Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

[unofan]

Mr. Obama should visit these "evil" 1%er friends of his. They'd put a heck of a dent in the problem.

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than poorest half of US

Buffett has repeatedly asked for his taxes to be raised.

Can't speak to Gates' tax philosophy, though both he and Buffett are giving away 95+% to charity, so the problem of intergenerational wealth isn't an issue there, either.

But yes, Buffett is clearly the same as the Koch's, Mr BSABSVR.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I'm just making sure that "the evil 1%" is recognized for what they are: Diverse ... meaning Rs and Ds.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Does anybody truly believe that anymore?

I'm about 99% sure Sicatoka does. Or he's just trying to convince people of that to avoid paying his taxes and is just being cynical, not really sure which one is the case.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Mr. Obama should visit these "evil" 1%er friends of his. They'd put a heck of a dent in the problem.

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than poorest half of US

Here's one for you in the "1% Welfare" file: Bezos got the government to subsidize $1.46 for every package sent by Amazon. Of course most on here won't complain about that because they get "free shipping" out of it... https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the...ery-1499987531

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Definitely not paying the WSJ to read their articles lmao.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I believe people with more money spend it and it does good things for the whole economy.
I believe people with their money make better spending decisions, including charity and goodwill, than government would with it. Why? Less overhead for one.
I believe we're ignoring one entire side of the governmental budget equation, namely, spending.

We'll never tax our way to prosperity (hasn't ever been done), and especially so when we can't stop spending* like sailors on shore leave.


*Politicians have to keep getting re-elected so it won't change.

[unofan]

It boggles my mind that you don't see the inherent contradiction between

I believe people with more money spend it and it does good things for the whole economy.

With this

I believe we're ignoring one entire side of the governmental budget equation, namely, spending.

We need to spend because it helps the economy. But the government needs to stop spending. Durrr.

Less overhead for one.

Not remotely true.

We'll never tax our way to prosperity (hasn't ever been done), and especially so when we can't stop spending* like sailors on shore leave.

Funny how plenty of other places have, how the higher taxed states have relative to low tax states, and how this country used to do just 60-75 years ago.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

That and this idea that the private sector and the average person is somehow that much more competent/efficient than government which has no basis in reality. Also the idea that people in the 1% spend the same percentage of their income/wealth as the average person is clearly false.

[mookie1995]

Also the idea that people in the 1% spend the same percentage of their income/wealth as the average person is clearly false.

Mookie has never seen that assumption before 1 minute ago right here written by you

[mookie1995]

Not remotely true.

so you REALLY carry more overhead than the government? Honest and for true???

[unofan]

so you REALLY carry more overhead than the government? Honest and for true???

Social security has an overall overhead of 2%. If you limit it to just retirement, it's less than 1%.

Show me a private financial planner with 1% overhead.

[mookie1995]

Social security has an overall overhead of 2%. If you limit it to just retirement, it's less than 1%.

Show me a private financial planner with 1% overhead.

Social security has no money. This isn’t Norway.

Let’s stick with reality please

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I believe people with more money spend it and it does good things for the whole economy.
I believe people with their money make better spending decisions, including charity and goodwill, than government would with it. Why? Less overhead for one.
I believe we're ignoring one entire side of the governmental budget equation, namely, spending.

We'll never tax our way to prosperity (hasn't ever been done), and especially so when we can't stop spending* like sailors on shore leave.


*Politicians have to keep getting re-elected so it won't change.

The spending decisions really depends on what you're trying to do with it. If you're spending to make yourself happy, then at least at the time of purchase, the decision is 100% popular. Once you start having to take into account the opinions of other, the popularity becomes much more diluted. I don't think there's going to be a single decision that will please 300 million people.

Also, I don't think we're ignoring spending so much as considering what should be on the table. Democrats don't want to put Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs on the table, as is evidenced by a 2015 graph set on "mandatory" vs. "discretionary" spending. MIC doesn't want to put defense spending on the table, for obvious reasons. I say put it all on the table with exception to anything that's in the Constitution, which includes the repayment of creditors.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Mookie has never seen that assumption before 1 minute ago right here written by you

Well it depends how Mookie interprets this

I believe people with more money spend it and it does good things for the whole economy.

When three people who have 50% of the nation's wealth save at rate much higher than the average person it's not hard to understand why this is a problem in an economy where 70% of GDP comes from consumer spending.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

When three people who have 50% of the nation's wealth save at rate much higher than the average person it's not hard to understand why this is a problem in an economy where 70% of GDP comes from consumer spending.

How would you spend, on average, 10 million per week?