Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[Throckmorton]

Do you have an IRA, 401K, ROTH IRA or other investment tool? Maybe a house?
You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

I have a simple IRA and over the past year I took all the money out of it. The tax rate is I believe 25%, which is twice my normal income tax rate. The state will also tax me, I just don't know how much.

I had about $3000 in medical expenses and $3000 in moving expenses, which somehow adds up to less than the standard deduction because of math I don't understand, so I don't get those deductions either.

 

[sao123]

You're not letting them have anything - it's their money. You are simply arguing that you have done more to deserve their property than they have - the fundamental argument of all wealth redistribution policy.

actually the fundamental argument of all wealth redistribution policy is that: when al lthe capital is pooled into 1 area, things come to a grinding halt, except for a small circlejerk among the elite. And then the governing body which allowed this to happen is overthrown by that population.

 

[ElFenix]

wealth tends to concentrate itself. it's an inherent function of compound interest. those with less wealth tend to invest in things with lower, less risky returns (and keep in mind that a house has returns beyond it's monetary value, namely that you can live in it). those with more wealth tend to be more diversified and garner larger returns. if you start with an even amount of wealth between 2 people, and one get 5% returns and the other gets 10% returns, the one with 10% returns will have more money faster. 2 people start with $1, the one at 10% has about $22,000 after 100 years while the one at 5% has about $150.

THere is no reason it should be taxed at all.

(that is unless your ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth)

skinny nerds making billions wouldn't have sh!t without government. the wealth has already been redistributed.

 

[Atreus21]

Gates is actually a perfect example. Name something that he coded himself. Gates didn't write DOS, he bought it.

5 seconds + wikipedia + copy + paste = ENLIGHTENMENT!

At the end of the ban, the four students offered to find bugs in CCC's software in exchange for computer time. Rather than use the system via teletype, Gates went to CCC's offices and studied source code for various programs that ran on the system, including programs in FORTRAN, LISP, and machine language. The arrangement with CCC continued until 1970, when the company went out of business. The following year, Information Sciences, Inc. hired the four Lakeside students to write a payroll program in COBOL, providing them computer time and royalties. After his administrators became aware of his programming abilities, Gates wrote the school's computer program to schedule students in classes. He modified the code so that he was placed in classes with mostly female students. He later stated that "it was hard to tear myself away from a machine at which I could so unambiguously demonstrate success."[18] At age 17, Gates formed a venture with Allen, called Traf-O-Data, to make traffic counters based on the Intel 8008 processor.[20] In early 1973, Bill Gates served as a congressional page in the U.S. House of Representatives.[21]

Microsoft is built on the leveraging of property rights, and it grew by plagiarism and theft and anticompetitive practices. His stock is worth so much because it represents ownership of the programmers at Microsoft. If Microsoft didn't own their work the company would be worthless.

You think Gates alone could write Office 2010 or Windows 7? Get a clue.

In other words, you want people only to produce what they themselves know how to produce. Which means you think you should know how to craft, assemble, build, and program the computer you're using before you use it to type such a retarded statement.

You know what we call absolute self-sufficiency these days? Poverty.

 

[CycloWizard]

We need seperation of corporation and state.

Agreed.

 

[CycloWizard]

actually the fundamental argument of all wealth redistribution policy is that: when al lthe capital is pooled into 1 area, things come to a grinding halt, except for a small circlejerk among the elite. And then the governing body which allowed this to happen is overthrown by that population.

The populace only has reason to go after the government if the government is the one choosing the winners and the losers. That is definitely the case in the US now, where "incentivizing" is somehow one of the main roles of two branches of government. You can either assume that people have a right to property or that they don't. If they do, then it's not anyone else's business how much wealth they accumulate. If they don't, then I'm coming over to your place to take your TV tonight. After all, mine's looking a little dusty.

 

[Moonbeam]

That may be the case, but it's hard to really discuss meaningfully. Not to mention the problems with the "system" are so much more fundamental than the specifics of one's economic system. I'd say that most talent is extinguished due to societal forces that are much more primal than economics. Just look at how rigid our expectations are for how children become socialized; everyone needs to know their "place", and anyone who doesn't is labeled with a disorder. (I'm a big fan of Michel Foucault's analysis of public institutions.)

You should probably start your own threads on these matters so as to set the tone of the debate, or something to that effect. You have established, quit a while back now to my satisfaction, that your thinking is acute, well developed, expansive, and more. Personally, I would rather hear what you have to say in detail and depth than be impoverished by infrequent gems you post here. If you are of the skill set at the level of tens of thousands in 7 billion, and I would not argue at all that you are not, though I am not of a caliber who could really judge, you would have to be, certainly, a real statistical anomaly here. You should have your own forum.

I have never had the pleasure of focusing at any length of M Foucault but perhaps I will make an effort to put his ideas under my lens. Maybe he has a famous relative. But at any rate the first thought that jumps to my head is that economic and social structure go hand in hand and are within some parameters, one and the same thing.

Do you publish?

 

[Anarchist420]

The reason there is such a large concentration of wealth is because there is fiat currency, frb, because banks are allowed to gamble away peoples' life savings (wealth inequalities exploded after Glass Steagall was repealed), and because there are so many regulations and barriers to entry (including anti-trust).

Finally, having an income tax and all of these damn wars doesn't exactly help matters. I'm fine with inequalities wealth in the state of nature or like under the Articles of Confederation, but not under the Constitution system we have.

In any event, plutocracy is apparently popular. If it wasn't, then the majority wouldn't be voting these assholes into power. Rather, they'd vote to end the Constitution and to reinstate the Articles of Confederation except only with 2/3 of the states required for legislation to pass rather than 9 and an article dealing with divergence of a state.

All democracy is is plutocracy.

 

[QuantumPion]

you know, I don't normally feed trolls, but this one is just too juicy to pass up, so I'll bite:

I'm fine with inequalities wealth in the state of nature or like under the Articles of Confederation, but not under the Constitution system we have.

lol wut? would you like to elaborate on that point buddy?

 

[peonyu]

The 1% didn't earn that 25% themselves. It comes from the productivity of all the workers below them. The fact that they're taking 25% means that they're taking a huge share of the proceeds of that productivity, at the expense of the workers.

The result is that wealth is concentrated, and the average person is very poor in reality. Look at the 20% downpayment thread. The average income person, making $50k, can no longer afford the average valued $300k house.

Look at the bonus's they vote for themselves to receive. I wish I could vote for myself to receive a 25 million + dollar bonus. They could instead of course, take that huge bonus and split it amongst them and their workers...But that's a joke to even mention.

If they paid themselves half as much, they could pay the rest of us 16% more. What could you do with a 16% raise?

They would just raise costs across the board by 16%. "Oh look I got a 16% raise! Hey...Hey, the hell ? Why is Gas 16% more now, and food ? What the fuck."

 

[jonks]

I stopped after I read, "1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income." This is the problem with the "new" America:

That it stops reading when it encounters the slightest disagreement with a peronally held view? Yes, that is a problem.

As to the rest of your post, you seem happy to ignore the author's point, which is not that a person isn't entitled to what he earns, but rather what the consequences are of unmitigated and continued concentrations of wealth.

 

[Throckmorton]

Look at the bonus's they vote for themselves to receive. I wish I could vote for myself to receive a 25 million + dollar bonus. They could instead of course, take that huge bonus and split it amongst them and their workers...But that's a joke to even mention.




They would just raise costs across the board by 16%. "Oh look I got a 16% raise! Hey...Hey, the hell ? Why is Gas 16% more now, and food ? What the fuck."

I don't think that's true... it's not like the total amount of money in the economy would increase.

 

[HomerJS]

Look at the bonus's they vote for themselves to receive. I wish I could vote for myself to receive a 25 million + dollar bonus. They could instead of course, take that huge bonus and split it amongst them and their workers...But that's a joke to even mention.




They would just raise costs across the board by 16%. "Oh look I got a 16% raise! Hey...Hey, the hell ? Why is Gas 16% more now, and food ? What the fuck."

And how is it these guys can totally screw up the company/economy (Wall St, Transocean Exec (managed BP oil rig)) and still get multi-million dollar raises. Any of us little guys get that deal??

 

[theeedude]

Do you have an IRA, 401K, ROTH IRA or other investment tool? Maybe a house?
You would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

It's broadening the base for ordinary income taxes, which could be offset by reducing rate on lower brackets.
Wast majority of capital gains and dividends go to the wealthiest.
For the middle class, the extra revenue from taxing that income could be used to more than offset the additional taxes they would pay on small part of their income by cutting income taxes on earnings, which makes up the vast majority of middle class income. So it would not be cutting nose to spite the face at all. Plus middle class is reliant on Medicare and SS a lot more than the wealthy, so if the extra revenue is used to support those programs, that is a net win to the middle class. Of course it's a net loss to the super wealthy, so GOP is going to fight it tooth and nail.

 

[CycloWizard]

That it stops reading when it encounters the slightest disagreement with a peronally held view? Yes, that is a problem.

As to the rest of your post, you seem happy to ignore the author's point, which is not that a person isn't entitled to what he earns, but rather what the consequences are of unmitigated and continued concentrations of wealth.

I stopped reading when I read a thesis statement that was completely nonsensical in light of the stated principles of this nation's founding. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) are what governments exist to protect. At least, that's what a small group wrote to the last set of tyrants who thought it was up to them to manage what individual citizens had earned. I stopped reading because if the thesis is false, any support rendered is irrelevant: the thesis will still be false. If the thesis is true, the rest doesn't matter because nothing belongs to anyone and no one earns anything - everything belongs to "the nation." If my income belongs to the nation but my debts don't, then I'm screwed.

 

[Genx87]

It's broadening the base for ordinary income taxes, which could be offset by reducing rate on lower brackets.
Wast majority of capital gains and dividends go to the wealthiest.
For the middle class, the extra revenue from taxing that income could be used to more than offset the additional taxes they would pay on small part of their income by cutting income taxes on earnings, which makes up the vast majority of middle class income. So it would not be cutting nose to spite the face at all. Plus middle class is reliant on Medicare and SS a lot more than the wealthy, so if the extra revenue is used to support those programs, that is a net win to the middle class. Of course it's a net loss to the super wealthy, so GOP is going to fight it tooth and nail.

1. You didnt answer my question. Do you have an IRA, Roth IRA, 401K, or any other investment tool? If so, like a lot of the "middle class" raising the cost of owning those will hurt.
2. Totally wishful thinking that increasing capital gains will offset an income tax on the middle class. And the downside could be disasterous as investment and middle class savings tumble. Because the cost to risk money is too high. And the wealthy move their capital off shore.
3. More wishful thinking on capital gains being used on Medicare and SS.

What I got out of your post is you dont have a damn clue that tens of millions of middle class Americans would be hurt by your proposed taxation. And you live in a fantasy world if you think any extra revenue generation from taxing capital will trickle down to the middle class. In case you didnt notice we are running 1.5 trillion dollar a year deficits. Any possible revenue increase will go to offset out national credit card.

 

[drebo]

If they paid themselves half as much, they could pay the rest of us 16% more. What could you do with a 16% raise?

The CEO of HP making $15 million instead of $30 million would equate to a $300 per year raise to all of the 50,000 people that work for HP.

Where your logic breaks down is your assumption that the workers would be capable of producing what they produce now without someone above them coming up with the idea in the first place. The grunt that runs the wave soldering machine or sweeps the floors doesn't come up with the next laptop design, and probably can't.

Someone else comes up with that laptop design. Someone else designs the circuit boards that are soldered together. But even that person isn't going to be able to design that circuit board without yet another person to tell him what kind of circuit board needs to be developed (video card, motherboard, etc). That person needs to take direction from someone as to what the overall goal of the company is going to be. And then someone has to finance all of it. The decision at the top that says "we want to make laptops" is an important decision that not just anyone can make.

If being a CEO and entrepreneur was so easy, why aren't there more of them?

Your assumption that the grunt on the ground floor is just as important as the CEO or the VPs and analysts and engineers and marketing people above him is flawed beyond comprehension.

I know that I would be aweful at running a business as large as HP. That's why I don't, and I don't believe that I should be paid as much as someone who could run it successfully.

 

[punjabiplaya]

I just read that article twice. Excellent.

 

[ElFenix]

The CEO of HP making $15 million instead of $30 million would equate to a $300 per year raise to all of the 50,000 people that work for HP.

Where your logic breaks down is your assumption that the workers would be capable of producing what they produce now without someone above them coming up with the idea in the first place. The grunt that runs the wave soldering machine or sweeps the floors doesn't come up with the next laptop design, and probably can't.

Someone else comes up with that laptop design. Someone else designs the circuit boards that are soldered together. But even that person isn't going to be able to design that circuit board without yet another person to tell him what kind of circuit board needs to be developed (video card, motherboard, etc). That person needs to take direction from someone as to what the overall goal of the company is going to be. And then someone has to finance all of it. The decision at the top that says "we want to make laptops" is an important decision that not just anyone can make.

If being a CEO and entrepreneur was so easy, why aren't there more of them?

Your assumption that the grunt on the ground floor is just as important as the CEO or the VPs and analysts and engineers and marketing people above him is flawed beyond comprehension.

I know that I would be aweful at running a business as large as HP. That's why I don't, and I don't believe that I should be paid as much as someone who could run it successfully.

japanese and german corporations pay their CEOs significantly less than what US top CEOs are paid and the japanese and germans companys aren't exactly uncompetitive with US companies.


the fact of the matter is that US C-level executive compensation isn't set by the market but by a circle jerk.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

If you want to improve wealth distribution, you can make it happen without needing to resort to forceful taking of the wealthy's property. Simply stop buying iPads and making Steve Jobs rich, buying sports tickets and making athletes rich, using Windows and making Bill Gates rich, etc. These folks are rich because they provide things that many people demand and are willing to pay for.

And here you go. This sums it up quit succienctly.
All these people complaining about how the rich are rich and are keeping people poor, do so while posting from their iPhone or iPad, or even Windows computer.
Or they're wearing Air Force Ones, or Jordan sneakers and complain that that man is keeping them down.

The "man" is providing a product that millions of people purchase, thus making money.
The 1st reply in this thread hit the nail on the f'ing head. It's jealousy. Pure and simple. Well there's also guilt thrown in there as well.
There are those that are jealous that they aren't in the top 1%, then there are those that fell guilty about their own success and feel that other people should pay to help bring the poor people up to their level.

I'd like the people that think we should raise taxes to help the "poor" show receipts for how much of their income they continually give to a non partisan charity.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I stopped reading when I read a thesis statement that was completely nonsensical in light of the stated principles of this nation's founding. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) are what governments exist to protect. At least, that's what a small group wrote to the last set of tyrants who thought it was up to them to manage what individual citizens had earned. I stopped reading because if the thesis is false, any support rendered is irrelevant: the thesis will still be false. If the thesis is true, the rest doesn't matter because nothing belongs to anyone and no one earns anything - everything belongs to "the nation." If my income belongs to the nation but my debts don't, then I'm screwed.

Don't forget, your income belongs to the nation, but you own your own debt, AND you own everyone elses debt too.

 

[Throckmorton]

And here you go. This sums it up quit succienctly.
All these people complaining about how the rich are rich and are keeping people poor, do so while posting from their iPhone or iPad, or even Windows computer.
Or they're wearing Air Force Ones, or Jordan sneakers and complain that that man is keeping them down.

The "man" is providing a product that millions of people purchase, thus making money.
The 1st reply in this thread hit the nail on the f'ing head. It's jealousy. Pure and simple. Well there's also guilt thrown in there as well.
There are those that are jealous that they aren't in the top 1%, then there are those that fell guilty about their own success and feel that other people should pay to help bring the poor people up to their level.

I'd like the people that think we should raise taxes to help the "poor" show receipts for how much of their income they continually give to a non partisan charity.

Rich people don't make iPads and shoes.

 

[CycloWizard]

Rich people don't make iPads and shoes.

They generate the ideas, the engineers design them, the marketers advertise them, the factory workers assemble them, the shipping industry distributes them, the retailers sell them, and the consumers buy them. Each step makes it happen, and each person takes their agreed-upon cut from the total price. The rich person is the guy with the idea that gave all of these other people something to do other than sleep on the couch all day.

 

[Anarchist420]

you know, I don't normally feed trolls, but this one is just too juicy to pass up, so I'll bite:



lol wut? would you like to elaborate on that point buddy?

The Constitution intended for crony capitalism, the Articles of Confederation didn't. What I meant when I said that is that I'm fine with people getting rich without the government helping them get rich at the expense of others; however, I'm not fine with people getting rich through patents, tariffs, managed trade, regulations, trust-busting, war, central banking, subsidies, etc., etc.

Wall Street would be nothing without a strong central government.

 

[theeedude]

1. You didnt answer my question. Do you have an IRA, Roth IRA, 401K, or any other investment tool? If so, like a lot of the "middle class" raising the cost of owning those will hurt.
2. Totally wishful thinking that increasing capital gains will offset an income tax on the middle class. And the downside could be disasterous as investment and middle class savings tumble. Because the cost to risk money is too high. And the wealthy move their capital off shore.
3. More wishful thinking on capital gains being used on Medicare and SS.

What I got out of your post is you dont have a damn clue that tens of millions of middle class Americans would be hurt by your proposed taxation. And you live in a fantasy world if you think any extra revenue generation from taxing capital will trickle down to the middle class. In case you didnt notice we are running 1.5 trillion dollar a year deficits. Any possible revenue increase will go to offset out national credit card.

I have IRA, Roth IRA, and 401k. I am fine with those being taxed at ordinary income tax rates, adjusted for a wider base.
Americans are required to pay income taxes on off-shore earnings. If wealthy want to denounce their US citizenship to save on taxes, then fine, let them. And I'd rather increased taxes on those who can afford it go to offset our national credit card, than targeting the poor to balance the budget.