The Top 1% Super Rich Americans

[QUOTE="Baconnaise"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Were these the same Republicans that enacted Bush Tax Cuts?surrealnumber5

I'm not sure who is being sarchastic, and who is just uninformed........

but Obama appointed Immelt (the head of GE) to the position of Jobs Czar, presumably to find ways to encourage job creation in the United States. Fast forward a few months, and GE announced it is moving it's X-Ray division from the United States to (wait for it..............) China.

Oh, and just to keep with the theme of this thread......... might as well rehash the whole "GE paid not taxes last year" thingy.

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="BATTOSAI76"]

No. What right does the government have to tax higher those that make more money. They didn't necessarily do anything bad to get it. The fed is just punishing success, which is something that Americans should strive for if they see fit. And the people who think the rich should be taxed more are just being b*****, If they made that kind of money they sure as hell wouldn't want it heavily taxed.

surrealnumber5

I'm not sure who is being sarchastic, and who is just uninformed........

but Obama appointed Immelt (the head of GE) to the position of Jobs Czar, presumably to find ways to encourage job creation in the United States. Fast forward a few months, and GE announced it is moving it's X-Ray division from the United States to (wait for it..............) China.

Oh, and just to keep with the theme of this thread......... might as well rehash the whole "GE paid not taxes last year" thingy.

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Baconnaise"] those republicans are considered legislative gods, as the trickle down lead to untold economic prosperity, which we all currently enjoy.sonicare

I'm not sure who is being sarchastic, and who is just uninformed........

but Obama appointed Immelt (the head of GE) to the position of Jobs Czar, presumably to find ways to encourage job creation in the United States. Fast forward a few months, and GE announced it is moving it's X-Ray division from the United States to (wait for it..............) China.

Oh, and just to keep with the theme of this thread......... might as well rehash the whole "GE paid not taxes last year" thingy.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

surrealnumber5

I have to admit I'm LOVING the new sig/avatar combo :D

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] how does the over spending of government equate to a market theory?

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Baconnaise"] those republicans are considered legislative gods, as the trickle down lead to untold economic prosperity, which we all currently enjoy.sonicare

Gaining money is not the creation of wealth but redistribution of wealth. In the ideal world any given person has max. wealth. In a less than ideal world, the real world, in which the amount of wealth is limited, someone who deserves wealth gains money. However the gap between 1% rich people and the rest is so big in terms of wealth, that it is impossible to be in sync with what they deserve, or their success. They are not successful as much as they are bandits.KungfuKitten

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

I'm not sure who is being sarchastic, and who is just uninformed........

but Obama appointed Immelt (the head of GE) to the position of Jobs Czar, presumably to find ways to encourage job creation in the United States. Fast forward a few months, and GE announced it is moving it's X-Ray division from the United States to (wait for it..............) China.

Oh, and just to keep with the theme of this thread......... might as well rehash the whole "GE paid not taxes last year" thingy.

sonicare

LOL, I was being quite facetious as the other guy was too. Just pointing out the flaws of cherry picking. :P

sonicare

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Baconnaise"] those republicans are considered legislative gods, as the trickle down lead to untold economic prosperity, which we all currently enjoy.sonicare

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] in the real world with the free actions of men wealth is indeed created (mutually beneficial trade), and it is also often destroyed by the actions of government (involuntary collections).

sonicare

i forget what big time CEO said it, and my quote will be a little off but it went something like "i lobby against my competitors because if i dont they will lobby against me" the system creates these actions, the actions did not create the system.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i forget what big time CEO said it, and my quote will be a little off but it went something like "i lobby against my competitors because if i dont they will lobby against me" the system creates these actions, the actions did not create the system.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i forget what big time CEO said it, and my quote will be a little off but it went something like "i lobby against my competitors because if i dont they will lobby against me" the system creates these actions, the actions did not create the system.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

i forget what big time CEO said it, and my quote will be a little off but it went something like "i lobby against my competitors because if i dont they will lobby against me" the system creates these actions, the actions did not create the system.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] I'm pretty sure that monopolies would exist without the institution of lobbying.Engrish_Major

How could you not be for raising taxes on somebody else?

sonicare

That is never a good idea in a recession. Oh wait, it's "officially" over.

they can exist in a free market, but there is no history of it, and a free market discourages monopolies vie free competition, in our system we are not free to compete, and exclusive trade rights have been around forever,the worddoes have greek origins.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

they can exist in a free market, but there is no history of it, and a free market discourages monopolies vie free competition, in our system we are not free to compete, and exclusive trade rights have been around forever,the worddoes have greek origins.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

they can exist in a free market, but there is no history of it, and a free market discourages monopolies vie free competition, in our system we are not free to compete, and exclusive trade rights have been around forever,the worddoes have greek origins.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Just wondering - do you recognize that one large company, with its economy of scale, can provide entry barriers to small, upstart businesses?Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] there is no history of it, and even the term monopoly traces its origins to political grants of exclusive trade in the16th century.

surrealnumber5

The 400 richest people in this country have more wealth than the bottom 50% COMBINED. Think about that for a second. 400 individuals have more money than the poorest 153,000,000 put together. I'm sorry, but that's absurd. nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Just wondering - do you recognize that one large company, with its economy of scale, can provide entry barriers to small, upstart businesses?Engrish_Major

The 400 richest people in this country have more wealth than the bottom 50% COMBINED. Think about that for a second. 400 individuals have more money than the poorest 153,000,000 put together. I'm sorry, but that's absurd. nocoolnamejim

wow, that is just......sad to even think about.

I'd consider supporting this if the 51% who currently pay no income taxes paid SOMETHING. 1% would even be a good starting point.

Vice President Biden put it best when he said, "Everyone needs to have some skin in the game."

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

I'd consider supporting this if the 51% who currently pay no income taxes paid SOMETHING. 1% would even be a good starting point.

Vice President Biden put it best when he said, "Everyone needs to have some skin in the game."

Chutebox

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] The economies of scale of corporations today were not possible at that time. Of course the govt discourages competition in some arenas by the nature of contracts. However, lobbying is not the sole contributor of loss of competition in many areas. Monopolies can exist in the free market. And according to Wikipedia, Aristotle is the first to use the term monopoly.-Sun_Tzu-

On the topic of taking money from the rich that they have earned, I'll quote myself from a thread some time ago..........

From Previous Thread/Post:

Example:
- Person A takes out a business loan to open a small pizza joint
- After a few years, the loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the reward for the risk is paying off, and Person A is taking home, say, $100k per year
- Person A takes out a second loan to open another joint in the next town
- After a few years, the second loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the second risk is paying off and Person A is taking home another $100K per year (now a total of $200K)
- A few years later and a few more investments later, Person A is taking home a cool $1million per year.....

What exactly did Person A do wrong? Should Person A get NO CREDIT for forming who-knows-how-many jobs? Considering he'd need help managing the individual locations, will likely need to hire accountants, lawyers, insurance agents, advertising consultants, construction companies and make purchases from food vendors as well as kitchen equipment vendors...... how is this person NOT giving back to society as a whole? Keep in mind, he already IS in a considerably high tax bracket. How exactly is Person A the villian in all of this? Considering the work (and risk) that Person A took upon himself, how do we justify telling him, "Ok there, buddy. We've decided that you've earned more than you need......so we're going to go ahead and take a big chunk of it."

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

On the topic of taking money from the rich that they have earned, I'll quote myself from a thread some time ago..........

From Previous Thread/Post:

Example:
- Person A takes out a business loan to open a small pizza joint
- After a few years, the loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the reward for the risk is paying off, and Person A is taking home, say, $100k per year
- Person A takes out a second loan to open another joint in the next town
- After a few years, the second loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the second risk is paying off and Person A is taking home another $100K per year (now a total of $200K)
- A few years later and a few more investments later, Person A is taking home a cool $1million per year.....

What exactly did Person A do wrong? Should Person A get NO CREDIT for forming who-knows-how-many jobs? Considering he'd need help managing the individual locations, will likely need to hire accountants, lawyers, insurance agents, advertising consultants, construction companies and make purchases from food vendors as well as kitchen equipment vendors...... how is this person NOT giving back to society as a whole? Keep in mind, he already IS in a considerably high tax bracket. How exactly is Person A the villian in all of this? Considering the work (and risk) that Person A took upon himself, how do we justify telling him, "Ok there, buddy. We've decided that you've earned more than you need......so we're going to go ahead and take a big chunk of it."

Jfisch93

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

On the topic of taking money from the rich that they have earned, I'll quote myself from a thread some time ago..........

From Previous Thread/Post:

Example:
- Person A takes out a business loan to open a small pizza joint
- After a few years, the loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the reward for the risk is paying off, and Person A is taking home, say, $100k per year
- Person A takes out a second loan to open another joint in the next town
- After a few years, the second loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the second risk is paying off and Person A is taking home another $100K per year (now a total of $200K)
- A few years later and a few more investments later, Person A is taking home a cool $1million per year.....

What exactly did Person A do wrong? Should Person A get NO CREDIT for forming who-knows-how-many jobs? Considering he'd need help managing the individual locations, will likely need to hire accountants, lawyers, insurance agents, advertising consultants, construction companies and make purchases from food vendors as well as kitchen equipment vendors...... how is this person NOT giving back to society as a whole? Keep in mind, he already IS in a considerably high tax bracket. How exactly is Person A the villian in all of this? Considering the work (and risk) that Person A took upon himself, how do we justify telling him, "Ok there, buddy. We've decided that you've earned more than you need......so we're going to go ahead and take a big chunk of it."

Jfisch93

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

On the topic of taking money from the rich that they have earned, I'll quote myself from a thread some time ago..........

From Previous Thread/Post:

Example:
- Person A takes out a business loan to open a small pizza joint
- After a few years, the loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the reward for the risk is paying off, and Person A is taking home, say, $100k per year
- Person A takes out a second loan to open another joint in the next town
- After a few years, the second loan is finally paid off
- A few years later, the second risk is paying off and Person A is taking home another $100K per year (now a total of $200K)
- A few years later and a few more investments later, Person A is taking home a cool $1million per year.....

What exactly did Person A do wrong? Should Person A get NO CREDIT for forming who-knows-how-many jobs? Considering he'd need help managing the individual locations, will likely need to hire accountants, lawyers, insurance agents, advertising consultants, construction companies and make purchases from food vendors as well as kitchen equipment vendors...... how is this person NOT giving back to society as a whole? Keep in mind, he already IS in a considerably high tax bracket. How exactly is Person A the villian in all of this? Considering the work (and risk) that Person A took upon himself, how do we justify telling him, "Ok there, buddy. We've decided that you've earned more than you need......so we're going to go ahead and take a big chunk of it."

Planet_Pluto

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] they can exist in a free market, but there is no history of it, and a free market discourages monopolies vie free competition, in our system we are not free to compete, and exclusive trade rights have been around forever,the worddoes have greek origins.

surrealnumber5

The diamond market that De Beers exists in is completely unregulated. It couldn't be any freer. And I don't know how the rest of your post is relevant.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There is plenty of history of it. Just look at De Beers. And competition is never free. There are many industries that have very high barriers of entry, and those are the industries that are most susceptible to monopolies. Not only that, but in a free-market society there are going to be winners and losers. What has always happened throughout the course of history is that those winners go out of their way to protect their market share by lobbying the government to make the market less competitive by artifically increasing the cost of entry into the market, or by simply making it illegal to compete. Maybe theoretically, monopolies might not be as sustainable as they are in actuality in a free-market capitalistic society (although I don't see how that can be the case, again pointing to De Beers), but I don't see how a free-market capitalistic society is sustainable in the first place.

-Sun_Tzu-

The diamond market that De Beers exists in is completely unregulated. It couldn't be any freer. And I don't know how the rest of your post is relevant.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"] And then they decide to stop giving jobs to americans and start giving them overseas so they can get the same labor for lower than minimum wage.

Jfisch93

So, just for sport, I'll re-ask the questions.......

What did this person do wrong (how is he a villian)?

Has this person NOT "given back" to society in general?

they can afford it, and should take pride in helping our country in a dire time of need.

besides, they get tax break so many different ways, they actually problably pay less than they should anyway. Didn't whats-his-face say he paid less taxes than his secretary?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] debeers does not have a natural or a free market monopoly, they do deal in death and do restrict supply and are not headquartered in a state that is free market or politically stable, i dont see how you can point to a company in a country like south africa and say "look free markets bad". their are winners and losers, that is the whole point, those who are good at what they do WIN, those who are not LOSE and are forced to find a new way, something they are good at. throughout history traders and governments have made joint deals at the expense of the rest of the population, the fact that america was able to break that mold as well as many others when it became its own state shows how exceptional this nations creation was and without us there would be no capital system and we would not live in the age we do now. freedom is not the natural state of man and the less free we become the more normal our nation becomes, and all i need to do is point to this day to prove that point.

surrealnumber5

The diamond market that De Beers exists in is completely unregulated. It couldn't be any freer. And I don't know how the rest of your post is relevant.

How is it not free? De Beers secured its monopoly status entirely through private means. The diamond industry has historically been a completely unregulated market - it was about as laissez faire as possible. And I don't see how the rest of your post has anything to do with the question of whether or not a free-market capitalist society is sustainable.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

The diamond market that De Beers exists in is completely unregulated. It couldn't be any freer. And I don't know how the rest of your post is relevant.

-Sun_Tzu-

How is it not free? De Beers secured its monopoly status entirely through private means. The diamond industry has historically been a completely unregulated market - it was about as laissez faire as possible. And I don't see how the rest of your post has anything to do with the question of whether or not a free-market capitalist society is sustainable.

I always find it very amusing that people support Darwinian like policies for the economy.. When such things are not supported in any avenue what so ever.. In such places there is no freedom because the strongest always make the rules and force every one down to keep up top.. Thats not the kind of freedom most people want, we want equal opertunity, something the Darwinian ideal could never accomplish.

they have the cash and they have the power...