Have and have not, goodbye America

[Flakey]

MSN=CRAP
At least when these were print articles, I could still line the bird cage or wrap fish

 

[George Hatch]

The proceeds from "tax the rich" will go to the govt. Not to the population (and especially not equally) except in the form of unearned benefits.

I don't care about "the rich" one way or another, because no matter how much money the govt takes in, my competition for a gallon of gas or a sack of potatoes or a new car will not be the govt. My competition for resources of all types will be my peers.

 

[Mike Ault]

So for each $1Trillion you take from the top 5%, the remaining, say 335 million, they get about $3000 per person. $1 Trillion invested in manufacturing and infrastructure creates about 1 to 2 million jobs. The top 5% have about $65 Trillion.

The last time we listened to a supply-sider BS us we wound up with a great rust belt, de-industrialized and unable to fight the next global conflict against a country where all OUR MONEY was invested.

 

[Surf Cat]

It needed to start with Reagan.

Yup....

Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion, dropped the income tax rate on the top 1% from 70% to 28%, sold 500 missiles to Iran, was slow to act on AIDS, and set into motion the end of mental institutions, helping to create a massive homelessness crisis that continues to this day.

This is the short list. And he’s not even close to the worst president we’ve ever had. Trump has that title hands down.

 

[George Hatch]

The last time we listened to a supply-sider BS us we wound up with a great rust belt, de-industrialized and unable to fight the next global conflict against a country where all OUR MONEY was invested.

Be serious, some of the de-industrialization amounted to pricing ourselves out of the market *despite* retaining more favorable corporate tax policies. Not to mention our export of the pollution.

When it costs our companies 5x more to produce something than other developing countries can deliver that is not a function of inadequately taxing the rich.

 

[J Grant]

So for each $1Trillion you take from the top 5%, the remaining, say 335 million, they get about $3000 per person. $1 Trillion invested in manufacturing and infrastructure creates about 1 to 2 million jobs. The top 5% have about $65 Trillion.

But the trend of the wealthy and corporations is not to invest the 1 trillion in manufacturing or infrastructure here. They keep it for themselves, at a low tax rate thanks to GOP tax policy.

Taxes pay for infrastructure repair, which creates jobs. Manufacturing has not returned to America under Trump; it is just another empty promise.
I admire rich people when they innovate and create jobs, when they outsource and get huge tax breaks for it, and live off trust funds, not so much.

Wealth does not just flow down from the top. It also flows up from the bottom and middle and up to the wealthy.

It is symbiotic -the wealth accrues not just from providing a good or service; it accrues from making $ off of misery, exploiting people for low wages, ruthless elimination of competition.

There are also wealthy philanthropists, and of course a number who invest and create jobs here.

PS I do not "hate the rich." That kind of knee-jerk comment is beyond annoying.

 

[George Hatch]

Wealth doesn't sit idle because if it does the inflation eats on it. The wealthy put their excess to work for them to generate even more wealth.
Whatever your savings are, you would most likely have them invested with the intention to generate some ROI, not sitting passively in a safe deposit box and losing 3% of their purchasing power every year. I don't think it's reasonable to assume "the rich" are doing the same even though their materialistic spending is a lot higher.

 

[Mike Ault]

Be serious, some of the de-industrialization amounted to pricing ourselves out of the market *despite* retaining more favorable corporate tax policies. Not to mention our export of the pollution.

When it costs our companies 5x more to produce something than other developing countries can deliver that is not a function of inadequately taxing the rich.

If it does in fact cost us five times more to produce something which is vital to our national defense then that means we spend that money rather than economize ourselves into oblivion. We can spend less on sun tanning lotion & our pets. Exporting our shipbuilding & other industrial capacity was no less a bad & shortsighted idea than exporting our nuclear weapons manufacturing capability would've been. You don't do stupid sh*t like that. The fact that we turn all those decisions over to people like Trump whose only loyalty is personal gain is the Achilles' heel of capitalism.

 

[Elliott]

The proceeds from "tax the rich" will go to the govt. Not to the population (and especially not equally) except in the form of unearned benefits.

Example...."The New York City Council is considering legislation that would grant top elected officials, including the mayor, an 18.2% pay raise. If enacted, the mayor's salary would increase from $258,000 to $350,000 (with other reports estimating a jump from $258,750 to $305,800). [1, 2, 3, 4]"

"That's Socialism Folks"

 

[alebrewer]

The folks on the liberal side of the isle like to point to the Nordic countries as shining examples of how well socialism works. They are, however, still market economies - only market economies with relatively high tax rates, which in turn allows them to provide a healthier cohort of social programs (healthcare and retirement). It seems to me this is less about the success of socialism as it is the ability to curb the grift. The tax $ are actually going toward their intended use and not being scraped by fraudsters, politicians, and the politicians' sycophants.