- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You are not looking in the right place for government waste.
Try rather the DoD, which swallows whole 54% of the Discretionary Budget ...
Right. Well, noting your sudden lurch into poverty, the US has conducted a war on poverty for 40+ years - Trillions of dollars spent, and no discernable difference in poverty. So, the question becomes, should the government just continue burning money, or is there a different strategy that might provide better results?
Blah, blah, blah.
M r a ...
You are not looking in the right place for government waste.
Try rather the DoD, which swallows whole 54% of the Discretionary Budget ...
My father would disagree with you. He's in his 80's.
You do know, "that the public sector got involved is" is not in any way indication of whether or not the involvement was smart, efficient or even helpful. Just because you know there is a problem does not justify stupid action.
As large capital accumulations will tend to spend more on further investment than would groups with no capital and lower income, it makes sense to see an increase in the concentration of that limited capital.
Last year, the average S&P 500 CEO made $9M in all forms of compensation. One client runs a division of a major international investment bank, net worth in the $30M range and most of the profits from his division flow directly or indirectly from the public sector, the taxpayer. Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a high level programmer in a successful IT company.
The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal.
I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit.
I think that's a silly idea, confiscation of 95% at a marginal rate.With "adept" income taxation, a progressive tax would more fairly share the burden. But the super-rich absolutely must pay a LOT MORE.
And, for reasons I've explained elsewhere, the Sky Is Not the Limit - as many are trying to prove. It's a game of "Who earns most?"
Here's the solution:
*A progressive annual income taxation that approaches 95% for all income less than 1.5MB.
*This will help prevent a "runaway Finance Industry" that brought the American economy to its knees in 2008 (with the SubPrime Toxic Waste Mess).
*An annual Wealth Tax at 1.5% of the total. ($15K per megabuck - and no exceptions.)
*Inheritance taxation that allows for a 1MB inheritance to direct descendents at zero-percent taxation, and 100% above that amount. Any and all further monetary values may be contributed to an "authorized public entity" at zero taxation. If not they are confiscated.
I see, so you are in denial of reality. He is the President of the US so he is your President whether you admit it or not. Btw, you didn't give an answer, you gave a talking point.
And once again, please demonstrate how it would be actuarily possible for an individual in their late 60s or older to get health insurance on that private market absent big subsidies. The fact you can't do that demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.
But I'm not attracted to the propaganda radicals attach themselves to, so I'm actually looking in the right place.
The rich are employing only a small amount of their Net Worth on New Technology and Inventions.
You are kidding yourself.
Prof. Domhoff (UCal) has made a career of inspecting the upper-class riches. His site is worth reading (Who Rules America), and the two pie-charts that started this forum-thread are from there.
Have a good but long read here: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%.
Excerpt:
And:
WTF?Nobody "needs an income" of more than 100K per year to have a decent lifestyle in America. People want more to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack. (Supposedly, they "excel" at what they do. BFD.)
Propaganda?
You have written absolutely NOTHING proving the pie-chart is propaganda.
Try harder, you are just spitting sarcasm.
All are extremely expensive, and that is why actuarily it would be very difficult to insure them in the private sector absent huge subsidies. Its like trying to get auto insurance for a guy with 5 DWIs.
I'm not going to spend any time on this type of radical BS blather, but here you go:
Pie chart of 'federal spending' circulating on the Internet is misleading | PolitiFact
Take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm done with you ...
BS.
About the Federal government civil service, from WikiP:
Yeah, right - private business is suffering from qualified personnel because they all work for the government.
More pathetic BS intended to light fires on the Replicant side of the two-party political coin. The fact of the matter is that hi-tech companies have to hire from abroad to find qualified personnel. And why?
Because a qualified engineer in the US must spend for a degree on average $80K* (state institution fees plus room-'n-board). And since America decided that Donald Dork was a "better choice", Hillary's idea for all tuition paid for any postgraduate degree in families with incomes less than $100K is as dead as a door nail.
Bravo America! Have you ever just shot yourself in both feet ...
*See here: How Much Does it Cost to Study in the US?. Excerpt:
So shortsighted. Government funds come from the private sector.
With "adept" income taxation, a progressive tax would more fairly share the burden. But the super-rich absolutely must pay a LOT MORE.
And, for reasons I've explained elsewhere, the Sky Is Not the Limit - as many are trying to prove. It's a game of "Who earns most?"
Here's the solution:
*A progressive annual income taxation that approaches 95% for all income less than 1.5MB.
*This will help prevent a "runaway Finance Industry" that brought the American economy to its knees in 2008 (with the SubPrime Toxic Waste Mess).
*An annual Wealth Tax at 1.5% of the total. ($15K per megabuck - and no exceptions.)
*Inheritance taxation that allows for a 1MB inheritance to direct descendents at zero-percent taxation, and 100% above that amount. Any and all further monetary values may be contributed to an "authorized public entity" at zero taxation. If not they are confiscated.
The rich are employing only a small amount of their Net Worth on New Technology and Inventions.
You are kidding yourself.
Prof. Domhoff (UCal) has made a career of inspecting the upper-class riches. His site is worth reading (Who Rules America), and the two pie-charts that started this forum-thread are from there.
Have a good but long read here: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%.
Excerpt:
And:
O don't believe there are any laws on the books as to what anyone should do with the money they have. That's part of being a democracy.
Take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm done with you ...
Propaganda?
You have written absolutely NOTHING proving the pie-chart is propaganda.
Try harder, you are just spitting sarcasm.
I'm not going to spend any time on this type of radical BS blather, but here you go:
Pie chart of 'federal spending' circulating on the Internet is misleading | PolitiFact
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?