That's low. Even for you, Raoul.

 

I concede that if the number is low that it could be cumbersome but historically it was set at a high number for the times. I believe the threshold was a million in the 1970s.

Regardless, few people have base salaries in excess of say $5 million (unless you're an athlete). The majority at this level are business owners, traders, etc.
They have control if they are going to draw out of the business/investment or reinvest. If the keep the $$ in the business, it isn't income and don't pay tax on it. Kind of like a 401k.

Its their money and they can keep it and reinvest or pay the tax and use it. A growing business is more valuable to the owner and to society.

Savings are valuable to the poor and middle class as they provide a safety net. Although idle money, the volume they possess isn't great. When the wealthy tie up their money in savings (big time $$) it is idle and serves no greater good. A bigger and stronger business provides for all.

Look at stock trading volume from the past and compare it to the present. People historically bought and held stocks long term. Companies were concerned about growth and the long term. Today speculators trade rapidly and makes companies make unwise decisions to satisfy speculators and their desire for instant profit. Look up Sunbeam as an example.

 

Why stop at socialism? Just go for all out communism, right?

 

i've put a few people *cough*k mac*cough* on ignore, but i've never asked they be banned from the board...

 

Surely a president who promised us transparency could let us know the size of his entourage and the cost to taxpayers.

 

Well, he is a black man so supposedly his entourage is huge.

 

Which reminds me, I had my annual physical yesterday. Every year, I try to lighten the mood for the prostrate examine with some wit.

So, yesterday I ask the doc if he's going to take his Class ring off this time.
He said, I've been doing this for nearly forty years and I've heard them all, ok?

Not to be defeated, I still got a laugh out of him. During the examine I muttered,

"...University....of.....Texas.........19.........7 2..."

 

I don't think our country was socialist or communist country for 40+ years. This is nothing that didn't exist for decades prior to Reaganomics. After 30 years, the right still don't want to accept that it wasn't as great as billed.

It helped make more millionaires and billionaires but also crushed the middle class. Large concentrations of wealth amongst a few is not a good thing for a sustainable economy.

We had a strong manufacturing base and actual building of wealth in our country at one time.

 

You're always curious Frank, that's what we love about you.

Consider the comment tongue in cheek Frank, something you've always had problems dissecting because there are no pundits out there writing about it so you can scarf up a quote or two.
My comment was made to poke fun at the rabid right and left wingers that believe it's their way or the highway.
Sorry if it hit home and raised the small hairs on your neck.

 

What? You been drinking?

Still drinking?

Ok. If this is something that you believe, combat it with YOUR spending habits. Do all you can to convince others to spend more wisely. Stand up for yourself, and for thoes who you believe are being left behind. Stop passing your responsibility as an individual on to the government.



Yes, we did have a strong manufacturing base. It wasn't a result of governmnet intervention. In fact, the times when government interviened, growth slowed. It's when government got out of the way and demand took over that there was prosperity.

I guess we're never going to agree. You believe in government taking on the roll of wealth redistributer. I believe that what made this country great is people working to better themselves, largely unencombered by the strong arm of government.

 

and weary, don't forget weary, lol

 

Democrats weren't voted out because of "8 years of bush." They were voted out because of all the new policies they were putting on the table. Adding more trash is not the answer and the American people realized it.

When will people quit blaming bush?

 

Obama is trying to say that the election results are his fault because it did not communicate his message well enough. It's his fault alright, but because he communicated his message too well and the people did not like the message. Change is one thing, but a path of destruction is too much change and unacceptable.

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AkfNHrkGRQ..._retrospective

 

What are you trying to say? This makes no sense.

Americans still have the abillity to start with nothing and become very wealthy. All it takes is for the person to get off their butts, quit complaining, stay clean, and do the work. I can think of one very recent example in Marco Rubio. About the only connections his parents could give him was if some rich dude stayed in a room they cleaned. He has kicked butt and become very successful.

I don't think I told my background here, for brevity's sake I'll give the cliff note version. When I moved out of my dad's house I had three pairs of jeans, five t-shirts and a basic (literally manuel tranny, no A/C, cheap AM radio) six year old car. That was all of my worldly possessions. Even though I worked six days a week, I was so poor had to get my "new" clothes out of the garbage. I couldn't even afford to buy clothes from the Goodwill. Flash forward 20+ years and I have a nice house, decent clothes, good food, enough spare money to send my kid to the best private school in the area and still save a decent amount for retirement. Now the only time I really think about money is when I'm trying to determine where I'm going to invest it. What are my special skills? None really that anybody else doesn't have. I do have a rather high IQ, but I've never had a job where it was required. I have a good work ethic (I try to give 10 hours worth of work for 8 hours pay) and that's about it. I'm not wealthy, but I'm doing very well when compared to how I started. If I didn't care about my family I could be very wealthy, but I'd rather spend time with them than chasing the buck.

I think Frobes has a list they come out with concerning highest paid under forty. Granted some of those people probably started with a few connections or their family might have had money, but their success is all them. If they were idiots or didn't have the drive for financial success they would be doing the jobs that don't pay well.

 

Wittom, I am curious of what time period you are referring to? Most of the 20th century except for the period leading up to the Great Depression and the 1980's + had a very high top tier income tax after the Income Tax was enacted. Thus forcing reinvestment as taking a 70-90% hit on income over the threshold would be painful.

I am writing my dissertation for my Ph D and am seriously wanting to hear the other side. All of my research romanticizes the days of Reagan and refers to him as a genius on the right and portrays him gravely from the left.

By the numbers, Supply Side Economics seems to be a bust. It brought the tax rate down dramatically and was supposed to lower the debt, increase production (GDP), bring more money in the the federal coffers and better the people's lot in life. The debt under Reagan went from 900 billion to 2.8 trillion. Tax revenues stayed flat. The GDP went down initially during 1981-82 recession and recovered from 1983-89 but at no higher rate than normal growth after a recession. The top 2/5ths of the wealthy had substantial gains in wealth. The bottom 2/5ths suffered. Wages were stagnant. Interest rates/inflation were controlled through monetary policy. Personal savings decreased significantly.

Is there something I am missing? I am only 35 now so I don't claim to know it all or anything. I can only go by what I have experienced.

I did see that Clinton improved the economy after the 1990-91 recession by raising taxes on the wealthy and brought the budget back into balance. I have seen that the 8 years of Bush where he slashed taxes on the wealthy and our debt spiraled out of control.

I can't see how returning to the policies that dug us into a mess being the way out. What am I missing?

I agree that loosening restrictions on small business is helpful as it can strangle them. I also see letting big business run a muck can be suicidal for our country. Power breeds corruption.

I am sincere in my wanting to understand the other side. It seems that either it is a strong revision of history that isn't quite clear or an intangible that cannot be seen with numbers.

I understand that the Carter days of gas shortages and interest rates through the roof could make anything seem better, but the numbers just aren't convincing. The free market drove gas prices up which eased supply. Gov't control reigned in interest rates/inflation, not the free markets there.