The Forgotten Man

[4plexowner]

And if I had to guess whether esmith fell into the ‘rich’ camp or the ‘poor’ camp I would guess …

~

I’ve been working hard since I was 12 – is it wrong for me to feel like I have a right to keep the money / things I have worked for?

Because my parents emphasized education and made sure that I got one I am supposed to pay 50 to 70% of my earnings to support a bunch of low-life chimpanzees who want to lay around watching TV, doing drugs and producing illegitimate children?

[Eugene]

My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.

[Eugene]

My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.

[Eugene]

My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.

[Eugene]

My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.

[Eugene]

My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=esmith]My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.[/quote]

Yeah, there are tons of people in the top 50% of income earners who will fight to the death to keep the top 1% of income earners from paying more taxes. And then there are the kooky anti-choice and religious zealots who have joined them. It’s quite a group.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=esmith]My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.[/quote]

Yeah, there are tons of people in the top 50% of income earners who will fight to the death to keep the top 1% of income earners from paying more taxes. And then there are the kooky anti-choice and religious zealots who have joined them. It’s quite a group.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=esmith]My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.[/quote]

Yeah, there are tons of people in the top 50% of income earners who will fight to the death to keep the top 1% of income earners from paying more taxes. And then there are the kooky anti-choice and religious zealots who have joined them. It’s quite a group.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=esmith]My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.[/quote]

Yeah, there are tons of people in the top 50% of income earners who will fight to the death to keep the top 1% of income earners from paying more taxes. And then there are the kooky anti-choice and religious zealots who have joined them. It’s quite a group.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=esmith]My point exactly. People like you are the reason why people like Amity Shlaes are compelled to write their books, whether or not their claims have anything to do with reality.[/quote]

Yeah, there are tons of people in the top 50% of income earners who will fight to the death to keep the top 1% of income earners from paying more taxes. And then there are the kooky anti-choice and religious zealots who have joined them. It’s quite a group.

[CA renter]

Agree with esmith on this one.

Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).

And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.

As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.

Wealth disparity is a bad thing.

Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.

[CA renter]

Agree with esmith on this one.

Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).

And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.

As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.

Wealth disparity is a bad thing.

Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.

[CA renter]

Agree with esmith on this one.

Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).

And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.

As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.

Wealth disparity is a bad thing.

Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.

[CA renter]

Agree with esmith on this one.

Those who have the wealth control the flow of money, period. Of course, they want even greater amounts of money to flow to them. They don’t care what happens to the people who give this money to them (employees who make less so the execs can make more, via busted unions; customers who overpay so their vendors can make more, via monopolies & patent protection; taxpayers who pay for corporate/executive welfare, via tax credits and incentives and limited liability — see bailouts, etc.).

And you can’t convince me that the “rich” make poor people wealthier by “investing” thier wealth. They do not intend to GIVE this money to start-ups or other businesses. They want all of it back, plus interest/dividends/cap gains. IOW, the goal is to take money **out** of the system every time they invest. Someone else now owes them the same amount plus interest, and that debt service pulls money from future economic activities.

As long as we have a debt-based monetary system, there is no “trickle-down”. Credit = debt PLUS interest. Only the creditor wins. And money is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands until we reach a point where the lower classes can no longer service their debt, and we get a deflationary depression. At some point, the money is redistributed and the economy (and credit cycle) can grow once the economy has hit bottom.

Wealth disparity is a bad thing.

Full disclosure: I’m a market speculator/investor and 100% of my income is from investments. What I’m saying does NOT benefit me, but somebody has to be honest about it (Warren Buffett seems to have similar beliefs). I think it is entirely immoral and unethical that my income should be taxed at a lower rate than income that is earned via labor.

[Author]

Posts