Will taking more and more money from the wealthy

[Jen]

actually help the poor live a life more "equal" to the rest of us? Or is that just the excuse that Democrats are using to take money away from the "rich" that Democrats believe are "greedy"?

Faber stated, “I think somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction. That usually happens either through very high inflation or through social unrest or through war or credit-market collapse.”

​

The critical question over the next decade isn’t “where will my returns be highest?” but “where will I lose the least money?”

That, according to economist and investor Marc Faber, is the scenario facing investors today.

[/QUOTE]


This great plan of the Democrats to pretend that the rich aren't paying their fair share and then force them to pay it (whatever it is) is going to screw us all...............and of course the poor (who were supposed to "get rich" when the rich finally paid their fair share) will revolt because taking more money from the perceived rich isn't going to help the poor at all. It's all going into the pockets of the people who hatched the scheme to make those greedy rich people pay more.

LINK

​

 

[middleview]

The dishonesty is incredible. Nobody is saying that we need to take money from the rich to make the poor wealthy.

You need to take a better look at the federal budget....while you are at it get Mitt to explain why he has offshore bank accounts if not to cheat on his taxes.

 

[ITALIA]

Faber has been predicting a Depression. Has nothing to do about what taxes are being paid by anyone. In fact if you are paying taxes that means you are doing well. So if you have a Depression the poor have nothing to lose but the rich do and so does what is left of the middle class.

 

[degsme]

Will taking more and more money from the wealthy actually help the poor live a life more "equal" to the rest of us? Or is that just the excuse that Democrats are using to take money away from the "rich" that Democrats believe are "greedy"?

Jen do you know what the concept of Fiscal Multiplier is? Its a measure of the economic efficiency of a particular economic act. And it is fundamentally a simple measure:

How Much GDP Grew / How Much Got Spent

Now when the private sector builds an offic building or a factory or other infrastructure that Fiscal Multiplier is roughly 1.54 IOW for every $1 spent, total GDP grows by $1.54
When The Government builds roads, bridges, Post offices - turns out the Fiscal Multiplier is also 1.5
When The Government spends money on things like Childcare subsidies (For the poor as you asked) The Fiscal Multiplier is OVER 3.0

So if we look at what the Fiscal Multiplier of GWB's tax cuts for the upper quintile of income earners was... LESS THAN 0.7

IOW the tax cuts GWB gave to the upper earners "the wealthy".... REDUCED THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY BY 30 Cents FOR EVERY DOLLAR IN TAX CUTS


That's pretty simple math Jen.

Fiscal Multiplier of 0.7 for the tax cuts
vs.
Fiscal Multiplier of 3.0 for benefits to the Poor.


Raise the taxes and spend on the poor and THE ECONOMY GROWS BY $3.50 for Every $1 in taxes raised.


Now if you want, I can give you reams and reams and reams of INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE DATA to back that up. But I doubt you will read it. Ask though and I will provide it (thouhg I've provided it numerous times before).

Its simple math.

This great plan of the Democrats to pretend that the rich aren't paying their fair share and then force them to pay it (whatever it is) is going to screw us all...............and of course the poor (who were supposed to "get rich" when the rich finally paid their fair share) will revolt because taking more money from the perceived rich isn't going to help the poor at all. It's all going into the pockets of the people who hatched the scheme to make those greedy rich people pay more.

LINK

​

[/QUOTE]

 

[PACE]

those CEO's who collect a one dollar compensation but have unlimited expense accounts are not fulfilling their allegiance to this country, Young men and women, who join the military, make a clear statement of their allegiance, with regards to the very rich who pay less than middle class workers, in my view? the rest of us should call them "squatters" "welchers" and if we return to Old English Law, we throw them in prison until they pay their debts.

I pay my fair share, and have to hold my nose because part of my contribution goes to religious organizations, George Bush saw to that, part of my contributor goes to energy companies looking to drill on public land, Dick Cheney and Reagan saw to that. Part of my contribution goes to funding foreign entities, that I mostly do not agree with,

I'll pay that small portion if the majority of my contribution is used to help my fellow citizens.

Now, tell me with regards to those who do not pay their fair share, who do you suppose their "fellow citizens" are. you? me? don't bet on it.

Regards
Pace

 

[Woolleybugger]

What astounds me about posters like you is that you are so dedicated to your cause. You are completely oblivious to criticism or review by obviously more capable posters. Nothing fazes you, no one can stop this barrage of baloney every day on any subject that waffles around in your mind. Formulating a deep understanding of the issues is boring to you, it is an obstacle in the way of your desperate need to fill your day with countless examples of your inescapable ignorance. Yet you doggedly pursue your cause like a hillbilly teenager in a graduate school physics class demanding that you know the answer when you cannot even understand the question.

Where does this confidence in your own intelligence come from? It certainly does not come from any mastery of the subject material.