record levels as well as real estate prices in certain parts of the country? And because there are low interest rates are the rich and wealthy just putting their money under their mattresses?

Yes, but as the upper class grows, even the smaller percent they are contributing helps. What would be most helpful would be that the middle class would grow significantly and then we would invest and the entire nation would grow in a healthy way.

 

[Jarod]

Nice story Jarod. So you should be able to understand that vast sums of money can be blown and that it requires some sort of business acumen to retain that fortune. Very few of the wealthiest in America inherited their wealth. The Waltons, and Mars family have grown the business that their parents started, hell even the evil scary devilish boogeymen the Koch brothers have grown their fathers company to 2600 times what it was when their father was in charge. So why paint the ones who have inherited their wealth in a bad light if it's not jealousy? Why shouldn't successful people be allowed to leave their children with the money that they earned? Will you leave your children an inheritance or give your assets away and tell them that it just wasn't fair that they have more than everyone else because you planned well for your future?


Why don't we take everything away from the wealthiest Americans while we're at it. It would shave about 2 trillion dollars off of our 17 trillion dollar debt. Or we could just redistribute it and watch everything slowly return to the status quo here. Because the best and brightest will always rise to the top and there is nothing you can do to change it. The unproductive will continue to be so. Hell if having money you didn't earn was enough to make you super wealthy then there would never be a bankrupt lottery winner and the Super jackpot winners would replace the Waltons and the Kochs.

I wish we could have an Atlas Shrugged moment come to life in America and then maybe it would shut all the ideologues up when the reality of who the drivers and innovators of our economy are sets in.

My grandfather was one of 12 siblings. All he would have had to do with the 1/12th that he inherited would have been to put it in a simple interest bearing account to have made a tun of money. He chose not to do that because he did not believe in banks or interest, he put that money in a savings account, where we found the last bit of it when he got very sick.

Sure some of the wealthy families got more wealthy and some superrich. That's how it works, but very very few of the wealthiest came from the middle class. The Waltons are an exception.. but the Koch brothers and Donald Trump are not, they came from upper class families to begin with.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having inherited wealth. What is wrong is a system that rewards being born with money more than it rewards hard work, and ability.

 

[cawacko]

I don't think it's accurate to say that they are just "sitting on" their money and not investing. They're investing. And the returns on their capital investments exceed the returns on labor, and those returns are subject to favorable tax treatment (not to mention various loopholes that the wealthy take advantage of) such that the ultrawealthy don't really have to do much to perpetuate thier wealth, which continues grow at a pace substantially higher than the return on labor. The net result is ever increasing inequality.
.
This guy wrote a book about it recently. But he's about your age and French and Socialist so maybe you never heard of it.

What do you believe the returns on capital investments are? I've read reviews of the book that Piketty says they are 4%-5%. Obviously that's not coming from a savings account. You can get that and more in the stock market but there's clearly no guarantee. Depending on where you invest you can get that in real estate as well but again no guarantee. You can invest directly in start up ventures which boost the risk and return rates even higher.

I'll be honest I don't know what rate is given for return on labor.

 

[The Dude]

In many ways, but most specifically by making class mobility based on achievement more possible. When you tax the rich more, and give the poor and middle class more of a break.. you break up the log jam the wealth have on the power and access.

As achievement is rewarded over having been born with wealth the middle class rises. What class works the hardest, Id say, and studies prove.. its the middle.

Not remotely close

 

[The Dude]

I don't think it's accurate to say that they are just "sitting on" their money and not investing. They're investing. And the returns on their capital investments exceed the returns on labor, and those returns are subject to favorable tax treatment (not to mention various loopholes that the wealthy take advantage of) such that the ultrawealthy don't really have to do much to perpetuate thier wealth, which continues grow at a pace substantially higher than the return on labor. The net result is ever increasing inequality.

This guy wrote a book about it recently. But he's about your age and French and Socialist so maybe you never heard of it.

I agree with everything except that it's a bad thing.
Provide more and cheaper education and many more can get rich too

 

[Truth Detector]

No, its liberalism, that provides real opportunity for the middle class instead of making sure the rich can keep their money generation after generation regardless of if the work for it.

Bullshit; but then one does need hip waders when you engage in thread debates.

 

[Truth Detector]

When you tax the rich more, and give the poor and middle class more of a break.. you break up the log jam the wealth have on the power and access.

Bullshit; how does Government theft via taxation of the rich equate to giving the Middle Class and poor a “break?” What a pile of utter stupidity.

I’m going to give you a clue, dear clueless wonder; you give the Middle Class and poor a break by removing the barriers to JOB CREATION.

Giving BIG Government MORE of the citizen’s wealth only empowers the politicians to pander to ignorant dunces like you to stay elected.

As achievement is rewarded over having been born with wealth the middle class rises. What class works the hardest, Id say, and studies prove.. its the middle.

Once again one requires hip waders for the amount of utter bullshit that erupts from your keyboard.

I would like you to provide ONE credible example of how Government taxation equates to raising one’s status from poor to Middle Class and from Middle Class to wealth.

How is achievement rewarded by allowing the Government to steal more wealth from those who earn it? I can’t imagine a more retarded argument.

Not too many of the wealthy in this country were “born” to wealth. Please substantiate that bullshit with something more substantive than “because you said so.”

I would love to see your “studies” showing that the Middle Class works harder than any other “class”. Of course, you might find something in a Karl Marx manifesto on such class envy stupidity, but I seriously doubt you can find any credible support for such lunatic claims.

 

[Damocles]

Sour grapes Damocles... why are you refusing to defend your comments about your guy Bundy?

You have apparently not revisited the thread. You spout bumper stickers and pretend it is knowledge.

 

[Truth Detector]

It's the best way to deal with income inequality.

I have a question for idiots who parrot this income inequality bullshit; when has income EVER been equal?

You have to be incredibly stupid to parrot such nonsensical bullshit.

I mean, the basic idea is that the benefits of economic growth accure to the high end of income distribution and not to the low end of the income distribution.

It is a bullshit claim. Economic growth accrues to all who are engaged in it as evidenced by the last 200 plus years of this nation’s existence.

The best way to correct that is to lower the benefits accruing to the high end and increase the benefit accruing to the lower end.

More bullshit; I am putting on my hip waders now. Please try to give an intelligent economic argument of how letting the Government steal more wealth of those at the top equates to benefits that accrue to those who did not earn it.

The best example of the stupidity you are erupting with here is to look at former and present Communist nations that operate under such stupid ideas.

Redistribution, through taxation on the upper end of income earners and benefits provided to lower income earners, is a fairly efficient way of doing it.

Bullshit; there is not ONE case that shows how redistribution provides benefits to the lower income earners and raises them from poverty. We have been engaged in that nonsense since the New Deal. We have spent $21 trillion on this “war on poverty” only to have mindless twits like you claim it just wasn’t enough and if we just spend $20 trillion more, equity and equality in incomes will be achieved.

How stupid, uninformed and ignorant does one have to be to parrot such blithering stupidity?

P.S. - I'm ignoring your "going after" rhetoric becuase I think it's stupid.

You think that is stupid after the stupidity you just erupted with? Ironic I would say.

 

[Truth Detector]

The term "going after" was ignored by me also. It was thrown in to make it look like this is based on envy or something. Its based on very sound economic principals.

Wrong again you ignorant twit; there is nothing “sound” parroting Marxist inequality talking points.

Please provide ONE credible economist who supports such utter stupidity.

I come from a very long line of wealthy people. The money was mostly all lost in my grandparents generation, if you trace it back, they had the money going back to the 1500's. One direct descendent was a Welsh Provencal king who basically garnered huge wealth by exploiting the surfs on his land. Had my grandparents been more diligent with protecting the assets, it would have been fairly easy, I would still be living off of the fact that this particular welsh king was able to garner so much.

I don’t know which requires higher hip waders, the economic bullshit you erupt with, or the personal anecdotal bullshit you spam the forum with.

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't think it's accurate to say that they are just "sitting on" their money and not investing. They're investing. And the returns on their capital investments exceed the returns on labor, and those returns are subject to favorable tax treatment (not to mention various loopholes that the wealthy take advantage of) such that the ultrawealthy don't really have to do much to perpetuate thier wealth, which continues grow at a pace substantially higher than the return on labor. The net result is ever increasing inequality.

More utter bullshit. Bill Gates created more jobs and wealth than any moronic Government redistribution scheme used by dishonest politicians to dupe gullible twits like you into voting for them.

Bill Gates created hundreds of millionaires from his efforts as well.

The same can be said for Steven Jobs; Tom Monaghan, Truet Cathy and Sam Walton etc etc etc.

This guy wrote a book about it recently. But he's about your age and French and Socialist so maybe you never heard of it.

That French Communist you are quoting is Thomas Piketty. His Marxist tome has to be one of the dumbest pieces of garbage clueless leftist Liberals have ever glommed onto.

He advocates a progressive income tax of 80% with ZERO proof or data to support the belief that this will lead to "income equality". Of course it never occurs to Spcialist dimwits like Piketty that incomes have NEVER been equal.....EVER.

Nor is it clear, as Piketty asserts, that the only way to avoid a future of slow growth and extreme inequality is through confiscatory taxation. His prescription is an annual global wealth tax of up to 2 percent combined with progressive income tax rates that run as high as 80 percent. Yet as he himself acknowledges, the “golden years” were golden because of a complex interplay among laws, regulations, taxes and other restraints on corporate power. If confronted with unacceptable levels of inequality, why would democratic societies in the future be unable or unwilling to formulate a similar set of institutional restraints on capitalism?

This is the sage part of Piketty's book:

In its magisterial sweep and ambition, Piketty’s latest work, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” is clearly modeled after Marx’s “Das Kapital.” But where Marx’s research was spotty, Piketty’s is prodigious. And where Marx foresaw capitalism’s collapse leading to a utopian proletariat paradise, Piketty sees a future of slow growth and Gilded Age disparities in which the wealthy—owners of capital—capture a steadily larger share of global wealth and income.

One need not read it much further to comprehend what an utter pile of Big Government Marxist bullshit it contains.