A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs

That's my point. The goalposts are constantly moving with those who love to impugn "the rich": they'll capture the 363K willfully as they will the 363M.

This doesn't refute what I said. These are simply effective rate charts; they do not address wealth shelters and other protective vehicles that assure that the Government never really collects more than the 18-19% I mentioned.

Same here. This is even less germane.

I'm pointing out to you that rates mean very little, and another poster even started a thread about it. Total collections have remained constant, because what people pay as a total percentage remains about constant. Rates are political tools meant to divide people.

Corporate profits is another shadowy manipulation of statistics. When revenues that would typically be used for business expansion/advertising/advance diversification strategies don't get used for those things because of a perceived danger of loss (in this case due to concerns such as ObamaCare and other regulatory wildcards), that money has no where left to go but to be listed as net revenue.

Profits.

That does not mean that business is doing anywhere near as well as it would normally, despite the emotional reaction that the catch-phrase "record profits" elicits from the lefty hoi-polloi.

 

You both are naive as to what it takes to operate a business, and the purpose of doing so. The purpose of a business is not to provide jobs.

Beyond that, anything I say may as well be written in Sanskrit, for as much of it as you'll understand.

And yes, BTeam: I have operated a business at a deficit. In fact, many if not most businesses do so when they start up, and when difficult economic periods take place.

 

LOL! And this guy is rich? Wow. Found this amusing:

It's not the fall that kills people but the sudden stop at the end.

 

You are being naive and somewhat arrogant in your thinking that you are SCHOOLING us here. Look... there ARE powerful and influential people who think the way you do, yet we have the problems we do. While I respect that you have your opinion, I realize (well-enough) that you (some obscure participant on this forum), does NOT have THE FINAL SET OF ANSWERS.

Sorry, and will all due respect you have not proven that you are absolutely correct in these matters. People should prudently reserve their right to be (at least) tentative about what you say. In a couple of years (or so) we'll know if you had it right or not; right now, you are simply relating opinions on the matter (like the rest of us). Still, I respect that you seem to know quite a bit about all of this... despite the reality I question whether you know as much as you would indicate.

I would never have said that. Still, I know enough about society, to realize that it's a CRITICAL aspect related virtually any given nation's success. And I think that fewer hyper-wealthy individuals, will not necessarily hurt a nation such as America.

Well again... I await your SPECIFICS in your opinions, and verifiable PROOF in the form of national outcomes related to the same. In the meantime, you are surely NOT going to convince me with academic posturing (no matter how elaborate) within this internet forum... that your certitude in the the things you opine about, are THE answers for "America". Still, I respect that you share your views.

 

Did you just demand of me specifics while having just declined providing them yourself?

Where you the one lamenting that we need to do something about 'the rich'??

 

Because you must have missed it, I'll provide you with one huge answer to your concern, Johnny-C:

Abolish the FED. It is the inflation-creating machine that devastates those with lesser to no means, while allowing those with assets to have them appreciate at the expense of those who cannot afford to include themselves in that Ponzi scheme.

The FED inflates our money, and - as a result - ensures that unless a citizen has the ability and means to invest, everything else they do will result in depreciation.

That alone explains a huge portion of the seeming widening gap between rich and poor.

 

No. I challenged your specifics in the face of that which will ultimately be made absolutely evident, in REAL OUTCOMES (not mere theory). You know... those things that most people observe/endure, or accept a 'proof'.

I probably don't know ALL of the best suggestions, I just know what I've seen before my eyes (and a bit more than that).

 

When was the last time you got a rich person to make you more money?

America doesn't need today's version of rich. It needs to rid itself of it.

 

Okay, we'll see what really happens.

 

Some won't see that you are correct, because they are caught up in "today's version of rich".

 

What?

I gave you a core specific, and explained how and why the FED is a major cause of the laments that you cite. Do you understand?

 

Okay. We'll see.

 

Dunno. Are you a government employee?

 

This article is 100% correct. It's just amazing that so many poor Americans (a number of whom are on these boards), still defend the very system which condemns them to a life of poverty.

 

Way to go missing the entire point of the article!

The article points out that DEMAND has to be there before a company can make money. No demand, no company. Without people with money, no demand.

He goes on to explain that if an amount of money is divided up throught the population, instead of being accumulated by one individual, it is far more likely to be spent in the economy, creating demand, which feeds a company.

It's like you didn't read the article of something.

 

Consumers can't consume unless they produce something first. Either the money they have is what they are paid in return for what they produce, or it represents wealth stolen from others who produce. Money itself is not wealth, and now matter how much there is or how little there is has no relevance to the growth of an economy. Your goal is to steal long term investment in those things that will create greater wealth and capital in the hopes that by redistributing and spending it now on material goods that somehow we will become more prosperous. How logical is that?

 

A company doesn't make money, it makes products. Money is earned in return for production. Money is not wealth, and the expenditure of it is not what creates wealth.

It's tooth-fairy economics, this belief that trading bits of paper creates wealth. The individual who has wealth does not keep it under his mattress. You propose to destroy wealth by taking by force from those who have it, and giving it to those who value it far less.

It's the same old redistributionist tripe that declares that consumption can come before production.

 

that is not the goal, by making it harder on business it forces them to innovate they have it very easy and this is speaking about big business not small business.

redistributing this wealth to the consumers not only helps the majority of the country prosper including small business but makes the few lazy rich fat cats have to work instead of sitting on piles of cash and live like modern day kings.

if people join the President and liberals there would not be big bloated banks and macdonald corporations, those would dissolve away into better business models

 

There is a LOT of truth in that Brother!!

 

So you're saying that the basic principle of supply and demand is 100% wrong?

WOW, just WOW! You can make a product that no one wants all year long, it won't sell. Demand is everything. If the population have no money to buy stuff, then you won't sell.

Take India and China as examples. In the current economic crap hole we find ourselves in, Westerners have less money to buy stuff, so guess what? They're buying less and China and India are selling less.

Now apply this scenario to your own internal problems.

It's not difficult buddy.

 

Actually, considering the diminishing marginal utility of money, that is of course nonsense. They actually value is FAR MORE!!

Actually we did consume before we produced. We are a species that evolved from hunter gatherers, who produced almost nothing, and yet consumed a great deal. We began to produce to meet our desire to consume. Don't call things tripe, unless you have a decent understanding of what you are talking about.

 

Produced almost nothing ? Nonsense.

We produced a basket of berries and nuts on the kitchen table every time we went out and gathered them. Did they appear in the kitchen by magic ?
No, the basket of goods was produced by labor.

 

how do people get money, by magic ?
No, they sell their labor.

 

No it wasn't. The berries were produced by nature. We did nothing to produce them. The honey was produced by nature. The animals were produced by nature. The nuts were produced by nature. We did not begin producing food until after we became sedentary. The only things we produced were tools and clothing, which were also later developments. However, those were not produced for others, we produced them ourselves and used them ourselves. We would not consider a woman making herself a sweater now, a form of production.

 

they picked themselves and walked to our homes.

the bees placed it on our table for us.

yes, and they hunted and butchered themselves, then placed themselves in our kitchens

and trained squirrels brought them to us

well yes actually, we would.