8 richest own as much as half of the World's population. Oxfam

[metis]

And as I recall, the economy was positively booming under Ike.

Yep.

 

[metis]

Which applied to people make over 3 million a year at a marginal rate in 1955. If you know what a marginal rate is your get my point and Sander's lies are apparent. More so revenues do not match this rate meaning the government didn't actually collect income tax from such rates, it was a number on the books nothing more.

But you're sorta missing the point here. Yes, it pretty much is common knowledge that very few making money at the higher level pay the going rate, both then and now, but if we could check what the net rate was, I'm very confident that it is higher than what we see today at an equivalent level.

The importance is that some seem to believe that revenues collected just somehow vanish into thin air, which is not at all true. For example, when the former Minister of Finance in Sweden was asked how that country was able to shuck off slow growth in the early 1990's and recover by the end of that decade, his response was "Higher taxes".

To some on the right who are brainwashed into thinking that such money disappears, but to any serious economist they would understand that what the man said was very much possible.

 

[metis]

Those are the people that will suffer from those tax rates not the rich that use capital. Sanders have fooled people into thinking the rich actually have an income like normal people, they don't. They invest their wealth into capital ventures. Which means when someone is worth 1 billion that is not disposable income in a bank but a collective sum covering a wide range of investments

Again, that's very misleading. Yes, they usually do invest, but invest where becomes the next logical question.

The conservative mantra is that it's the "money-makers" that drive the economy. No, it is not. It is demand that's the driving force, and if the demand is high enough, the money-makers will invest, and if not, they won't.

To increase demand is a variable based on numerous factors, but one way is to try and get more money into circulation so that more people have jobs, spend more, thus increasing demand. But the trick is how to do this without it leading to higher inflation. Even though we have run a higher deficit over the last decade, inflation has been very low, so it obviously can and has been done.

 

[Shad]

Again, that's very misleading. Yes, they usually do invest, but invest where becomes the next logical question.

No it doesn't. People are free to invest in whatever they want. You have no say in how I invest my money.

The conservative mantra is that it's the "money-makers" that drive the economy. No, it is not. It is demand that's the driving force, and if the demand is high enough, the money-makers will invest, and if not, they won't.

Which I already acknowledge is false. Demand is not the driving force either as it requires capital investment to create a new product, a new industry to make that product, etc. If there is a demand for something then the product already exists. If there is a demand for say a cheaper product it is not going to magically appear just because people want a cheaper product. If the products costs are above the profit margin there is no product.

To increase demand is a variable based on numerous factors, but one way is to try and get more money into circulation so that more people have jobs, spend more, thus increasing demand. But the trick is how to do this without it leading to higher inflation. Even though we have run a higher deficit over the last decade, inflation has been very low, so it obviously can and has been done.

Like I said it is a mix of both. Risky products are not successful because of consumer demand as they are not the ones making the risk. Likewise a product without a demand will fail. Both curb the extremes of useless products and unreasonable consumer demands. It is a balancing act that at times takes years to come to fruition. The ones taking a risk with such extremes are risk investors which are not the middle class. The middle class ensures the products line continue. It goes both ways.

 

[Shad]

But you're sorta missing the point here. Yes, it pretty much is common knowledge that very few making money at the higher level pay the going rate, both then and now, but if we could check what the net rate was, I'm very confident that it is higher than what we see today at an equivalent level.

No the point was based on faction since Sanders omits information as to why such rates existed on the books. America now is not the America of the 1950s. A glance at history shows this. He is selling you a fiction as you do not bother to figure out why something works and why something wont work.

The importance is that some seem to believe that revenues collected just somehow vanish into thin air, which is not at all true.

My point was that the tax rate was on the book but was not actually put into practice. If I say you are going to pay 90% but I do not make you pay 90% then I am putting forward a fictional narrative based on emotions not facts.

For example, when the former Minister of Finance in Sweden was asked how that country was able to shuck off slow growth in the early 1990's and recover by the end of that decade, his response was "Higher taxes".

Yah an income tax rate of 56% for those that make 88k USD, 51% for 60-80k. Have fun paying 50% of your income in taxes. Nevermind that Sweden has one of the highest personal debate rates on the planet. It's education system is rated below Americas, which is laughable itself. Lets forget about a large portion immigrant population that is living off of benefits programs rather than the labour of their own hands nor that this same immigrant population has increased the crime rates of Sweden to new highs. Count the hits ignore the misses.

To some on the right who are brainwashed into thinking that such money disappears, but to any serious economist they would understand that what the man said was very much possible.

Hardly as you can find many economist shredding his plan far more than I have done from both sides of the left and right spectrum.

 

[metis]

No it doesn't. People are free to invest in whatever they want. You have no say in how I invest my money.

I was not saying where you or anyone else must invest you money. The fact of the matter is that investments tend to go in the direction of greater market potential and that will relate to demand, whether that demand is current or latent.

Which I already acknowledge is false. Demand is not the driving force either as it requires capital investment to create a new product, a new industry to make that product, etc.

You are attempting to redefine basic economics. A "new product" is not likely to be produced if potential investors don't anticipate demand for that product. You can invest all you want, but nothing is likely to give you any return for your investment if there's no demand for it. Again, this is basic stuff-- "law of supply and demand".

The ones taking a risk with such extremes are risk investors which are not the middle class.

Actually they are to a large extent as there are millions of us middle-class people who invest in the the stock market.

 

[Revoltingest]

The conservative mantra is that it's the "money-makers" that drive the economy. No, it is not. It is demand that's the driving force, and if the demand is high enough, the money-makers will invest, and if not, they won't.

You're essentially arguing that one link in a chain is important, & the others aren't.a
And economy is not a single element.

 

[metis]

Nevermind that Sweden has one of the highest personal debate rates on the planet. It's education system is rated below Americas, which is laughable itself. Lets forget about a large portion immigrant population that is living off of benefits programs rather than the labour of their own hands nor that this same immigrant population has increased the crime rates of Sweden to new highs. Count the hits ignore the misses.

I think you had better read a bit more than you have on Sweden before making such a claim. I am often jealous of my relatives there when we talk because of how they're doing, and they're doing well under some pretty significant obstacles, such as high pay scales, diminishing resources, foreign competition, etc.

 

[metis]

1. BTW, it's pretty much common knowledge in economics that lower-income families tend to spend more proportionally, thus increasing demand, than upper-income families. If I'm scraping by making $40,000 per year per family, I'm not going to be investing in Brazilian stock or vacationing in Tahiti.

 

[Revoltingest]

1. BTW, it's pretty much common knowledge in economics that lower-income families tend to spend more proportionally, thus increasing demand, than upper-income families. If I'm scraping by making $40,000 per year per family, I'm not going to be investing in Brazilian stock or vacationing in Tahiti.

Money not spent isn't unproductive.
When it's saved, it's loaned out to provide capital for business creation & expansion.

 

[Shad]

I think you had better read a bit more than you have on Sweden before making such a claim.

I have friends in Sweden

I am often jealous of my relatives there when we talk because of how they're doing, and they're doing well under some pretty significant obstacles, such as high pay scales, diminishing resources, foreign competition, etc.

They live in a bubble that will soon burst. Being happy with a fiction does not make it less a fiction.

 

[Shad]

I was not saying where you or anyone else must invest you money.

You question where people invest their money. This suggests that you have an idea of the right type, or way, to invest and a wrong type to invest.

The fact of the matter is that investments tend to go in the direction of greater market potential and that will relate to demand, whether that demand is current or latent.

Sure. However this means there is already a stable or reasonable product demand dynamic with in the local market. This is merely adding to the existing system. However when a market has no local production lines it becomes a higher risk investment. One must risky something to develop distribution links, factors lines, employee

You are attempting to redefine basic economics. A "new product" is not likely to be produced if potential investors don't anticipate demand for that product.

Anticipation based assessments can and have been wrong repeatedly. You can spend 5 minutes looking at products that have died out due to flawed speculation. Markets can open in different sectors decades after development. For example computers for decades were largely a corporate, government and academic product. The product was refined within these markets. A potential demand for the product for an average consumer drove development not a customer demand itself. Which was the point of the video. Early models did not meet the consumer demand within the limits of the consumers buying power.

You can invest all you want, but nothing is likely to give you any return for your investment if there's no demand for it. Again, this is basic stuff-- "law of supply and demand".

You can actually create a market demand by pandering to the masses with gimmicks. Spend a few hours watching late night advertisement to see how many products are offered as something people should need but don't. They convince you that you have a demand for their product. If you have bought a bottle of water from a store you have bought a product there was no demand for. Water in the develop world is easily accessible to the point you can get it for free from most decent people if you ask.

Actually they are to a large extent as there are millions of us middle-class people who invest in the the stock market.

I am not talking about the stock market or stock capital itself. Capital investment is into things like factories, budgets, property, infrastructure. Actually development and assets on one side as fixed assets. Stocks pay a role in capital assets. Fixed assets have a major risk factor as those that invest directly can not pull back to recover a reasonable loss. For those with fixed assets they risk reward dynamic is less protection but similar taxation. You in the stock market are free to cut your losses or cash in as you see fit. Those with fixed assets are bound to these assets. There are also a number of regulation and laws to prevent those with fixed assets from scamming the market.

 

[metis]

You question where people invest their money. This suggests that you have an idea of the right type, or way, to invest and a wrong type to invest.

No, I am not questioning where people invest, just that there are some ways that have worked out better or worse than some others overall. After all, the basic intent of studying economics is to try and determine such factors, regardless as to how we may personally decide to invest. Since types and rates of taxation must be considered, economists also know what tends to work out better or worse, even though there are often disagreements between the schools.

 

[Shad]

No, I am not questioning where people invest, just that there are some ways that have worked out better or worse than some others overall. After all, the basic intent of studying economics is to try and determine such factors, regardless as to how we may personally decide to invest. Since types and rates of taxation must be considered, economists also know what tends to work out better or worse, even though there are often disagreements between the schools.

That is just the risk factor when speculating. You shouldn't regulate how much risk someone is willing to make with their own money. At times progress is made by radicals (not the status quo) taking extreme risks that normal people wouldn't take.

 

[metis]

You shouldn't regulate how much risk someone is willing to make with their own money.

You're assuming that it's all their own money whereas we do live in a society whereas the majority feel that we owe some responsibilities, including financial, to our society. IOW, none of us makes money in a vacuum.

 

[Thanda]

World? Why do you think America is responsible for correcting all the mistakes of other governments and the people that elected them. Your post is a prime example of the entitlement era. You are demanding change on a global level when there is no global government. You are demanding other nations change their system to cater to you. You think it must be the responsibility of the successful to pay for the mistake of those that are not. If you can not afford your house payments I am not responsible for paying what you can not afford. This is the difference between accepting personal responsibility and that of adults that make demands like children. You do not get something merely because you demand it. Own your choices, it is one of the best ways of figuring out how to make sound choices rather than a series of poor ones.

My word, what a rant. Okay if you struggle to look past your own country then what policies do you think will lead to a better America

 

[icehorse]

His idea that the middle class create jobs is a much as fiction as the point he attacks. It is a mix of both

You didn't listen - he says very explicitly that it's a mix of both.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, you did need it.
As the more experienced poster (spanked more), I help you newbies understand how to survive here.

No....you're an odd duck for a plethora of reasons....mostly sartorial.

That's a rather pollyanna belief.
There's the risk that if government supports everyone who doesn't work, this would encourage the dole.
With technological advancement, it might become possible to make work optional some day.
But we're not there yet.

Story time....
I have some friends, a couple, who are dedicated Democrats. They both campaigned for Hillary. They both believe in higher taxes, bigger government, the welfare state, & soaking the rich. He (the hubby) is an avowed socialist. But they also use a pretty clever scheme to evade taxes.....converting non-declared barter income into permanently deferred capital gains.
Why would they do this?
Because paying more tax than you have to is for SUCKAS!
Deep in your heart, you know this to be true.

Won't happen.
The benefits of paying less tax will always make it worth enduring the socialist's stink eye.

Reading this stuff reminds me that a few months ago you took on a young guy to work for, and you were going to tell him about the world, and pay him about 8 dollars an hour.
I said that I would want about 14.
You asked if I thought I was worth it.
I will tell you the truth. No. I wouldn't be worth it.
But if I had to listen to your ideas about the world, all day, all week, I would need 20 dollars per hour, in compensation for listening to these head-banging ideas.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reading this stuff reminds me that a few months ago you took on a young guy to work for, and you were going to tell him about the world, and pay him about 8 dollars an hour.
I said that I would want about 14.
You asked if I thought I was worth it.
I will tell you the truth. No. I wouldn't be worth it.
But if I had to listen to your ideas about the world, all day, all week, I would need 20 dollars per hour, in compensation for listening to these head-banging ideas.

I think you'd end up demanding more.
Not only would I assault you with ideas, I'd also tell jokes.

 

[Shad]

You didn't listen - he says very explicitly that it's a mix of both.

No he didn't. He openly states at 5:22 the consumer is the job creator. Watch it again.