• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Sobering Wall

TexasBred

Well-known member
Yet there is also a reason to think that the incomes of the wealthy could potentially have a bigger impact on others than in the past: as a share of the economy, they are vastly larger than they once were.

In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation’s income, up from 0.9 percent in 1977. It was the highest such level since at least 1913, the first year for which the I.R.S. has data.

The top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income, up from 9 percent three decades earlier

And barracko wants to raise taxes on these people. Without them guess who gets taxed next. :mad:
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Yet there is also a reason to think that the incomes of the wealthy could potentially have a bigger impact on others than in the past: as a share of the economy, they are vastly larger than they once were.

In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation’s income, up from 0.9 percent in 1977. It was the highest such level since at least 1913, the first year for which the I.R.S. has data.

The top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income, up from 9 percent three decades earlier

And barracko wants to raise taxes on these people. Without them guess who gets taxed next. :mad:

I would gladly pay the higher taxes that might result from having fewer super-rich (and their disproportionate political influence) around.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
TexasBred said:
Yet there is also a reason to think that the incomes of the wealthy could potentially have a bigger impact on others than in the past: as a share of the economy, they are vastly larger than they once were.

In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation’s income, up from 0.9 percent in 1977. It was the highest such level since at least 1913, the first year for which the I.R.S. has data.

The top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income, up from 9 percent three decades earlier

And barracko wants to raise taxes on these people. Without them guess who gets taxed next. :mad:

I would gladly pay the higher taxes that might result from having fewer super-rich (and their disproportionate political influence) around.

political influence can be done in many ways.

Take scaremongering. Global warming, pandemics.

Let's take the Swine flu as an example. It's supposedly no worse than the seasonal flu, but yu got drug companies, tech companies etc already making a profit off all the fearmongering that is going on.

Just the money going into emergency preparedness is being increased.

And that's also tax dollars to increase the wealth of certain business owners etc.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
How funny is this?!! I hope you have deleted all your fearmongering posts on the Swine flu. We told you then that there was no proof that it was the end of the world. NOW you believe us. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let's take the Swine flu as an example. It's supposedly no worse than the seasonal flu, but yu got drug companies, tech companies etc already making a profit off all the fearmongering that is going on.

you go back and read what I wrote. I never said it was a legit fear. I wondered why the media and government was doing all the fearmongering in one breath and then discounting it in the next.

when you do your search type in mixed signals.

Mrs Greg and I had a discussion about it. search for that.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I think badaxemoo has it right.

It is greed that caused the most recent economic downturn. The dot coms in many cases had barely anything to sell and barely any sales. Yet they were valued in the billions because of hype and the Gold Rush mentality in the financial community. This country is overly dependent on a system that is fueled by greed and hype and has an extremely short term view. Companies are measured by quarterly returns and god forbid a company wants to invest. Companies are expected to expand and expand and expand. The result of all this are companies that cut their operating expenses to the bone and have no vision and no integrity. And companies gobbling up other companies until there are only 1 or 2 left. And lobbyists in the pay of these huge companies having an undue influence upon elected officials because the elected officials need so much money nowadays to run for re-election. And everything revolves around charisma and television and PR firms pitching candidates to a public that is getting dumber by the hour.

I guess you could call it greed but Materialism would probably be a more accurate word. People bought homes they could not afford and did not make their payments! End of story, banks and all the financial institutions would have had no problems if DEAD BEATS WOULD HAVE PAID THEIR MORTGAGES! Social engineering to help those that should not own homes buy homes caused the recent down turn! Maybe you should start watching something other than PBS so you can understand what happened!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
TexasBred said:
Yet there is also a reason to think that the incomes of the wealthy could potentially have a bigger impact on others than in the past: as a share of the economy, they are vastly larger than they once were.

In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation’s income, up from 0.9 percent in 1977. It was the highest such level since at least 1913, the first year for which the I.R.S. has data.

The top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income, up from 9 percent three decades earlier

And barracko wants to raise taxes on these people. Without them guess who gets taxed next. :mad:

I would gladly pay the higher taxes that might result from having fewer super-rich (and their disproportionate political influence) around.

Punish the rich and you won't be able to pay more taxes because your income will go with theirs, rich are the ones that put people to work! Try paying more with no job!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I think badaxemoo has it right.

It is greed that caused the most recent economic downturn. The dot coms in many cases had barely anything to sell and barely any sales. Yet they were valued in the billions because of hype and the Gold Rush mentality in the financial community. This country is overly dependent on a system that is fueled by greed and hype and has an extremely short term view. Companies are measured by quarterly returns and god forbid a company wants to invest. Companies are expected to expand and expand and expand. The result of all this are companies that cut their operating expenses to the bone and have no vision and no integrity. And companies gobbling up other companies until there are only 1 or 2 left. And lobbyists in the pay of these huge companies having an undue influence upon elected officials because the elected officials need so much money nowadays to run for re-election. And everything revolves around charisma and television and PR firms pitching candidates to a public that is getting dumber by the hour.

It wasn't just greed, but stupidity on the part of lenders, stupidity on the part of goverment, and stupidity on the part of homeowners.

I will agree with you on a public that is getting dumber. We just elected a man as president* who had absolutely no business even running. People like Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd get reelected (and yes, there are plenty of Republicans that need tossed, too).
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
badaxemoo said:
TexasBred said:
And barracko wants to raise taxes on these people. Without them guess who gets taxed next. :mad:

I would gladly pay the higher taxes that might result from having fewer super-rich (and their disproportionate political influence) around.

Punish the rich and you won't be able to pay more taxes because your income will go with theirs, rich are the ones that put people to work! Try paying more with no job!

That is ludicrous.

Are you trying to tell me that economically, the United States was a worse place to live in the postwar decades?

Seems to me, that was when the middle class truly emerged, and there were very few "super-rich" during this time period. And families could make a good living on one income.

We haven't seen the current type wealth concentration since the Gilded Age, and frankly, it is a threat to our democracy.

I didn't know you were such toady!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
aplusmnt said:
badaxemoo said:
I would gladly pay the higher taxes that might result from having fewer super-rich (and their disproportionate political influence) around.

Punish the rich and you won't be able to pay more taxes because your income will go with theirs, rich are the ones that put people to work! Try paying more with no job!

That is ludicrous.

Are you trying to tell me that economically, the United States was a worse place to live in the postwar decades?

Seems to me, that was when the middle class truly emerged, and there were very few "super-rich" during this time period. And families could make a good living on one income.

We haven't seen the current type wealth concentration since the Gilded Age, and frankly, it is a threat to our democracy.

I didn't know you were such toady!

The ability to live on one income ended when the middle class decided they needed more, they wanted to live like the rich. Wants and needs have changed drastically now things like Microwaves and Cable TV are considered needs not wants. Multiple cars, Multiple TV's kids wearing $150 shoes to school.

The rich did not change the middle class changed! And now they are babies like you, thinking they are entitled to even more! Problem is they do not want to obtain it through hard work they think by bringing the rich down to their level somehow that will elevate them to the Riches level.

Typical Liberal Class idiocracy!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
badaxemoo said:
aplusmnt said:
Punish the rich and you won't be able to pay more taxes because your income will go with theirs, rich are the ones that put people to work! Try paying more with no job!

That is ludicrous.

Are you trying to tell me that economically, the United States was a worse place to live in the postwar decades?

Seems to me, that was when the middle class truly emerged, and there were very few "super-rich" during this time period. And families could make a good living on one income.

We haven't seen the current type wealth concentration since the Gilded Age, and frankly, it is a threat to our democracy.

I didn't know you were such toady!

The ability to live on one income ended when the middle class decided they needed more, they wanted to live like the rich. Wants and needs have changed drastically now things like Microwaves and Cable TV are considered needs not wants. Multiple cars, Multiple TV's kids wearing $150 shoes to school.

The rich did not change the middle class changed! And now they are babies like you, thinking they are entitled to even more! Problem is they do not want to obtain it through hard work they think by bringing the rich down to their level somehow that will elevate them to the Riches level.

Typical Liberal Class idiocracy!

Do you have an understanding of the concept of wages in "real dollars".

It doesn't have anything to do with "wants" - although there is a separate argument to be made there that I might agree with you on - it's about how much your actual earnings are worth.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
I think badaxemoo has it right.

It is greed that caused the most recent economic downturn. The dot coms in many cases had barely anything to sell and barely any sales. Yet they were valued in the billions because of hype and the Gold Rush mentality in the financial community. This country is overly dependent on a system that is fueled by greed and hype and has an extremely short term view. Companies are measured by quarterly returns and god forbid a company wants to invest. Companies are expected to expand and expand and expand. The result of all this are companies that cut their operating expenses to the bone and have no vision and no integrity. And companies gobbling up other companies until there are only 1 or 2 left. And lobbyists in the pay of these huge companies having an undue influence upon elected officials because the elected officials need so much money nowadays to run for re-election. And everything revolves around charisma and television and PR firms pitching candidates to a public that is getting dumber by the hour.

It wasn't just greed, but stupidity on the part of lenders, stupidity on the part of goverment, and stupidity on the part of homeowners.

I will agree with you on a public that is getting dumber. We just elected a man as president* who had absolutely no business even running. People like Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd get reelected (and yes, there are plenty of Republicans that need tossed, too).

The American people have come to accept any one that runs. Some of the old ones keep getting elected year after year. They stay in until they are dead. I think that Strom Thurmond was embalmed for the last few years of his term. We keep electing and keeping policital hacks from both sides.
The ones with the best advertising gets elected. Of all that was running last year there was not a business person in the bunch. Now Cindy McCain should have been running instead of John, at least she has some business sense.
Another note and may be off subject but I would like to add here. Guaranty Bank was closed this week by the FDIC and they turned around and sold it to a Spanish Bank at a loss of billions of dollars. Why not just pay the depositers and shut the doors and auction the assets. The depositers would find another bank to go to. Some of the assets were mortgages I would think they could also be auctioned. The good ones would bring a preimuim and the shaker ones would not, but there would be a buyer for all at some price.
I doubt that you would ever get a person that has been successful in business to run for a poltiical office. The sucesseful business person has to have total control of the business he is running. Then everone would hollar dictator. If Moses had depended on a commitee to decide where and when they were going, if this had been so they would still be wondering around in the wilderness.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Without knowing the details of the Guaranty Bank deal, I'll just say that it isn't as simple as just paying off the depositors and auctioning off the loans. Think about it, the reason the FDIC took it over was because it was upside down, and for a bank to get upside down it would be unable to pay off depositors because the asset side of the ledger (the value of the loans) wasn't as big as the debit side of the ledger (the depositor's money).
 
Top