The top incomes today

They manage other peoples investments, correct? Are you saying investing is bad, or investing so much that its easier to hire people to manage it is bad?

 

Joe Blow isn't saving any money?

Joe Blow can invest on Robinhood with $1.

Takes no knowledge whatsoever.

 

70% is generous for the top 0.1% which is income above $20 million, where most of these proposals start.

I highly doubt you would be impacted.

However, capital gains needs to be treated as regular income across the board for all tax brackets

 

Kode doesn't think they are doing anything good, and are, in fact, quite evil. I take a neutral view. Economically, they are acting upon information thus creating a more efficient marketplace,and their reward is a portion of the wealth that that they create.

 

Why do you falsely recast this as a moral issue? Maybe you see it that way but I don't. It's strictly practical, logical, and reasoned to me.

As I just said, I don't see it as a moral issue. And if you're referring to your question in post 11, I answered it in post 15.

You're avoiding the issue. In the early 1980s the US changed from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Then sometime after 2000 it changed again from a service economy to an offshoot or component of service... --a finance economy. Production of goods and services diminished as a business activity because productivity of individual operations was so huge. At that time a greater focus and activity in finance, -making money with money, -developed. Currently the capacity utilization is about 78%. That means 22% of productive capacity is idle because consumption levels do not justify additional production. So instead, capital is used to generate monetary gains, like gambling, except it is a managed, guided, statistically sound "gambling" that works very well as we see in the incomes of the top hedge fund managers.

So contrary to your claim, there is no "earning" involved in making money with money. There is no market. There is no production. There is no service performed. It's just a wealth-building scheme that, in the end, fleeces the public including you.

 

Why is it any concern of yours how much other people make?

 

This isn't really true in most cases. If it's an IPO, the the company is raising capital. Most investments are just to make money. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's no such thing as a fair share. I told my youngest sister this when she was in 6th grade and very jealous of her older sister going to Japan on a school trip. She wound up going to Rice University while the other one attending Texas A&M. No complains with that. What someone else earns or has or pays or buys does not affect you.

This is pretty much it. They're no more or less than a stock broker at Edward D Jones helping some middle class nobody save for retirement.

I checked out Robinhood because it's free, but it looks like it would be a pain in the ass to transfer my actively managed portfolio.

 

Ok, raise your rates to the highest rates you'd expect from any other, and you'll be paying your fair share

 

I told my son long ago before he graduated high school -- don't try to start up a company, just invest in the companies already up and running and making a profit. He took my advice and retired at age 50. It's there for everyone but you must have the discipline to invest every payday. Don't plan for the weekend with a case of beer and a carton of cigarettes, plan for the next 5, 10, 20, years. The envy of some people is eating them alive. But if the government took every penny of Bill Gates money it wouldn't change their lives one bit. Each individual is responsible for their lot in life.

 

Given your scenario, what “income” would they be taxing at 70%?

 

What affects "me" has nothing to do with it. What the system gives you is what is meaningful. If you fly first class, you pay first class.

 

Doesn't sound like "fair share" for me to pay the same rate as somebody who is using the resources in the system more heavily than I am.

 

Unknown to you, the extreme income disparity we have results in a shrinking middle class, and that produces a decline in "government of the people, by the people, for the people". It creates plutocracy.

I have all the income and wealth I need to live and be happy with plenty left over, so it's not about wanting their money and I know that's what you want to think.

 

If it doesn’t affect you then I’m just not sure why it’s so important to you.

 

It seems that you want first class services from government, and someone else has to pay for it.

 

It is the growing government that creates plutocracy, and you simply advocate for an even larger government.

Comfort never satisfies a busybody. There's always someone, somewhere, having fun or earning lots of money, and those people must be punished and forced to conform.

 

Who says it doesn't affect me? I'm just saying that I'm not what is being discussed here.

 

It's against forum rules to make the poster the subject of discussion and you keep doing that.

 

And some people might think you have too much money. So, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and donate 90% of your wealth???

 

Three right wing posters on this thread alone with zero ideas: @squidward , @BleedingHeadKen and @tharock220 , who are incapable of making any coherent arguments. So they try to change the debate and make it personal about me. Having no arguments other than ad-hominems is the definite indication that the extreme right is incapable of convincing anybody with actual ideas. This is why the only way they can ever win elections is by cheating.

 

Do you really think my ENTIRE net worth spread any way you like would be enough to end wealth or income disparity? Really? If you have trouble with math and logic you might ask someone to help you.

 

1st

Do I use the roads more or drink more water than you?

 

Don't know or care

But you have proven my point two posts above.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-top-incomes-today.558321/page-2#post-1070743521

 

I guess I'm stupid but I dont see how this "fleeces the public"? The hedge fund managers are not taking money out of my pocket. If they produce nothing then they consume nothing, they are not accumulating valuable resources for their own use. If they move the money offshore more the better I say, they are then not using that wealth to buy real assests in the US and competing with the less wealthy. In the end it is just ficticious wealth of paper bills and electronic credits, both which there is an endless supply.v

 

wow
sad

The big hedge fund investment when they began to be publicized around 2007 was mortgage derivatives. They locked in eventual foreclosures of homes. That's a pretty good fleecing. And that's just a sample of what you don't seem to know about this.