I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
Well, it's not necessarily the poor getting poorer, but if you look at this [economagic.com] chart of the umemployment rate, surely you can agree that someone is getting poorer.
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Obviously if the average salary for Americans is $27,000, then SOMEONE must be able to survive on less than that. Apparently, 50% of the population do... Go figure.
> > > "The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me."
>
> True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
This all started when someone posted that Marxian meme that "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer".
BULLSHIT.
Then people started talking about median and/or average incomes in dollars. Nice, but you're missing the point. You're thinking about dollars, but dollars are useless without wealth.
If you want to know how "the poor" are doing, you've gotta be talking "wealth".
My grandparents were working class. Their idea of a "fridge" was a block of ice. Their idea of "luxury" was cranking ice cream by hand in a steel container surrounded by rock salt and ice chunks. And it took days to cross the Atlantic, a trip that was only for the Filthy Rich.
My parents were working class. Their idea of "comfort" was when they got air conditioning. Their idea of "luxury" was when they went from black and white to a color TV. And took hours to cross the Atlantic, and that was only for the Pretty Well Off.
I'm working class. When I was a kid, my idea of "cool" was the 3D graphics in "Tron", and my idea of "luxury" was a Cray Supercomputer I could call my own. And from my 2.0 GHz laptop with 3D card with T&L capabilities, I can alt-Tab out of Max Payne, and with a few mouse clicks, cross the Atlantic (alas, it still takes a few hours) for half the price of the laptop.
And I can show my grandparents that laptop.
I don't mind if Bill Gates has enough money to fly to the moon for his vacation. Because if someone builds commercial space tourism for the Bill Gateses of the world, I can rest easy knowing that by the time I'm in my hip-fracture years, I'll be living them in 1/6 gravity.
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
That brought a tear to my eye. Especially when you consider the contents of my fridge right now contains an assortment of food that would make a King from earlier times weep. The contents of my spice cabinet would be under armed guard.
My wife and I are having a baby. There is no doubt both she and the baby are actually going to survive the birthing process, and it's a pretty solid bet the kid is going to live to adulthood. That cannot be said of many places in the world, or even here before modern medicine. (And gripe what you will about the cost, but we HAVE it.)
I recently went to Roatan, Honduras, where this is especially true. On the small island where I was for a couple weeks this summer, I saw the effect of a free clinic that has existed for only seven years. While the locals used to have children one after the other, just to account for the high mortality rate, now there is a huge number of children under 5 (compared to the number of teenagers). Women live through childbirth, something all but the youngest members of that society know that they are blessed
That "Marxian meme" made a lot of sense when it was coined in early industrial era England. Cheap manufacturing destroyed the cottage industries that had provided most of the skilled trades with what was for the time a steady, secure and comfortable (if not lavish) life. Extreme power and authority really only existed for the bizarre and mystical elites (landowners, and the clergy). Progress and improvements in the standard of living had been slow and incremental, and were generally only experienced by t
> Pragmatically, you describe your wealth as evidence that "capitalism" has improved your standard of living incredibly from the level experienced by your grandparents. Indeed it has -- my own grandparents lived in unheated row housing in England when they were children. This seems more like a product of scientific progress, however -- capitalism is the mechanism whereby the capitalist uses his or her personal power (i.e access to capital) as leverage to gain even more access to capital. In othe
Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Tell that to some guy in Brazil... one of the richest countries in South America, and a country with an upper class that is richer than some parts of USA (eg. there are more Armani suits sold in Sao Paulo than even New York)...yet the lowre classes in Brazil is far worse off than many other places...
And your whole idea of 'luxury' is meaningless. When you are talking about classes, you are talking about RELA
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Oh, like in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and its satellites where the nomenclatura became insanely wealthy and the poor became worse off than under communism.
It might also explain why the census bureau has a section entitled "Historical Income Inequality," which is an interesting read:
http://www.ce
> Your pride in technological advance does not have any relevance. I can just see the comparison in a turn of the 20th century sweat shop -- "but, hey, we have electric lights and flush toilets, when used to crap in the woods with a candle, so it's all good."
> >No, it wasn't and it is not.
"But hey, when we used to crap in the woods with a candle, we didn't live half as long, the cities were full of smog."
Yes, it is, and it is.
> In 1970, the bottom 10% earned $8,276 In 1970, the t
You missed the point entirely, although you quickly countered with precisely my point, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with free-market capitalism and everything to do with social progressives, lefties, whatever you want to label them.
The problem that social progressives and marxists have succeeded in addressing is that capitalism does NOT inherently benefit all. Without those movements, be it the race/labor/feminist/glbt/peace/consumer rights/anti-globalisation movements etc., you would have mu
Company-sponsored health care wasn't a result of Socialism/Communism in any way that I can think of. How can you justify that statement?
You would NOT have airbags, seatbelts, 911 service, 30mpg.
Why not? If enough people died without airbags and seatbelts, car manufacturers, to meet the demand for safer cars, would start putting them in. Cars had airbags LONG before the federal government mandated it (have they mandated it yet?). As far as 911, it could a private company
Now THAT'S what I call a "fair and balanced" unbiased source of information!
The Heritage Foundation is fundamentally opposed to all things remotely similar to the forms of government found in Northern Europe, so it comes as little surprise that they would rank them lower. "Economic Freedom" in Heritage Foundation parlance effectively means no taxes with the smallest government possible and means not much beyond that. That "Economic Freedom" has absolutely little directly to do with "standard of living" a
In terms of GDP per capita, Norway, a constitutional monarchy with a democratic socialist government, ranks higher than the United States as well as ranking higher in terms of the HDI.
If you count GROSS domestic product, maybe... but how about NET domestic product? If all the money each family makes goes directly back to the government, what's the point of working harder to make more money (which will go right back to the government)? The lower the taxes, the higher the motivation.
I think you are correct that the medium of wealth has increased, that the poor are much better off than they were before, but...( you had to know it was coming )
While there will always be those who have more and those with less, the proportions matter, most especially to a democracy where money buys you a greater voice with your government. CEO's pay has increased astronomically, but it hasn't been proportional to anything in the economy.
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
The median... That can possibly mean that one person printed 7,830 billion dollar which another one earned, while 290 million people lived in caves and ate roots. So much for statistics.
The median... That can possibly mean that one person printed 7,830 billion dollar which another one earned, while 290 million people lived in caves and ate roots. So much for statistics.
No, you're thinking of the mean. The median is the income that exactly 50% of income earners exceed, and 50% of them fall below. Thus, 50% of all Americans make at least $27,000 per year.
Global economy certainly did not grow 10% in the past few years. You do the math.
I honestly don't give half a shit about the global economy. I only care about the US... and in the tech industry, according to SAGE [sage.org], the average raise in the past year was 8% or so. That's close enough for me to say it's fair.
The US economy was actually in recession (i.e. negative growth) for some time during the past few years. During this period the rich got richer (i.e. their wealth grew). I'm not passing moral judgement here. I'm just pointing out that if a subset of people apparently gains money whereas the population as a whole is losing money, the proposition that the rich get richer and the poor got poorer is true.
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
He gave that money away. To help sick people in third world countries. What an evilbastard!:)
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
America is in a recession right now. something like 4 million jobs and counting lost and currently the skinny is they are never coming back. A whole lot of the poor working americans literally had their money stolen recently by the rich CEOs that ran the companies they worked for. This new data reflects t
Try comparing it wages 10, 20, 30, etc years ago in constant dollars...doesn't look so hot after that. Also, while that may not be dirt poor, it is not exactly a life style that will allow for little details like sending children to college or buying health insurance very easily, let alone saving for retirement or starting a business.
Simple arithmetic is all that is necessary here. If I had $10 and you had $10 and you then gave me $1 I'd have $11 and you'd have $9 i.e. I got richer you got poorer. Whilst this doesn't take into account money supply, nor inflation, I'm sure you understand the fundamentals now, and are probably a more deft economist than Milton Friedman [stanford.edu], so you can now go and ruin the economy [guardian.co.uk] of the european country of your choice.
Isn't there a Ferengi Rule for acquisition that says 'The goal is not to stop the exploitation but to become the exploiter.'
As I read this thread, I really wonder why more people don't think in this vein. My response to seeing jobs going overseas, raises diminishing, or people taking pay cuts has always been "how do I escape that system?" And for me it means researching the viability of various businesses I can start on my own.
Rather than whining about how much others make, why don't people just take st
The best thing we can do for the economy is cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes for the poor, dont you see? Dont you get it? The best solution for all economic problems is to allow the rich to keep more of their own money. In fact the poor should pay 100% of all taxes since they happen to use all the resources taxes produce anyway, the rich can put their kids in private school and rely on private resources so why should they pay taxes so you can put your kid in school? Why should Bill Gates pay tax
Why should Bill Gates pay taxes so you can get your medication and go to the hospital?
Wow. Where to start with this one? Nevermind that the VAST majority (something like 80-90%) of tax revenues from income are from that tiny minority of rich folks. Don't bog your rant down with actually looking this up though, you're on one heck of a roll.
The best solution for all economic problems is to allow the rich to keep more of their
And I find it absolutely amazing that you are not totally outraged at the INJUSTICE of 1% of wage earners paying 23% of all federal taxes. But, keep looking. By the time you get to the top 50% of wage earners, you find out that they are paying 96% of all taxes. That makes the other 50% freeloaders. That used to be something that people were ashamed of. Now it's considered a fundamental right.
Yeah, I'm real outraged about the injustice of the people who control 40% of the wealth, and 50% of the of the financial wealth paying nearly 25% of the taxes.
I'm not at all outraged that 38.9 million Americans, including 7.2 million children, have no healthcare. I'm too busy worrying about the rich.
Last time I checked, people get taxed on income, not wealth. And if you look at the percentage of people who contribute 40% of the GDP, you'll see that approximately the top 8% of the population pays 25% of the taxes. Which doesn't seem too unfair, does it? (And, yes, they're taxed at a higher rate than people who make $50k a year.)
Yeah, right. "CBO found that the top one percent of households paid 23 percent of all federal taxes that year, including payroll, excise and other federal taxes." This was for 1997, before the Bush tax cuts.
You need to READ your sources. That includes PAYROLL TAXES. Like the taxes you pay for social security -- the benefits of which are dependent on your WAGE and the amount you pay in.
The person you responded to was talking about INCOME TAX which is vastly out of balance. It amazes me that while Socia
Wow. Where to start with this one? Nevermind that the VAST majority (something like 80-90%) of tax revenues from income are from that tiny minority of rich folks. Don't bog your rant down with actually looking this up though, you're on one heck of a roll.
Wow! Who is on a roll here? Obviously you haven't done your research because the VAST majority of Tax payers and revenue is from the Middle class and NOT the tiny minority of rich folks. (Do you really think Bill Gates pays $387 Million in taxes, which is
No, the rich benefit the most from the federal government in terms of the defense. They have the most property and money to defend than any poor person, so they should have to pay for most of it.
Yes, but for the rich to get richer in the long term, not only the poor have to become poorer, but the rich-but-not-quite-so-rich also. Not only do the rich get richer, they become fewer in numbers also. (This economical principal was the driving force behind most empires since the Roman empire btw.; and it often played a role in the downfall of these empires also.)
I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!
Bah, overrated. If you think what I say is incorrect, discuss the issues with me, don't mod me down. I only say history has proven that it's dangerous when too much power and wealth ends up in the hands of a small elite, and that the ethics behind the process are questionable. Please show me where I'm wrong.
No, but thanks to crony capitalism, I won't get as much value from my stock as I should. CEO compensation is a buddy system scam, where CEOs are each other's boards and set the high level exec compensation far beyond any reasonable level for their job performance. (See NYSE's Grasso for just the latest of these.)
Somewhat due to welfare programs that allow people to stagnate in untenable areas (inner cities with no factories...imagine that!) rather than motivating them to move to where better opportunities exist.
Somewhat due to excessive taxation of the poor and middle class by the government (income tax is unfair by any measure--get rid of it).
Somewhat due to illicit drug prices artificially inflated by the DEA and the resulting organized crime in cities and cartels in f
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Oh well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Obviously if the average salary for Americans is $27,000, then SOMEONE must be able to survive on less than that. Apparently, 50% of the population do... Go figure.
Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:5, Insightful)
> > "The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me."
>
> True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
This all started when someone posted that Marxian meme that "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer".
BULLSHIT.
Then people started talking about median and/or average incomes in dollars. Nice, but you're missing the point. You're thinking about dollars, but dollars are useless without wealth.
If you want to know how "the poor" are doing, you've gotta be talking "wealth".
My grandparents were working class. Their idea of a "fridge" was a block of ice. Their idea of "luxury" was cranking ice cream by hand in a steel container surrounded by rock salt and ice chunks. And it took days to cross the Atlantic, a trip that was only for the Filthy Rich.
My parents were working class. Their idea of "comfort" was when they got air conditioning. Their idea of "luxury" was when they went from black and white to a color TV. And took hours to cross the Atlantic, and that was only for the Pretty Well Off.
I'm working class. When I was a kid, my idea of "cool" was the 3D graphics in "Tron", and my idea of "luxury" was a Cray Supercomputer I could call my own. And from my 2.0 GHz laptop with 3D card with T&L capabilities, I can alt-Tab out of Max Payne, and with a few mouse clicks, cross the Atlantic (alas, it still takes a few hours) for half the price of the laptop.
And I can show my grandparents that laptop.
I don't mind if Bill Gates has enough money to fly to the moon for his vacation. Because if someone builds commercial space tourism for the Bill Gateses of the world, I can rest easy knowing that by the time I'm in my hip-fracture years, I'll be living them in 1/6 gravity.
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I are having a baby. There is no doubt both she and the baby are actually going to survive the birthing process, and it's a pretty solid bet the kid is going to live to adulthood. That cannot be said of many places in the world, or even here before modern medicine. (And gripe what you will about the cost, but we HAVE it.)
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of the world still lives that way... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A lot of the world still lives that way... (Score:3, Insightful)
wealth is DEFINED by relative difference (Score:1)
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:1)
Tell that to some guy in Brazil... one of the richest countries in South America, and a country with an upper class that is richer than some parts of USA (eg. there are more Armani suits sold in Sao Paulo than even New York)...yet the lowre classes in Brazil is far worse off than many other places...
And your whole idea of 'luxury' is meaningless. When you are talking about classes, you are talking about RELA
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
Well, comparing across anything is meaningless when the person you're conversing with won't admit when they're wrong.
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:1)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2, Insightful)
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Oh, like in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and its satellites where the nomenclatura became insanely wealthy and the poor became worse off than under communism.
It might also explain why the census bureau has a section entitled "Historical Income Inequality," which is an interesting read: http://www.ce
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
>
>No, it wasn't and it is not.
"But hey, when we used to crap in the woods with a candle, we didn't live half as long, the cities were full of smog."
Yes, it is, and it is.
> In 1970, the bottom 10% earned $8,276 In 1970, the t
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
The problem that social progressives and marxists have succeeded in addressing is that capitalism does NOT inherently benefit all. Without those movements, be it the race/labor/feminist/glbt/peace/consumer rights/anti-globalisation movements etc., you would have mu
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
Company-sponsored health care wasn't a result of Socialism/Communism in any way that I can think of. How can you justify that statement?
You would NOT have airbags, seatbelts, 911 service, 30mpg.
Why not? If enough people died without airbags and seatbelts, car manufacturers, to meet the demand for safer cars, would start putting them in. Cars had airbags LONG before the federal government mandated it (have they mandated it yet?). As far as 911, it could a private company
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
Uh huh. Sure. Tell us another one.
Ok, I'll tell you where you can confirm that Norway, Sweden and Canada are rated higher in terms of human development.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indica t or/indicator.cfm?File=indic_290_1_1.html [undp.org]
As for having to be a Soviet Marxist to be a social progressive and all the other b.s. that went with those comment
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
I thought we were talking about the standard of living, not "human development".
Norway isn't a great example... as it's ranked #27 on the Index of Economic Freedom [heritage.org]. Not looking so good in Scandinavia...
Also, Sweden has some of the highest taxes in the world [walnet.org], and is "dependant" on the welfare system [bbc.co.uk]. Also, it is ranked #11 on the Index of Economic Freedom [heritage.org].
Without going into too many
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
The Heritage Foundation is fundamentally opposed to all things remotely similar to the forms of government found in Northern Europe, so it comes as little surprise that they would rank them lower. "Economic Freedom" in Heritage Foundation parlance effectively means no taxes with the smallest government possible and means not much beyond that. That "Economic Freedom" has absolutely little directly to do with "standard of living" a
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:2)
If you count GROSS domestic product, maybe... but how about NET domestic product? If all the money each family makes goes directly back to the government, what's the point of working harder to make more money (which will go right back to the government)? The lower the taxes, the higher the motivation.
The fact also remain
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:1)
While there will always be those who have more and those with less, the proportions matter, most especially to a democracy where money buys you a greater voice with your government. CEO's pay has increased astronomically, but it hasn't been proportional to anything in the economy.
http://www.stw.org/research/CEO_Pay_charts.html
In one respect y
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
The median... That can possibly mean that one person printed 7,830 billion dollar which another one earned, while 290 million people lived in caves and ate roots. So much for statistics.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you're thinking of the mean. The median is the income that exactly 50% of income earners exceed, and 50% of them fall below. Thus, 50% of all Americans make at least $27,000 per year.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
You're right. My dictionary tricked me. I'd better used a technical one.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
I honestly don't give half a shit about the global economy. I only care about the US... and in the tech industry, according to SAGE [sage.org], the average raise in the past year was 8% or so. That's close enough for me to say it's fair.
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Bill Gates' net worth went from over $70,000,000,000 down to $46,000,000,000 in the last 3-4 years. If the rich keep getting richer no matter how the economy does, then how did Gates' worth drop 35%?
He gave that money away. To help sick people in third world countries. What an evilbastard! :)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
America is in a recession right now. something like 4 million jobs and counting lost and currently the skinny is they are never coming back. A whole lot of the poor working americans literally had their money stolen recently by the rich CEOs that ran the companies they worked for. This new data reflects t
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
As I read this thread, I really wonder why more people don't think in this vein. My response to seeing jobs going overseas, raises diminishing, or people taking pay cuts has always been "how do I escape that system?" And for me it means researching the viability of various businesses I can start on my own.
Rather than whining about how much others make, why don't people just take st
Personality Types (Score:2)
It is hard to change your personality - harder even than changing your body (exercise/diet).
So changing your job from "telling the truth to a computer, in detail" to "lying plausibly to a human, vaguely" is non-trivial.
Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1, Troll)
The best thing we can do for the economy is cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes for the poor, dont you see? Dont you get it? The best solution for all economic problems is to allow the rich to keep more of their own money. In fact the poor should pay 100% of all taxes since they happen to use all the resources taxes produce anyway, the rich can put their kids in private school and rely on private resources so why should they pay taxes so you can put your kid in school? Why should Bill Gates pay tax
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:2)
Ummm, exactly when did this event happen?
Why should Bill Gates pay taxes so you can get your medication and go to the hospital?
Wow. Where to start with this one? Nevermind that the VAST majority (something like 80-90%) of tax revenues from income are from that tiny minority of rich folks. Don't bog your rant down with actually looking this up though, you're on one heck of a roll.
The best solution for all economic problems is to allow the rich to keep more of their
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1)
Yeah, right. "CBO found that the top one percent of households paid 23 percent of all federal taxes that year, including payroll, excise and other federal taxes." [cbpp.org] This was for 1997, before the Bush tax cuts.
Take your own advice, and be sure to get the real numbers, not the ones massa
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:2)
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1)
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:3, Troll)
I'm not at all outraged that 38.9 million Americans, including 7.2 million children, have no healthcare. I'm too busy worrying about the rich.
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1)
Hey if they own 40% of the countries wealth shouldnt they pay exactly 40% of the countries taxes?
Wait, I must be using flawed logic, they should pay less taxes!!! They should pay 20% instead so they can keep an extra 20% of money.
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:2)
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1)
You need to READ your sources. That includes PAYROLL TAXES. Like the taxes you pay for social security -- the benefits of which are dependent on your WAGE and the amount you pay in.
The person you responded to was talking about INCOME TAX which is vastly out of balance. It amazes me that while Socia
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow! Who is on a roll here? Obviously you haven't done your research because the VAST majority of Tax payers and revenue is from the Middle class and NOT the tiny minority of rich folks. (Do you really think Bill Gates pays $387 Million in taxes, which is
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1)
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:1)
The rich can buy their own bodyguards, why do they need your taxes? Let them hire militias!
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but for the rich to get richer in the long term, not only the poor have to become poorer, but the rich-but-not-quite-so-rich also. Not only do the rich get richer, they become fewer in numbers also. (This economical principal was the driving force behind most empires since the Roman empire btw.; and it often played a role in the downfall of these empires also.)
I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!
Being just one of the richer ulti
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Odds are that.... no, no you won't.
The business savvy that got gate's his quadrillions cant be learned in school.
and there is one underlying fact that all college kids never get until it's too late...
It takes money to make money. you want to make billions? then you had better be in classes on how to influence people and be a super salesperson.
that's what it takes, who cares that you have a PHD in nuclear physics...
Being a person that can
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Somewhat due to welfare programs that allow people to stagnate in untenable areas (inner cities with no factories...imagine that!) rather than motivating them to move to where better opportunities exist.
Somewhat due to excessive taxation of the poor and middle class by the government (income tax is unfair by any measure--get rid of it).
Somewhat due to illicit drug prices artificially inflated by the DEA and the resulting organized crime in cities and cartels in f