Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, June 16, 2019

The Federal Reserve released a new data series called the Distributive Financial Accounts, which combine the Financial Accounts and the Survey of Consumer Finances to provide quarterly estimates of the distribution of wealth in America that do sum to the aggregates in the Financial Accounts. The growth of wealth inequality over the past 30 years ... is "eye-popping."

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Obviously what this nation needs is more tax cuts for the 1%. The masses still have some money left, so our policies haven't taken full effect yet" - every GOP economic charlatan from President Orange on down to his lemming chorus of shysters, con artists and thieves.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-06-15 07:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets"

-- Chris Rock

#2 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-06-15 07:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The Pitchforks Are Coming ... For Us Plutocrats

www.politico.com

All this wealth inequality cannot go on forever.

People will eventually get desperate, literally.

And with everything that goes with desperation; violence, innocent people getting hurt, lawlessness and chaos, etc. -- it's either that, or we'll all live in a iron-clad enforced police state to keep the desperate people from committing epidemic acts of violence.

This situation, has, to, change.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-06-15 07:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

....we'll all live in a iron-clad enforced police state to keep the desperate people from committing epidemic acts of violence.

No, that'll only be the wealthy who'll have the police protecting them, though exorbitant fees and fines for the private PIC will continue to be extracted as routine.

The rest of us will depend upon Snake Plisskin if we're lucky.

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-06-15 07:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Guillotine 2020

#5 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-06-15 09:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Giant Sucking Sound"

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-15 09:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"All this wealth inequality cannot go on forever."

Really?

You think rich people are going to revolt over richer people? Because that seems to be what you're suggesting.

"If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets"

Maybe.

Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-16 07:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more.
#7 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2019-06-16 07:07 AM | FLAG: Agree!

1. Too many here do not realize that the economy is not a zero sum game where if one gains another loses. New wealth is created every day and many of the wealthy own assets which has grown in value. Hell, I'm not wealthy, yet those assets I own [equities] have grown in value and not at the expense of someone else. Never met an employee who said their contracted pay rate has been reduced because their employer's wealth has increased. The left just loves to promote wealth envy to exploit ignorant voters who believe that they will gain something if the wealthy loses.

2. Oh, as as for the rest of us paying more, if 'Medicare for all' ever comes to fruition, every working individual will be paying much more as the FICA is a payroll tax [taken directly out of their earned pay] so all will contribute unlike Federal Income Taxes where a hugh portion of people are exempt. Adding approx 200 million people to Medicare will mean a large increase in the FICA [I believe, at least 25%] to pay for such a costly endeavor. Of course one still has Federal Income Tax, state and local taxes as well - I wonder how much one will have left to live on their new lower standard of living?

#8 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-16 11:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"unlike Federal Income Taxes where a hugh portion of people are exempt. "

Can you name the four huge reasons for that? I'll even give you a hint: they're all Republican initiatives.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 11:56 AM | Reply

"a large increase in the FICA [I believe, at least 25%]"

Republican Math strikes again.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-06-16 11:57 AM | FLAG:

Really? Presently it is 1.45 plus the employer match for a total of 2.9%. NOW, consider that people are currently paying into that for 40-45 years BEFORE they can utilize starting at age 65. With all that 'prepayment' medicare is like SS, in fiscal troubles and that is with only about 44 million beneficiaries accessing it.

Now consider adding about 200 million where many have paid in some/little/none, but are able to access immediately and you tell me with you 'mighty' libbie math, just how 'little' would have to be deducted through the payroll 'contributions' to make it work. Oh, since you're a libbie, you'll surely want to allow those tens of millions of illegals the same access even if they've never contributed one dime in many cases [working under the table]. Surely your libbie calculator will give me a great low percentage.

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-16 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more.
#7 | Posted by madbomber a

Liar

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-16 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more.
#7 | POSTED BY MUCHDUMBER

Translation: "Don't pay attention to the rich stealing your money and keeping it for themselves. They're your betters and you should know your place in life."

Hey stupid. I'd have preferred the rich didn't become insanely wealthy at the expense of everyone else. But hey. I'm not an apologist for the rich.

You literally only show up to the DR to post on wealth inequality threads.

They're your dog whistle. And like Pavlov's dog. You must come to the defense of the rich. Even thought you're not one of them and they don't give a shht about you.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-16 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

many here do not realize that the economy is not a zero sum game where if one gains another loses.

You don't seem to understand that our economy is based on consumerism.

The more money everyone has to spend in their local economies, the healthier and stronger they become.

The mega rich aren't spending that money. After their tenth yacht they hoard the rest of their stolen wealth in off shore bank accounts, where it sits. Forever.

Remember when the Panama papers were released. Showing how much the mega wealthy are hoarding? The reported who wrote the story mysteriously died and the story was never discussed ever again.
(Read more here:
www.theguardian.com )

The rich aren't your care takers. They literally wouldn't care if you dropped dead right in front of them. They'd probably be disgusted by the sight of you.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-16 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Really? Presently it is 1.45 plus the employer match for a total of 2.9%."

No, it's currently 15.3%. You've moved the goalposts from FICA to Medicare tax only.

And if you're 25% was for Medicare alone...gee, the increase is less than three-quarters of one percent for the self-employed, and less than three-eighths of one percent for employees.

Why are you pretending those are catastrophic increases?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How much is health insurance either purchased privately of by your employer? If we have Medicare for all then all those health insurance dollars won't be going to health insurance companies. I swear the right wing is all about creating fear among all of us because they fear change. Other nations did this and guess what, the sky didn't fall.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-16 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Oh, since you're a libbie, you'll surely want to allow those tens of millions of illegals the same access even if they've never contributed one dime in many cases [working under the table]. Surely your libbie calculator will give me a great low percentage."

No, I just want to lock up their employers and make them pay for any healthcare services that their workers require. From now on I am not going to let liars like you slide by without commenting on locking up the employers of illegal aliens.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-16 02:23 PM | Reply

I just want to lock up their employers and make them pay for any healthcare services that their workers require.

Yea. But. Their employers are rich and white. So. Fat chance.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-16 02:26 PM | Reply

No, I just want to lock up their employers - danni

So everyone should eVerify?

Why do liberal states not enforce eVerify if they really want to go after employers?

Hint, the employers are small agencies run by Hispanics, that farm out slave labor to corporations.

Corporations aren't stupid.

#19 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-16 02:42 PM | Reply

Romney introduces bill to make E-Verify permanent - utahpolicy.com

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-16 02:43 PM | Reply

"Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more."

What percentage of the population is currently not contributing to the federal funding of transportation, or defense, or the general running of the country?

The 1% currently provide about half the federal income tax receipts. Without them picking up that tab, someone else would need to. And I really don't see a scenario where the absence of the 1% makes your income (or mine) increase.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-16 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Translation: "Don't pay attention to the rich stealing your money and keeping it for themselves. They're your betters and you should know your place in life."

I think it's a lot more likely you're stealing theirs, but I'll bite. You can take a stab at trying to explain how the rich are "stealing" your money.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-16 02:57 PM | Reply

I think...

Why not provide some actual data for your assumption, rather than expect me to run a goose chase for you.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-06-16 03:08 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Illegals from Central America largely migrate to red states.

Just a reminder: The number of 'visa overstays' equal the number of illegal border crossers.

#24 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-16 03:39 PM | Reply

What percentage of the population is currently not contributing to the federal funding of transportation, or defense, or the general running of the country?
The 1% currently provide about half the federal income tax receipts. Without them picking up that tab, someone else would need to. And I really don't see a scenario where the absence of the 1% makes your income (or mine) increase.
#21 | Posted by madbomber

what percentage? Approaching zero.

The tax burden can only be discussed honestly, if one discusses the entire tax burden, you know federal, state, local, gas, tolls, tariffs, user fees, etc. etc. etc.

You are a liar to state otherwise. You cherry pick one tax and claim it represents all taxes.

When you consider all taxes, it is clear that the middle and lower classes pay more than the 1%.

You have been educated, so stop lying.

#25 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-16 03:48 PM | Reply

I think it's a lot more likely you're stealing theirs, but I'll bite. You can take a stab at trying to explain how the rich are "stealing" your money.
#22 | Posted by madbomber

example:

www.fuelfreedom.org

You are either ignorant or a liar.

#26 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-16 03:50 PM | Reply

"The 1% currently provide about half the federal income tax receipts."

What percent of payroll taxes do they pay? What percent of the overall revenue pie? And why are you cherry-picking income taxes?

And before you pretend they're separate, remember Dubya cut used over- collections from payroll taxes to justify cuts in YOUR INCOME TAXES.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You can take a stab at trying to explain how the rich are "stealing" your money."

1. Inheriting at a stepped-up basis.
2. Opportunities in the code only available to folks with extra expendable money.
3. GRATs.

Your turn.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 04:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What percentage of the population is currently not contributing to the federal funding of transportation, or defense, or the general running of the country?"

Once rounded to the nearest percentage...zero.

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 04:04 PM | Reply

Example: Federal Funding for Transportation

1. Fares-i.e. bus and train fares
2. Discretionary Spending Sources i.e. General Revenues
3. Sales Taxes
4. Dedicated Transportation Revenues i.e. Gas Taxes, Rental Car Tax, Licenses, Registration or Title Fees, Tire Taxes, Weight-Based Vehicle Sales Taxes, Vehicle Battery Tax, Weight Mile Truck Fee
5. Toll Roads
6. Development and Real Estate Charges, i.e. Development Impact Fees, i.e. Storm Water Fees, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Parking Tax

This is how transportation projects are actually funded. These funds come from lower and middle class households.

Stop lying that the 1% pays for everything.

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-16 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"and without them picking up the tab..."

It's not unusual for a member of the Forbes 100 to pay zero income taxes, and get a refund anyway.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%"

You're saying if the top 1% weren't so rich, and the bottom 50% were a bit richer, the bottom 50% would actually have a lower standard of living?

Can I see your math on that one?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-16 04:23 PM | Reply

1. Inheriting at a stepped-up basis.
2. Opportunities in the code only available to folks with extra expendable money.
3. GRATs.

Your turn.

#28 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-06-16 04:01 PM | FLAG: As for your #1., here is some info for you:

"New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I've seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance's share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers." www.washingtonpost.com

Apparently the majority earned theirs, obviously building companies that employ people, enlarging the tax base and enriching our economy.

#33 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-16 05:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Apparently the majority earned theirs"

That much is true.

"obviously building companies that employ people, enlarging the tax base and enriching our economy."

Obviously you've made a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-16 05:38 PM | Reply

"Interestingly, inheritance's share has declined over time. In 1992..."

Who knew time began in 1992?

Fresh-picked cherries, anyone...???

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 12:46 AM | Reply

"wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth"

And how much did door-opening make up?
How about advantages in the tax code?
How about advantages in the marketplace?
How about the head start of money in the education system?

there's more, of course....

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 12:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Apparently the majority earned theirs"

I never said they didn't. But If opening $50,000 in dividend checks from Wal-Mart triggers NO FEDERAL TAXES, and profiting $50,000 from your janitorial service triggers over $10,000 in federal taxes...

...well, does that seem right to you?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 12:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

MadBomber is the Pangloss of wealth inequality.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 01:42 AM | Reply

"Why not provide some actual data for your assumption, rather than expect me to run a goose chase for you."

Uh, you're asking me to prove a negative, the assumption being that the rich ARE stealing from you. You may as well ask me to prove that I'm not having sex with your wife. It's a logical assumption that your wife would want to have sex with me, but I wouldn't even know where to begin proving that I'm not.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:20 AM | Reply

"You're saying if the top 1% weren't so rich, and the bottom 50% were a bit richer, the bottom 50% would actually have a lower standard of living?"

I'm saying that there isn't a realistic scenario where the top 1% earn less money and the bottom 50% earn more. One's income is a measure of one's economic value, and if the underlying conditions that create that value don't change, the amount of earned income won't change.

I've said it many, many times before. You could eliminate the top 1% of income earners, and it will do nothing to increase the earning power of the bottom 50%. All it would do is stick them with a bigger tax bill.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1. Inheriting at a stepped-up basis.
2. Opportunities in the code only available to folks with extra expendable money.
3. GRATs.

So how are any of these 'stealing" money from me.

How does someone with more money than me harm me by taking advantage of one of these programs?

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:37 AM | Reply

"How does someone with more money than me harm me by taking advantage of one of these programs?"

Because your taxes are higher than theirs.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 02:40 AM | Reply

"Because your taxes are higher than theirs."

I can promise you that's not the case.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:43 AM | Reply

"Because your taxes are higher than theirs."

I can promise you that's not the case.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:43 AM | Reply

"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.

You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero."

www.cnbc.com

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

Many Americans don't have to worry about giving Uncle Sam part of their hard-earned cash for their income taxes this year.

An estimated 45.3% of American households -- roughly 77.5 million -- will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won't owe their states income tax.)"

www.marketwatch.com

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:47 AM | Reply

"Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

The tables show just how progressive the income tax is. The three million people in the top 1% of earners pay nearly half the income tax."

www.wsj.com

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:50 AM | Reply

"I never said they didn't. But If opening $50,000 in dividend checks from Wal-Mart triggers NO FEDERAL TAXES, and profiting $50,000 from your janitorial service triggers over $10,000 in federal taxes......well, does that seem right to you?"

It's almost like those who pay no federal income tax getting a refund.

And for the Clown, here is that example of one party "stealing" money from taxpayers in the form of transfer payments.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:51 AM | Reply

#40 | Posted by madbomber

Dude, you don't have a clue about living and working the real world, cocooned as you are in the military.

Here's a clue: If average Americans were paid fairly for their work, a higher percentage would be paying federal income taxes.

But the guys at the top rake off huge sums while failing to pay their people what they deserve. Whey should a CEO make 500-1000 times what their lowest paid worker does? Until the 1980's that wasn't the case, then Gordon Gecko greed set in, and the fat cats thought they deserved it ALL.

#49 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-17 03:03 AM | Reply

"Because your taxes are higher than theirs."
I can promise you that's not the case.
#44 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

You really couldn't figure out I was referring to the rate, not the amount?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 03:24 AM | Reply

Although, in some cases, the actual amount is lower than yours too, unless you pay $0 in taxes.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 03:44 AM | Reply

"The tables show just how progressive the income tax is."

It's the only tax that is.
That's why it's the only tax you ever dare talk about.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 03:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In the military, the federal government generally only taxes base pay, and many states waive income taxes. Other military pay -- things like housing allowances, combat pay or cost-of-living adjustments -- isn't taxed.

MADBOMBER doesn't live in the real world.

#53 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-06-17 03:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm saying that there isn't a realistic scenario where the top 1% earn less money and the bottom 50% earn more."

Is there one where the bottom 50% KEEP more, after taxes?

"45.3% of American households pay no income tax"

Can you name the four big reasons that number is up? I'll give you a hint: ALL FOUR ARE REPUBLICAN INITIATIVES.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 09:40 AM | Reply

"It's almost like those who pay no federal income tax getting a refund."

If you don't know why that's the case for some individuals, and whose fault/responsibility it is, you shouldn't be in the conversation.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 09:43 AM | Reply

"How does someone with more money than me harm me by taking advantage of one of these programs?"

Actual Math.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 09:47 AM | Reply

"You can take a stab at trying to explain how the rich are "stealing" your money."
1. Inheriting at a stepped-up basis.
2. Opportunities in the code only available to folks with extra expendable money.
3. GRATs.
Your turn.
#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-16 04:01 PM

The part where that was 'your money' was missing from your post. Must have been a cut & paste error. Can you please repost the part where you showed it was 'your money'?

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-06-17 09:51 AM | Reply

#57

Sorry, not interested in playing your "First, let's all pretend we're stupid" game.

If someone just got a tax break, my portion of the tax burden just got larger. You know...MATH.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 10:05 AM | Reply

"45% of Americans pay no federal income tax"

Yet you keep voting for the folks who purposely spike that number, again and again and again.

In fact, that percentage is out of date, as Republicans recently sent that number northward.

Why do you vote FOR what you bitch AGAINST?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 10:32 AM | Reply

"stealing" your money
If someone just got a tax break, my portion of the tax burden just got larger. You know...MATH.
#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 10:05 AM

Well, at least you admit that you think that taxes are theft.

#60 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-06-17 11:01 AM | Reply

"Well, at least you admit that you think that taxes are theft."

No...I believe if we owe a debt together, and you suddenly have to pay a smaller portion of the pie, it de facto means my percentage of the tax pie just got larger.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 11:53 AM | Reply

"taxes are theft."

Nonsense.

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"taxes are theft."
Nonsense.

No its true...

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Ridiculous, unless you are asking to return to a 3.5% tax rate?

#63 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-17 12:06 PM | Reply

"So the subtraction of them reduces the inequality between the top 1 percent and bottom 50 percent."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!. No, actually it doesn't. It actually makes the disparity much, much worse. Omg, this is so laughable that they try to use math to discredit math itself. They don't give a full list. And even when they try to get people to believe their exclusions, they mention cars. Cars are what many low-income people have that DEFINES their wealth. You get rid of that and you immediately turn this into an apples-oranges thing instead of an apples-apples thing.

Anyone with half a brain can easily surmise that the problem is, and always has been, invested money and assets...not owned assets that are used on a daily basis. Math creates the inequality problem...if you remove things like people who just don't try, people who blow all their money irresponsibly, etc. Math is why the gap is so large and only increases, because that is EXACTLY how math works. Someone with a million dollars invested and someone with 10k invested will grow apart on a curve that is biased towards the million dollars. It's actually incredibly simple, so simple that just having to explain it to people over and over again and them still not understanding is indicative of why our society has so many problems.

#64 | Posted by humtake at 2019-06-17 12:06 PM | Reply

"Ridiculous, unless you are asking to return to a 3.5% tax rate?

Stupid, unless you're asking for a return to a 3.5% tax rate civilization.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 01:41 PM | Reply

"you really couldn't figure out I was referring to the rate, not the amount?"

I spent 2018 in a tax free zone supporting combat operations. The only taxes I paid were SS, FICA, and Medicare.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:19 PM | Reply

"Dude, you don't have a clue about living and working the real world, cocooned as you are in the military."

Does the Wall Street journal have a clue about living and working in the real world? CNBC? Marketwatch?

I can post more articles...all saying the same thing if it helps you out. I don't think any of the authors are currently members of the military...

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:23 PM | Reply

"MADBOMBER doesn't live in the real world."

Last year I lived in Qatar. It seemed pretty real to me. ESPECIALLY when the temps hit 50C.

Now, I live in Germany. Also feels pretty real. Pretty nice, but still real.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:29 PM | Reply

#67
Are you planning on addressing #54? How about #59?

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 02:30 PM | Reply

"Why do you vote FOR what you bitch AGAINST?"

Are you suggesting that the Dems would plan on making the bottom 50% pay their fair share?

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:32 PM | Reply

"Are you suggesting that the Dems would plan on making the bottom 50% pay their fair share?"

You're purposely misunderstanding.

I'm suggesting you learn who is responsible for the spike, and its reasons. You're arguing from ignorance. That 45% would be down a third, if not for four Republican initiatives. Can you name ANY of them?

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 02:37 PM | Reply

"Is there one where the bottom 50% KEEP more, after taxes?"

There is no (realistic) scenario where individuals with low economic value generate higher income. Maybe another world war...provided it was like WWII, where the US workforce and industry was left intact. Maybe some sort of cataclysmic epidemic.

Like I just mentioned...I spent last year in Qatar. When you're participating in combat operations, you don't pay federal taxes...EXCEPT for FICA, SS, and Medicare. The reason being is that these payments are intended for programs intended for me and me alone, and if I didn't pay them, someone else would be paying for my entitlements at future point.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm suggesting you learn who is responsible for the spike, and its reasons. You're arguing from ignorance. That 45% would be down a third, if not for four Republican initiatives. Can you name ANY of them?"

I can't.

Can you?

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:40 PM | Reply

"No...I believe if we owe a debt together, and you suddenly have to pay a smaller portion of the pie, it de facto means my percentage of the tax pie just got larger."

So you can empathise with the 1% then?

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:41 PM | Reply

"The reason being is that these payments are intended for programs intended for me and me alone"

History says you're wrong:

Dubya cited overcollections from MY PAYROLL TAXES as the reason to cut YOUR INCOME TAXES.

Also, accounting says you're wrong:

If we were treating the SS system like a true pension plan, YOUR INCOME TAXES would have to spike.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 02:43 PM | Reply

Danforth mentions the 4 republican initiatives.....lemme guess....EITC is one. significant increase in the standard deduction, child tax credit, ???

#76 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-17 02:45 PM | Reply

"So you can empathise with the 1% then?"

With any complaints?!? No; they've gotten a larger percentage of the value pie, while paying a smaller percentage of the tax pie. They've also left a much larger tax bill, and made sure it's mostly them NOT paying it.

It seems you don't understand the conceptual math, and how the dials turn.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 02:46 PM | Reply

"EITC is one"

The big one.

"significant increase in the standard deduction"

Yes, but closer to a wash than you think, since they took away the personal exemptions.

"child tax credit"

Yep. The initial $500/child took A LOT of folks off the tax rolls.

"???"
~Doubling Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1000. That took A LOT MORE folks off the tax rolls.

And now, with the larger standard deduction,
~Doubling Child Tax Credit again, from $1000 to $2000
~Reducing 15% bracket to 12%
~Doubling AGI eligibility to claim Child Tax Credits
~Alimony no longer taxable income

45% will be a thing of the past. And Republicans will continue to blame everyone but themselves.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 02:55 PM | Reply

#75

So...I can only tell you what we're told before heading out...and that is that these taxes are not deferred because they are used to fund entitlements. Which completely makes sense if we're being honest. The amount one receives from SS is based on the amount paid in. So would I be doing myself any favors by not paying due to deployment? The other option would be making taxpayers cover the SS and Medicare payments for deployed service members, but that wouldn't be unlike making the taxpayers pay for mortgage or car payments for deployers...something I would not be a fan of personnaly.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 02:55 PM | Reply

" these taxes are not deferred because they are used to fund entitlements."

Your other taxes aren't "deferred" either; they're forgiven. And the 7.65% you're paying in for FICA is matched by the military--your employer--so that's another benefit you have over the self-employed, who have to pay both halves of the 15.3% FICA taxes.

"So would I be doing myself any favors by not paying due to deployment?"

Who ever suggested that?

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 03:00 PM | Reply

"It seems you don't understand the conceptual math, and how the dials turn."

I think you're letting your political beliefs get ahead of your common sense.

Do people actually hire you? Reading some of the stuff you post, I'd be terrified to let you have anything to do with my money.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-17 03:00 PM | Reply

"So...I can only tell you what we're told before heading out...and that is that these taxes are not deferred because they are used to fund entitlements. Which completely makes sense if we're being honest."

Money is fungible.

Whether a tax is used to fund an entitlement or something else is immaterial to this discussion.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 03:41 PM | Reply

"but that wouldn't be unlike making the taxpayers pay for mortgage or car payments for deployers...something I would not be a fan of personnaly."

But making the taxpayers pay for your health care is OK, personally?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 03:44 PM | Reply

Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more.
#7 | Posted by madbomber

The 1% owe their wealth to the 99% living below them. They owe it to the country that provides the opportunity for them to amass that wealth and to the country that protects that wealth and their lives.

That wealth is worth nothing if the 99% decide its worth nothing. It's worth nothing if the government decides to take it. It's worth nothing unless a lot of people continue to allow the wealthy to be wealthy.

As for the standard of living, it's due to the hard labor of the 99% that they and the 1% have anything.

It's time to get rid of this incredible Republican lie of the self made man. No one runs a business without government support, infrastructure, and workers.

#84 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-17 04:12 PM | Reply

"The 1% owe their wealth to the 99% living below them. They owe it to the country that provides the opportunity for them to amass that wealth and to the country that protects that wealth and their lives."

I don't disagree with that but I think the 1% make a separation from the "99%" and "the country". It's one in the same in reality but they don't interchange those terms. The country means their customers, employees, local govt perhaps, public schools, infrastructure including hospitals, colleges, etc....what they see around them.

they don't see the poor or the unemployed or some DC politician as someone they owe anything to. They don't think the poor or DC politicians provided them with anything except obstacles.

Now, I'm not defending such a selfish attitude but most wealthy folks I know do believe that only in the USA could they have achieved what they've achieved. Most wealthy folks (especially first generation wealthy) aren't completely ignorant of the fact that they need middle class folks to afford their goods/services and that it takes a cooperation with govt to have infrastructure and security so that they are free to conduct their business.

It's an exchange...both the 1% and the 99% have to work together.

Here is an example......

www.youtube.com

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-17 04:31 PM | Reply

"I think you're letting your political beliefs get ahead of your common sense."

You just suggested the 1% had a beef, even after the most advantageous tax code in your & my lifetimes. You also had NO IDEA why 45% pay no income tax, or who to properly blame.

"Do people actually hire you? Reading some of the stuff you post, I'd be terrified to let you have anything to do with my money."

Your opinion is worthless, based on the level of your conclusions.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-17 06:46 PM | Reply

If 50 high school seniors graduate from the same school, should all 50 have the same end result in life?

If one becomes a millionaire while 49 don't, why is this a problem?

Like me, 99% of my classmates grew up in the same neighborhood, twelve years together. We split up into three groups based on grades. Over the years, we all had control over our grades. Some moved up, others down, some remained in their group.

Why expect everyone to have equal end results? Why is it unfair that success was earned and lack of it was too?

#87 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-06-17 10:07 PM | Reply

"The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes
Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.
You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero."
www.cnbc.com
#45 | Posted by madbomber a

liar

#88 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-17 10:14 PM | Reply

"Because your taxes are higher than theirs."
I can promise you that's not the case.
#44 | Posted by madbomber a

itep.org

liar

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-17 10:16 PM | Reply

The only taxes I paid were SS, FICA, and Medicare.

#66 | Posted by madbomber

so you paid more than 60 of the fortune 500

you really are stupid, you know that, right?

#90 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-17 10:20 PM | Reply

"If 50 high school seniors graduate from the same school, should all 50 have the same end result in life?
If one becomes a millionaire while 49 don't, why is this a problem?"

Let's try it this way:
Nearly six percent of Americans are millionaires.
But in your school, only one in fifty is. That's two percent. Not six percent.
Is that a problem?
Should the school, community, parents, anyone worry about how badly your school is doing?

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 10:40 PM | Reply

"But making the taxpayers pay for your health care is OK, personally?"

Definitely.

I'm not much use to anybody if I'm sick. Providing me with good health care isn't that different than providing routine maintenance on a piece of equipment you just spent a lot of money on.

#92 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 01:51 AM | Reply

"Whether a tax is used to fund an entitlement or something else is immaterial to this discussion."

It's not immaterial to the US government, who make a distinction between taxes that fund individual entitlements and those that fund everything else.

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 01:52 AM | Reply

"I'm not much use to anybody if I'm sick."

You're very useful to a for-profit health care system if you're sick.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 01:53 AM | Reply

"The 1% owe their wealth to the 99% living below them."

Sort of. Top income earners get rich because lots of people are giving them money, but it's voluntary. And they received that money in return for a good or service that the income earners provided. It occurred naturally and voluntarily. And it represented the best possible allocation of resources for all parties involved.

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 01:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's worth nothing if the government decides to take it. It's worth nothing unless a lot of people continue to allow the wealthy to be wealthy."

That's also true, but what you're not acknowledging is that you're not just going to hurt the rich by putting a boot to their throat, you're going to hurt everyone else as well. Venezuela is a case in point.

#96 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 01:56 AM | Reply

"you're not just going to hurt the rich by putting a boot to their throat"

This isn't about hurting the rich. Or about putting boots to their throats.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 01:59 AM | Reply

"Your opinion is worthless, based on the level of your conclusions."

Maybe...but when you're saying percentages matter more than actual amounts-and you're saying that-I think I would look elsewhere. My math skills tell me that 3% of a million dollars is better than 30% of $1000. You don't seem to be able to grasp that.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 01:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"so you paid more than 60 of the fortune 500 you really are stupid, you know that, right?"

Interesting.

I wonder how they managed to avoid paying their portion of Medicare and Social Security tax. Maybe Danforth can provide some illumination on how they were able to do that.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 02:04 AM | Reply

"Top income earners get rich because lots of people are giving them money, but it's voluntary. And they received that money in return for a good or service that the income earners provided. It occurred naturally and voluntarily. And it represented the best possible allocation of resources for all parties involved."

"And it represented the best possible allocation of resources for all parties involved."

^
This is what I mean about being the Pangloss of wealth distribution.

"The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" (French: le meilleur des mondes possibles; German: Die beste aller möglichen Welten) was coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Essays of Theodicy on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.

Among his many philosophical interests and concerns, Leibniz took on this question of theodicy: If God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, how do we account for the suffering and injustice that exists in the world? Historically, attempts to answer the question have been made using various arguments, for example, by explaining away evil or reconciling evil with good."
en.wikipedia.org

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 02:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

liar

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-06-17 10:16 PM

Are the authors from the Wall Street Journal liars as well? How about Marketwatch.

But wait...this article was based on data from the CBO. Have they been corrupted by bourgeoise capitalism as well?

...where does this conspiracy end?

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 02:07 AM | Reply

(argumentum ad conspiratio)

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 02:10 AM | Reply

"You're very useful to a for-profit health care system if you're sick."

Am I useful to go fly a combat mission over Syria?

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 02:12 AM | Reply

the private PIC will continue to be extracted as routine.
"Put the pick in there, Pete, and turn it round real neat."

#104 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-06-18 02:13 AM | Reply

"This isn't about hurting the rich. Or about putting boots to their throats."

Really?

You think Sycophant was suggesting something more benevolent?

It didn't sound that way to me.

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 02:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're very useful to a for-profit health care system if you're sick."
Am I useful to go fly a combat mission over Syria?
#103 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

You have an interesting understanding of how health care works!

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 02:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#103 a self-retort? how exciting.

#107 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-06-18 02:17 AM | Reply

"It didn't sound that way to me."

That's because you hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is progressives are planning a Kristallnacht for the rich.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 02:17 AM | Reply

"This is what I mean about being the Pangloss of wealth distribution."

You don't understand wealth distribution because you don't understand economics. In fact you would appear to be intentionally avoiding economics and looking elsewhere in order to find an explanation that fits within your vision of what the world should look like. I will tell you that from an economics perspective, you can only control that by putting boots to throats. Otherwise, the outcome is whatever the stakeholders within the economy decide to make it, collectively.

Can you imagine the impact on income inequality if people stopped carrying a balance on credit cards? Credit card debt in the US currently sits at $830 billion dollars. Who do you think is collecting all of that interest? They would liekly throw a fit if someone tried to pinch off this revenue stream, but so would all of those who choose to use credit cards and carry a balance.

#109 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 02:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That's because you hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is progressives are planning a Kristallnacht for the rich."

That's because it gets brought up here more and more often. And aside from the violence, it's stupid. Unless you view the outcome in Venezuela as a good thing.

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 02:25 AM | Reply

You don't understand wealth distribution because ... you can only control that by putting boots to throats.
"Atomics!"

#111 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-06-18 02:45 AM | Reply

i smell Tyler Durden.

#112 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-06-18 02:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Can you imagine the impact on income inequality if people stopped carrying a balance on credit cards?"

Not really, because my income doesn't change when I open or close credit card accounts. Does yours?

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 02:58 AM | Reply

MadBomber is kicking you liberals asses today...

Good job.

#114 | Posted by boaz at 2019-06-18 09:20 AM | Reply

"Not really, because my income doesn't change when I open or close credit card accounts. Does yours?"

The your purchasing power does change though...by quite a bit. If you purchase something on a car and make minimum payments, the item will cost you far more than if you paid cash...this is more of that icky economicky stuff...I know it makes you uncomfortable...

#115 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 10:45 AM | Reply

Well, it's a good thing our country has a lot of upward (and downward) mobility.

When you track the percentage of people who move up and down the various income groupings you'll discover this isn't much of a problem at all.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-18 10:49 AM | Reply

"It's not immaterial to the US government, who make a distinction between taxes that fund individual entitlements and those that fund everything else."

Absolute nonsense.

AGAIN, Dubya cited payroll tax over-collections to slash your income taxes.

You keep making blatantly false statements , even after being corrected.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-18 11:09 AM | Reply

"The your purchasing power does change though...by quite a bit."

On the contrary. If you carry balances on credit cards, your purchasing power is lessened in the overall equation.

The way I put it in my seminars is, "I was stunned to discover how much more I could afford when I only had to pay for it once."

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-18 11:17 AM | Reply

"Absolute nonsense."

It can't be nonsense when it's reflected in policy...for the reasons outlined previously. Unless you're saying it's nonsense that Service Members should have to pay SS and Medicare taxes without affecting their ability to receive them as benefits.

And since you're here...maybe you can shed some light on #89, where Truthhurts made the claim that many F500 companies avoided paying federal income taxes. Given they are obligated to provide half of the SS and Medicare funding, I'm wondering how they managed to avoid paying that 'tax'.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 11:20 AM | Reply

"On the contrary. If you carry balances on credit cards, your purchasing power is lessened in the overall equation."

Which is what I said. If you pay for a house with cash, you'll pay just under half what you would have paid if you took out a 30 year mortgage on the same property.

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 11:22 AM | Reply

"maybe you can shed some light on #89, where Truthhurts made the claim that many F500 companies avoided paying federal income taxes. Given they are obligated to provide half of the SS and Medicare funding, I'm wondering how they managed to avoid paying that 'tax'.

Federal income taxes and federal payroll taxes are two types of federal taxes. The corporations still pay in whatever they withheld and federal payroll taxes. However they may or may not be paying federal income taxes. Again, they are two different things, yet both form a source of federal spending.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-18 11:33 AM | Reply

"Which is what I said."

No it's not. You were talking about increased purchasing power via credit cards.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-18 11:35 AM | Reply

"It can't be nonsense when it's reflected in policy"

It's not reflected in policy; for the third time, payroll taxes were cited to cut your income taxes.

If that doesn't prove a tax is a tax is a tax, the problem is in your mirror.

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-18 11:36 AM | Reply

"No it's not. You were talking about increased purchasing power via credit cards."

No, I wasn't. You and I have had this conversation before. The bottom line is if you buy something with a credit card, it's going to cost you more than if you had paid cash...UNLESS you pay off the balance each month. I have ton of AMEX cards and a few others, each of which provides me with some really, really good benefits. I have access to the the Centurion Lounges and Delta Sky lounges, as well as all the Priority Pass partners. I have Hilton Diamond and Marriott Gold. I also get $450 in reimbursable in-flight expenses on United, automatic upgrades with enterprise, and a bunch of stuff with American Airlines that I don't really care about because AA kind of sucks. But they do pay me for using their cards...for some reason. If I were to carry a balance for even a short period of time, these benefits would become more and more worthless.

#124 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-18 12:38 PM | Reply

"The bottom line is if you buy something with a credit card, it's going to cost you more than if you had paid cash...UNLESS you pay off the balance each month"

Exactly.

So how does a credit card increase purchasing power in the overall equation, as you've claimed?

"I have ton of AMEX cards and a few others..."

Then you're overpaying in annual fees. I put everything on one or two reward cards; one cash, the other miles to our most-used airline.

But back to your argument...you're simply underscoring my statement of only paying for purchases once. You've yet to explain how a credit card expands overall purchasing power, unless you're exclusively referring to the value of rewards. As you pointed out, a carried balance negates any award positives.

#125 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-18 12:48 PM | Reply

"Well, it's a good thing our country has a lot of upward (and downward) mobility.
When you track the percentage of people...
#116 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

This isn't about the mobility of people.
It's about the trajectory of wealth.
Why choose to not understand that?

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 12:57 PM | Reply

I understand it fine.

If we lived in a caste system where people never moved out of their income brackets this would be a huge problem.

But we don't.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-18 01:16 PM | Reply

"I understand it fine.
If we lived in a caste system "

No, you don't nderstand it.
Because this is about the trajectory of money, and you're still talking about people moving in and out of social classes.
Talk about the money, and then you'll be understanding it.
Until then, you're deliberately choosing to not understand it.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 01:18 PM | Reply

Again, I understand it just fine. I understand it better than you do.

#129 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-18 01:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Then talk about the money, and not the people.
You can't even do it.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 01:23 PM | Reply

Jeff, easy mobility from one class to the other is not good when its solely from Middle Class to Poor.

But I can see why you try to conflate that with people moving up social classes; because people don't move up social classes.

#131 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-18 01:44 PM | Reply

"If we lived in a caste system where people never moved out of their income brackets this would be a huge problem."

I'm willing to work with you on this one, JeffJ. For sake of argument, let's say we did live in a caste system.

Why would that make the wealth funneling up wards a huge problem?

Now, to bring it all home, explain why the wealth funneling upwards isn't a huge problem, absent the caste system.

Thanks.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-18 01:50 PM | Reply

Benny Hill died.

When he died, do you know where he lived, how he lived, and most important...what made him happy.

The problem with people is being happy. What do you need to have to be happy.

All I read is greed and jealousy.

He has more than me.

Who the hell cares.

I am happy. I am not rich. I was so poor I slept under bridges. All I owned I carried.

I have more than I really need to be happy.

I don't need more.

It is a matter of upbringing.

I have food, a roof over my head, a place to sleep, and somewhere to work to meet these basic needs.

Only 'self' can define what makes one happy. If you have to have what other people do, you lost your way.

#133 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-06-18 08:20 PM | Reply

"Then you're overpaying in annual fees. I put everything on one or two reward cards; one cash, the other miles to our most-used airline."

Military. AMEX waives annual fees for Active Duty military. Even so, I would keep my AMEX Platinum card even if I had to pay the annual fees. I typically don't use cards for airline miles, as I can get better deals with cash rewards. AMEX Blue gives you 3% back on Gas, and 6% back on groceries. I have a USAA card that gives you 2.6% back on everything.

"But back to your argument...you're simply underscoring my statement of only paying for purchases once. You've yet to explain how a credit card expands overall purchasing power, unless you're exclusively referring to the value of rewards. As you pointed out, a carried balance negates any award positives."

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was arguing credit cards expand purchasing power. My statement follows:

"Your purchasing power does change though...by quite a bit. If you purchase something on a car and make minimum payments, the item will cost you far more than if you paid cash...this is more of that icky economicky stuff...I know it makes you uncomfortable..."

Unless you pay off your balance in full at the end of each period, anything you bought with a card is going to cost you more than if you had paid cash. Which means you can buy less stuff with a given amount of money.

#134 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-19 02:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why would that make the wealth funneling up wards a huge problem?"

What you don't seem to be able to grasp is any changes in wealth distribution are occurring as a result of voluntary economic activity. A free society is going to breed inequality. The only way you could change this is by limiting individual freedom, but doing so is going to hurt, rather than help them.

#135 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-19 02:17 AM | Reply

"I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was arguing credit cards expand purchasing power."

This doesn't need to be argued, because it's obviously true.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-19 02:18 AM | Reply

"This doesn't need to be argued, because it's obviously true."

It is?

Please explain.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-06-19 02:28 AM | Reply

You've said many times in the past that payday loans benefit the poor because credit allows them to buy things they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. It's one of your common refrains.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-19 02:42 AM | Reply

The loans are entered into voluntarily. According to you, that means poor people are acting in their own best interest by using short-term credit voluntarily.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-19 02:44 AM | Reply

"The only way you could change this is by limiting individual freedom, but doing so is going to hurt, rather than help them."

It hurts the poor to not permit usury. Even though it "is going to cost you more than if you had paid cash." (According to you. Not me. I gauge harm by outcomes, not by whether the harm was voluntary.)

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-19 03:14 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort