I think you'll find, with just a little investigation, that many of the poor are paying for much more than "essentials". There are common factors which cause people to remain poor all their lives and they have nothing to do with others being rich.
No, the point was that those who become wealthy tend to spend their more wisely and invest more wisely. They know that money is a tool.
Certainly government policies can have an effect on the economy but in a free economy, which is largely shrinking due to government policies, people have the opportunity to work their way up the 'economic ladder'.It has to do with policies.
If you feel that's true, what changed in America, once the happiest and wealthiest country in the world?Sorry, the notion that poor people can be rich too, if they just wisely spend their pennies, is ludicrous. The U.S. not only has more income inequality than other advanced countries but also has lower mobility.
Of course. Thats whay charter schools or school vouchers are essential to turning the situation around. Curtailing the power of Teachers Unions would also be pf help by restricting them from making any political donations.This should be left to the individual.The poor have less access to quality schools.
College educations have become less valuable in the marketplace because colleges have become areas of indoctrination rather than education. This also completely overlooks tradespeople and the blue collar worker who tend to do very well and may also be very entrepreneurial.They have less access to college education and fewer job opportunities. To say that all they have to do is spend wisely like wealthy people is false on inspection.
Clearly. But no matter our income we can also save and learn to invest wisely, whether it's using our time wisely, educating ourselves through the financial section of the media rather than the sports or celebrity sections, and so on, searching out bargains, or just checking where we can get the best return on our savings. Millions of people have achieved middle class status, and more, by using a common sense approach.The rich have more disposable income, so they don't have to spend it all -- that's why the p% of income consumed is lower.
see below.
All you have shown is that a few people can become rich. I am asking if every single person can become rich together.
Oy vey... If everyone is rich, who works for corporations?
I was expecting the Illuminati or Bildeburg. Corporations wish everyone was rich, then everyone could afford their product.
If the rich "have a lower propensity to spend" shouldn't that send a message to the poor?
The idea that taxation rates should be used to "fix" income inequality, touted by those like Sanders, is akin to establishing a national maximum wage.
Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC.
If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.
No, the point was that those who become wealthy tend to spend their more wisely and invest more wisely. They know that money is a tool.
Something of that nature, yes. Just not that extreme.
So? Something doesn't have to be a perfect system, it just needs to be better than what we already have.
I'm not sure what concept you are refering to, but if we eliminated income taxes for the 99%, that in itself would be a huge tax code simplification - effecting 99% of us for the better.
What we have now results in the top 10% paying about 71% of the total FIT on about 43% of the total income. Once we define what exactly is a "fair share" then we can talk about tax reform.
I fully agree that the first few (lets say $20K to $30K) dollars of annual income should be federal income tax free but after that I would like to see a fixed rate applied to the balance (excess?).
The idea that two folks working side by side for the same gross income should pay different FIT amounts based on how (or upon who) that income was later spent makes absolutely no sense at all.
We managed to create (and still support?) a very regressive SS/Medicare tax (insurance?) system but somehow many insist on having a very much more progressive FIT system - that also makes no sense at all.
No, because the bar is always being moved.
Maybe not, but they can make their situation better.
Life isn't just about money, and those who are envious must be damned shallow. That may be why they aren't getting ahead in the world.Most rich people far more than poor people do, but they spend a smaller percent of their income, thus technically the full statement should be "they have a lower propensity to spend the marginal dollar". The message sent to the poor is that the rich in America have more money than they can even spend - way to rub it in.
You don't see the poor in bars, buying dope, taking taxis when the checks arrive? The fact is that todays poor in the democracies are better off than almost anywhere else in the world. Perhaps a few months in Nicaragua would give them some insight to their situation.The point you seem to be missing is that the poor don't have any money to spend more wisely or to invest more wisely. If they had "extra" money, then we wouldn't be calling them poor.
You just made my case.You know why poor people sometimes spend money on tatoos? Because it's the one thing that you can get for a hundred dollars (or less) that you will have for the rest of your life, if a tattoo makes them happy, it's literally the best investment they can make, a lifetime of happyness for less than a paycheck.
The Stupids will buy right into this."...[politicians] are increasingly adopting anti-Wall Street rhetoric... [to] appeal to voters’ distrust of the financial sector.
In recent weeks, [one politician] declared he is "fed up" with Wall Street's antics, [another politician] slammed Goldman Sachs and [yet another politician] derided the banking industry as rife with greed.
"We have more banks with more concentrated assets in the United States, and the systematic risk is perhaps greater now...." [one politician] told reporters this month.
The observation from [that politician], .... is not unlike remarks made by from bank basher Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), with both politicians noting that the largest financial institutions have grown in size since Congress passed Dodd-Frank....
"I think Americans are fed up — I am — with Wall Street getting treated specially," said [one politician] "There is nothing too big to fail in my opinion, when it comes to big banks, big corporate entities."....
[another politician] told Bloomberg TV in March that Goldman Sachs "is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism."
"They give favors to Wall Street and big businesses,” [that politician] said on Bloomberg TV. .....
[yet another politician] said on NBC's "Meet The Press" in April that "there's too much greed" on Wall Street."
"I’ll tell you the problem with Wall Street: it is too much about ‘I gotta make money’,” [that politician] said on NBC."
original article with the names of the politicians
Hard work isn't enough unless it is smart hard work. That is why education is so important, and not necessarily a much over-rated college education. Just an education to be the best you can possibly in whatever field you've chosen. For those with an entrepreneurial spirit it takes a special dedication and a lot of learning.You were probably not here when this started. When I pointed out that the middle class had stagnated and the rich were taking most of the economic growth, some people tried to suggest that the middle class should just work really hard so they can be rich. Now we know that is not a viable solution.
Nope. There is no such thing as "fair" in economics. "Fair" is a topic for philosophy. The only thing that matter in economics is having a system that maximizes productivity.
Why? The mean average amount of value created by the America workers is around $130k. Placing an income tax on any income below that amount is counter productive to any real need for income redistribution (assuming that such need even exists). For that matter, I don't see why we would want to tax people who make over the mean average but less than the amount of value which can be reasonably created by a human being. I would propose a standard per income earner tax deduction of $400k (about where our top tax rate starts now), and as low of a tax as possible on any income above that amount.
I totally agree. That's part of the reason that I suggest we exempt most people and most income from income tax.
I agree. SS/medicare should be paid out of the general fund, and benefits shouldn't be linked to ones income.
Most rich people far more than poor people do, but they spend a smaller percent of their income, thus technically the full statement should be "they have a lower propensity to spend the marginal dollar".
The message sent to the poor is that the rich in America have more money than they can even spend - way to rub it in.
Life isn't just about money, and those who are envious must be damned shallow. That may be why they aren't getting ahead in the world.
You don't see the poor in bars, buying dope, taking taxis when the checks arrive? The fact is that todays poor in the democracies are better off than almost anywhere else in the world. Perhaps a few months in Nicaragua would give them some insight to their situation.
You just made my case.
An income tax system where most (90%?) pay no federal income taxes at all would create a nearly infinite demand for more government - after all, it would mean "free" government provided stuff/services for the vast majority of voters. A system with nearly universal representation without taxation is bound to result in a huge increase in the cost of government with little (or no) increase in productivity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?