birdog1960 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I'm surprised none of these Conservatives have argued the wealth will trickle down. give them time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 There, that was not too hard, now was it? There you go again with your lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 how bout you defend your obsession with the distinction between wealth and income inequality when the fed chair states that both are currently present. makes the distinction moot, non? unless you disagree with the fed chair. if so, then you should explain your disagreement. My obsession with it is that knob gobblers conflate the two, when they are two different things. Sorry that you can't get that basic fact. Presence of both does not negate the fact that they are distinctly separate things. And what exactly does Yellen's affirmation that they exist have to do with their difference? BTW, nice of you to start slamming QE, when that's been the only thing propping up the Obama recovery. Shall we dig up your posts defending his administrations economic policies dating back to 2009? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 at this point it isn't about seed money to enlarge or start businesses except in the case of actual start ups. much of the recent rise in stocks is due to buy backs from companies buying their own stock. that's not helping the economy. it's just further concentrating wealth and earning in the hands of the few. and it's enabled and encouraged by the continued QE. one doesn't even need to invoke capital gains taxes to make this argument. it's really not that complicated: the deck is stacked for thems that haves to win and thems that don't to lose. it's by design. i judst can't understand why thems that don't aren't more enraged on the whole. you're reading an awful lot into my answer. all I said was that if taxes were raised on capital gains to the same levels as taxes on income, people would move their money into tax-free investments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 My obsession with it is that knob gobblers conflate the two, when they are two different things. Sorry that you can't get that basic fact. Presence of both does not negate the fact that they are distinctly separate things. And what exactly does Yellen's affirmation that they exist have to do with their difference? Yup, completely different things! Nothing connecting the two at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 BTW, nice of you to start slamming QE, when that's been the only thing propping up the Obama recovery. Shall we dig up your posts defending his administrations economic policies dating back to 2009? He already answered that. It was all the Fed's doing, not Barry's. And the Repubs made the Fed do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 My obsession with it is that knob gobblers conflate the two, when they are two different things. Sorry that you can't get that basic fact. Presence of both does not negate the fact that they are distinctly separate things. And what exactly does Yellen's affirmation that they exist have to do with their difference? BTW, nice of you to start slamming QE, when that's been the only thing propping up the Obama recovery. Shall we dig up your posts defending his administrations economic policies dating back to 2009? she said that massive inequality in both are adversely affecting the economy. they both exist, they are both a problem therefore distinguishing between the two in regards to negative effects on the economy is not necessary to establish the premise: massive financial inequality of both wealth and income adversely affect the economy. agreed? if not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 she said that massive inequality in both are adversely affecting the economy. they both exist, they are both a problem therefore distinguishing between the two in regards to negative effects on the economy is not necessary to establish the premise: massive financial inequality of both wealth and income adversely affect the economy. agreed? if not, why not? So why did she support a policy for 5 years that promotes wealth inequality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Yup, completely different things! Nothing connecting the two at all... Things that are different are not the same, even if they're connected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 she said that massive inequality in both are adversely affecting the economy. they both exist, they are both a problem therefore distinguishing between the two in regards to negative effects on the economy is not necessary to establish the premise: massive financial inequality of both wealth and income adversely affect the economy. agreed? if not, why not? Again, that's not how this works. You've proposed (after first equating wealth with income) that wealth and income disparity adversely affect the economy. Explain how, and demonstarate that your premise is a sound place to begin the debate about the structure of our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 So why did she support a policy for 5 years that promotes wealth inequality? Probably because it was the lesser of two evils I would guess. Do you have an economic policy the government could have followed that was all positive to get us out of the recession? So when the fed "prints" money it lends it to the banks real cheap, right? That's how it goes into circulation, supposedly. One wonders if there wasn't a way to offer it to the general public cheap like that and pump the money in at the bottom instead of the top. Thinking out loud is all. Throw your darts! Again, that's not how this works. You've proposed (after first equating wealth with income) that wealth and income disparity adversely affect the economy. Explain how, and demonstarate that your premise is a sound place to begin the debate about the structure of our economy. A more equitable distribution would allow for more consumer spending and thus more employment and more smiling people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Thinking out loud is all. Throw your darts! No, you're not. There wasn't a thought in that mess. A more equitable distribution would allow for more consumer spending and thus more employment and more smiling people A smile-based economic theory? What, we've run out of hammers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 No, you're not. There wasn't a thought in that mess. A smile-based economic theory? What, we've run out of hammers? What are you drunk again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 A more equitable distribution would allow for more consumer spending and thus more employment and more smiling people Herein lies the liberal problem. Liberals believe that the government should have the right to take earned property from one person and give it to others. Liberals don't like that our country was set up as a higher risk higher reward society and was done so specifically to escape tyrannical governments. Liberals believe that the rich are hoarding money and preventing the economy from growing. Liberals believe that a certain standard of living is a birthright for all American people including millions that entered the country without being invited. Liberals believe that our constitution is flawed and should be changed and if there is not support to change it then it should be ignored. Liberals believe that some people should be given preference over others. It's all bunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Why? Because they are two completely and utterly different things. Other than that, you're on to something. Yup, completely different things! Nothing connecting the two at all... Would you consider someone making $500k a year wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Herein lies the liberal problem. Liberals believe that the government should have the right to take earned property from one person and give it to others. You didn't build that. Somebody else made it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 at this point it isn't about seed money to enlarge or start businesses except in the case of actual start ups. much of the recent rise in stocks is due to buy backs from companies buying their own stock. that's not helping the economy. it's just further concentrating wealth and earning in the hands of the few. and it's enabled and encouraged by the continued QE. one doesn't even need to invoke capital gains taxes to make this argument. it's really not that complicated: the deck is stacked for thems that haves to win and thems that don't to lose. it's by design. i judst can't understand why thems that don't aren't more enraged on the whole. You're arguing that companies should invest their capital in ventures in uncertain times such as these? Perhaps they'd do well at the tables in Las Vegas. Pretty late to the game to just now noticing that companies are sheltering their capital instead of reinvesting it in their businesses. Buying back their own stock is one thing they can do to provide their shareholders i.e., their OWNERS with a better return on their investment. The Democrat's anti-business war has produced a jobless recovery worse than any in the history of the nation. Oh yeah, but GM is alive and Al Qaida is on the run. Tell that to the thousand of GM bond holders who got !@#$ed over, and the workers at Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Oldsmobile, and Saab and their dealerships who got **** canned. And we're airdropping weapons and ammo to ISIL to help win the war on foreign workplace violence. Kudos to you "progressives". It's the kind of world your iconic academic hero Woodrow Wilson imagined I'm sure: FUBAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Because they are two completely and utterly different things. Other than that, you're on to something. How are they different? Would you consider someone making $500k a year wealthy? Sure. Wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Again, that's not how this works. You've proposed (after first equating wealth with income) that wealth and income disparity adversely affect the economy. Explain how, and demonstarate that your premise is a sound place to begin the debate about the structure of our economy. Here are a couple takes on how inequality impact economies:http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/12/pdf/kumhof.pdf http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/2011/10/17/full-analysis-the-instability-of-inequality/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 How are they different? Sure. Wouldn't you? TYTT already explained how they are different. Income is an agreement between an employer and employee with very little risk to the earner. Capital gains comes from taking after tax dollars and investing it sometimes taking a huge risk but with that risk there can be a great reward. There needs to be an incentive to take that risk and one of the incentives is better tax treatment. Just because some people use capital gains to grow their wealth or live off of does not make it income. Now if you were talking dividends that's another story. Many people do use dividend as income however there is a much greater risk to them as well so they are also given a better tax treatment. Investing is how companies grow. If people stopped investing because there was no incentive to take that risk and went with safer routes to generate income (ie. bonds) then many company's growth would slow greatly or cease altoghether. Now to your second question. What if the person maiking $500k a year blew it all on coke and hookers and lived in a $1,000 a month apartment? Would you consider that person wealthy? Hence the differene between income and wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts