ADVERTISEMENT

Stocks continue to fall due to lack of job creation...

That's just not true. The unemployment rate is only so low because Obama's labor dept changed the way it figures the stat. People are who are unemployed but no longer looking for work are not figured in the number. In addition 200,000 jobs a month is only healthy if you consider being barely kept afloat is somehow healthy. This much is true..... This is the slowest recovery in modern history(almost half the normal growth rate)
I'll throw this out there only so Primus doesn't have to reply to himself, not once, but twice! I'm guessing "aflachawk" got his info straight from the FNC website, business edition. Laughable because those that wish to argue either way can interpret numbers any way they want.
Me... I'm not worried. I took William Devane's advice from an infomercial I saw recently and invested in gold and silver. Then... with the money left over... I took Fred Thompson's advice and took out a reverse mortgage so my kids won't have to worry about fighting over their inheritance. Then... with a few bucks left, I invested in the Keystone pipeline. That one might not pan out!
 
I most definitely am the Aegon.
I'll throw this out there only so Primus doesn't have to reply to himself, not once, but twice! I'm guessing "aflachawk" got his info straight from the FNC website, business edition. Laughable because those that wish to argue either way can interpret numbers any way they want.
Me... I'm not worried. I took William Devane's advice from an infomercial I saw recently and invested in gold and silver. Then... with the money left over... I took Fred Thompson's advice and took out a reverse mortgage so my kids won't have to worry about fighting over their inheritance. Then... with a few bucks left, I invested in the Keystone pipeline. That one might not pan out!
You wasted the last of your brain cells on this? You're now poor, dumb, and incapable. This is it for you my friend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MitchL
The top 20% own 85% of the nation's wealth. On even a non-progressive scale they should be paying at least that much of the taxes. Add in progressivity and it should be more. 70% isn't enough. Now 93% seems closer.

The imbalance in income and wealth isn't caused by the top 20% hell it isn't caused by most even in the top 1%. I wish people would stop focusing on those in a $250k - to even $1mm (just to throw a number out) category bc these folks spend a lot of their disposable money back into the economy (kids, housing, cars, etc) and they pay for everything w little/no govt benefits (healthcare, education, etc) we want more of these people.

The wealth and income distribution imbalance is mainly caused by a select few in that top 1%. Lets not demonize upper middle income people and lump them into the same group as the mega wealthy.

This is pretty telling and proves much out what i have been saying. The imbalance we are currently experiencing has less to do with the 1% (but it has a nice populist ring to it) and much more to do with a very select few in the top 1%...the top .1 - .01 are the real driving factors in the consolidation of wealth at the top.

Can we please stop asking for more and beating up on those that are high income earners but far from wealthy...they aren't the problem.

the-top-01-are-leaving-behind-the-rest-of-the-1-and-the-top-001-are-even-more-out-of-control.jpg
 
How much wealth does it take to be in the top 20% and get into your 93% tax bracket?

Shut up about the top 20%, it is a dumb argument. The top 1% is a dumb argument. The top .1%...now there is some statistical analysis that supports a harmful imbalance.
 
Shut up about the top 20%, it is a dumb argument. The top 1% is a dumb argument. The top .1%...now there is some statistical analysis that supports a harmful imbalance.
Sorry the question upsets you.

Just seeing if Natural knew where the cut-off was for his new higher tax rates.
 
Shut up about the top 20%, it is a dumb argument. The top 1% is a dumb argument. The top .1%...now there is some statistical analysis that supports a harmful imbalance.
Would you please provide the evidence as to why? I may have missed another post, but I am wanting to understand your point of view. Thank you.
 
Would you please provide the evidence as to why? I may have missed another post, but I am wanting to understand your point of view. Thank you.

Look up at the chart i posted. .9 of the 1% wealth distribution hasn't really changed since the 1960s but the distribution of wealth among the top .1% has increased quite a bit and the .01% it has exploded.

Proper balance (please don't read balance as everyone being the same) is important for an economy to run as efficiently and benefit as many people as possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgordo
Sorry the question upsets you.

Just seeing if Natural knew where the cut-off was for his new higher tax rates.

No one seems to be really educated on the manner, come on people at least put the effort in. I posted a graph above to help.
 
No offense but you are using the top20% in this argument which is incredibly misleading.

Grab me these stats.

% taxes the top .2% pay
% of US wealth the top .2% control
% of US income the top .2% bring in

Once we have that info we can have an honest discussion.
Wealth has nothing to do with income tax
 
The Dow and S&P 500 have both risen about 9 percent in October, the best monthly performance since the S&P's more-than-10.7 percent rally in October 2011.

thread-fail-stamp20110724-22047-1rr827m.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Can't grow GDP without a middle class and the U.S. is not creating middle class jobs.

Quite the opposite.
 
The Dow and S&P 500 have both risen about 9 percent in October, the best monthly performance since the S&P's more-than-10.7 percent rally in October 2011.

thread-fail-stamp20110724-22047-1rr827m.gif
And year-to-date?

10.7% over the past 4 years is nothing to brag about.
 
Can't grow GDP without a middle class and the U.S. is not creating middle class jobs.

Quite the opposite.
Can't grow GDP without a middle class and the U.S. is not creating middle class jobs.

Quite the opposite.
and why is that?
lower wages and exportation of mfg. jobs, demonization of trade unions....lack of courage by "job creators"......stockholders expectations for profits......businesses refuse to look past the next quarterly return numbers....It isn't all regulations and taxes.....not by a long shot.

Have you ever stopped to figure out what an hourly wage needs to be for a family of four to make ends meet (probably a minimum of 60k annually?) Your looking at 2 incomes making $25/hour.......Out of that $60k you gotta pay taxes, health insurance, housing, food and all the expenses of kids......
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
and why is that?
lower wages and exportation of mfg. jobs, demonization of trade unions....lack of courage by "job creators"......stockholders expectations for profits......businesses refuse to look past the next quarterly return numbers....It isn't all regulations and taxes.....not by a long shot.

Have you ever stopped to figure out what an hourly wage needs to be for a family of four to make ends meet (probably a minimum of 60k annually?) Your looking at 2 incomes making $25/hour.......Out of that $60k you gotta pay taxes, health insurance, housing, food and all the expenses of kids......

People should stop and think about that before they start making babies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarolinaHawkeye
Gimme a friggin' break...That might be the dumbest thing I have read on here this month. Drunked, unprotected sex is an American birthright. It's hard to think rationally when all the blood is rushing to your pubic area and starving the brain.

That's why God created "the morning after pill."
 
My money moved into the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF ("VOO") the morning of August 24 (during much panic here and in the market) is up 15% in two months (165 to 190).
 
My money moved into the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF ("VOO") the morning of August 24 (during much panic here and in the market) is up 15% in two months (165 to 190).
Only because of the report of the Fed not raising interest rates. It's artificial, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT