Quantitative Easing (QE) has helped top 1% increase wealth by $50 trillion. Ben Bernanke, the then Head of the Federal Reserve wanted to create the "wealth effect". Trickle down economics on steroids.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's not really the point. The point is, would it be good for the economy as a whole?This is why I think raising the taxes on the rich is a good idea. They ain’t gonna ever be poor
That's not really the point. The point is, would it be good for the economy as a whole?
Not necessarily.Well it doesn’t appear good that the rich keep getting richer. So **** them
That's not really the point. The point is, would it be good for the economy as a whole?
Fed policies have directly caused this explosion in wealth for the top 1%.The issue is the 1% are far outpacing everyone else in wealth creation. For a single year tax return I am hitting 1% status this year, and likely a few years away may be a decade away from being a top 1% on wealth, but at this rate they may runaway from us. As an accountant this is tricky, most of the wealth is in investments and stocks. Taxing Paper gains personally sounds like a mess. Then you jump to the wealth tax. Elizabeth Warren wants to compare her wealth tax to Real Estate taxes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two, but also the fact that stocks can fluctuate so much, I am still waiting for a major correction once interest rates begin to rise. At this point the Wealth tax appears to be dead on arrival, however having such a high concentration of wealth in so few hands is not optimal. How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma. My stance would be to have thresholds of compensation to key personnel based of company income ect. Similar to a schedule F if you have a make a threshold but lose money the following 2 years you are still ok, but the next year your income levels are going to have to pop back up. There will still be some gaming of the system but would likely be better. My proposal would also be dead on arrival. Im just looking forward to retiring in 7-10 years ( late 40's) and not worrying about it hopefully.
Change the marketing and we'll get buy in. Don't say "tax the rich", say "tax the elite 1%" and those making 6 figures plus won't even perk up. ...or even the .01%.This is why I think raising the taxes on the rich is a good idea. They ain’t gonna ever be poor
The 'fix' is to quit feeding it.How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma.
To post on HROT you have to net no less than $250K...per Q.In order to be considered in the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S., you'd need to have wages of $758,434, according to information from the progressive Economic Policy Institute. I gross $164k, so it wouldn't effect me.
Yes. Yes it would.That's not really the point. The point is, would it be good for the economy as a whole?
Wage floors don't 'level the playing field', they just mandate unemployment for those unskilled enough to generate a return for an employer at that wage.**** the $15 per hour MW. There is NO way possible as a country to make it work. We would collapse as a country if the system is changed to level the playing field.
BUt TheYll StOp inVEsTiNg in JoBs!Yes. Yes it would.
How the idea that rich people just sit around creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs because they have a tax cut and money to spend became a dominant economic theory among people who don't benefit from the tax cuts has got to be one of the greatest con jobs ever conducted.BUt TheYll StOp inVEsTiNg in JoBs!
Yep, which opens up market space for other, new investors. If there’s money to be made, and someone doesn’t go make that money because it isn’t enough, then someone else will go make it This isn’t hard.
Top 1% in Iowa is $402,000. - I look at 1% status more on a geographical trend, due to differences in taxation and cost of living. Not equal standing, but this is what I utilize.Change the marketing and we'll get buy in. Don't say "tax the rich", say "tax the elite 1%" and those making 6 figures plus won't even perk up. ...or even the .01%.
In order to be considered in the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S., you'd need to have wages of $758,434, according to information from the progressive Economic Policy Institute. I gross $164k, so it wouldn't effect me.
Well, my private jet was gifted to me in my rich uncle's will. Does that count?To post on HROT you have to net no less than $250K...per Q.
GTFO poor!
Disgusting . . . and predictable.
Quantitative Easing (QE) has helped top 1% increase wealth by $50 trillion. Ben Bernanke, the then Head of the Federal Reserve wanted to create the "wealth effect". Trickle down economics on steroids.
All of you bitchez is 1%ers:Top 1% in Iowa is $402,000. - I look at 1% status more on a geographical trend, due to differences in taxation and cost of living. Not equal standing, but this is what I utilize.
Real question.... How would taxing a wealthy person's holdings, an asset, be different than real estate taxes, an asset. Why would this not be damn near exactly the same with the rate tied to the FMV?The issue is the 1% are far outpacing everyone else in wealth creation. For a single year tax return I am hitting 1% status this year, and likely a few years away may be a decade away from being a top 1% on wealth, but at this rate they may runaway from us. As an accountant this is tricky, most of the wealth is in investments and stocks. Taxing Paper gains personally sounds like a mess. Then you jump to the wealth tax. Elizabeth Warren wants to compare her wealth tax to Real Estate taxes, there is quite a bit of difference between the two, but also the fact that stocks can fluctuate so much, I am still waiting for a major correction once interest rates begin to rise. At this point the Wealth tax appears to be dead on arrival, however having such a high concentration of wealth in so few hands is not optimal. How to fix that is a much trickier dilemma. My stance would be to have thresholds of compensation to key personnel based of company income ect. Similar to a schedule F if you have a make a threshold but lose money the following 2 years you are still ok, but the next year your income levels are going to have to pop back up. There will still be some gaming of the system but would likely be better. My proposal would also be dead on arrival. Im just looking forward to retiring in 7-10 years ( late 40's) and not worrying about it hopefully.