guess whos funding their wealth
guess whos funding their wealth
Once again, way to much FOX news. People making 600k+ wont even miss that extra 30k.
The middle class are the one's that fund the wealthy..... along with the government, of course.
P.S. We have had a republican for the last 8 yrs.... how has that worked out?
Nice work in here, Kev.
What's the matter with people being rich, anyway? they still spend their money. Someone had to build their mansions (and Porsches) and paint their portraits... since all the money rich people have ends up in the hands of not-so-rich people sooner or later, what is the difference between taxing the rich and taxing the poor?
Most of you seem to subscribe to a very Marxist perspective. What makes you think the government can do better with tax dollars than privately owned, competitive companies can do with their own money?
Most of you seem to subscribe to a very Marxist perspective. What makes you think the government can do better with tax dollars than privately owned, competitive companies can do with their own money?
You are forgetting that then cells phones were out of reach of the "poor". In Finland when the NMT450 came operational in the early 80's, the phones went for something like 6000€. Now you can have one even for 30€.
Not always, stuff just get cheaper so the poor can afford them too.
I'm with you on this, That bloody Obama's not even s2 licensed.
Wrong as well. The poor can't afford them. They can't afford cell phones, they can't afford cars, they can't afford houses, they can't afford satellite tv, they can't afford broadband internet service, they can't afford food, they can't afford the "fancy" dSLR cameras they tote around, they can't afford anything in today's era.
What they can get (or could get in recent past) is credit. In today's age, normal incomes are poor. It takes 2 incomes for a family just to make ends meet. They send their kids off to some stranger's care, they both work to make ends meet. Making ends meet in today's world is keeping up with the 2 brand new expensive car payments, keeping up with the cell phone payments, keeping up with the satellite TV payments, keeping up with the credit payments for the new computer every year, new expensive "fancy" camera every year, new cloths, new iPods, expensive vacations every year, etc.
I don't consider my income poor. But in today's standards, it is. I don't have a cell phone or a fancy camera, or new computers every year. To make ends meet for me means keeping up with the roof over my children's heads and keeping food in their bellies.
The median income in the US is $32,000. I do make more than the median income, but not significantly more. I can not afford cell phones, expensive cars, new computers, and expensive cameras, and haven't been on a vacation anywhere since I was 14 years old. Yet, those making the median income or even less all have $80/month cell phones, $1000 computers every year, $1000 cameras, $3000 vacations every year, and multiple $35-40,000 cars. I know how much debt I am in without those things trying to make ends meet with food and fuel going to work. I'd hate to see the debt of those making ends meet with all the luxuries that they all "have" to have.
Tax the poor rather than the rich. The "credit income" is crashing all around them. What are the rich going to do when the "poor" can no longer "afford" the products of the rich?
$250,000? I would gladly give up more taxes on 8 years worth of salary if I was getting that in a single year just to not get the notice of foreclosure on my $88k house trying to make ends meet in reality rather than trying to make ends meet in the "poor" reality that most people who discuss all this stuff live.
Private enterprise has no mandate or even incentive to improve the lives of the general public, a business is only responsible for satisfying its owners. Whether any given government actually represents good value for money is debatable of course (thankfully in democratic societies we get the opportunity to fire the managers every few years), but are businesses any more prudent?
The current state of global markets certainly doesn't make the finance sector look particularly competent. Where would we be now if our governments hadn't used billions of public money to prop up the private sector?
Personally I think my current government wastes a lot of public money, and I'm sure that many ministers abuse their expense accounts, but I'm quietly confident that nobody in the house has ever paid themselves a multi-million pound bonus for their incompetence. That counts for something.
I love how the entirety of tabloid reading class blame the bankers for the current economic climate. "They where gready, selling on bad debts".
Where did these bad debts come from? Why do we have bad debts?
Because poor people wanted the latest iPhone, the latest computer, a foreign holiday once a year, a new car, and a decent house. The depression we are coming into is because of the greed of poor people, that rich people then said "fine, if you want to live out of my pocket that's fine but you are paying me back plus a bit".
And when they couldnt afford to pay back what they took from the bankers, the government has had to step in to help the bankers stay afloat.
Not that it's helped, the stock markets had another huge crash again today, so all these bail outs aren't working.
The depression we are coming into, is because we are paying for the greedy bastards who have maxed out every line of credit and don't understand that a new car/iPod and a wardrobe full of the latest fashions isn't a birth right of being a Westerner, but you have to earn these things.
But sure, keep blaming it on the 'greedy' rich folk who lent their money out - because Tony Blair passed a law forcing them to give out risky mortgages - it's all their fault isnt it, not the greedy bastard wearing Armani in the doll queue - he's innocent because earns less than average.
I don't spend what I havn't earned. It's as simple as that.
Luxuries become comforts, comforts become necessities. That's a core social process, not a recent phenomenon. A hundred years ago, only rich people had shitters inside their house, poor people didn't. These days it's not socially acceptable, and probably not even legal to bring up a child in a home where the household bog is outside in the potentially cold and damp, or hot and bacteria-infested.
In fairness to Blair, I think forcing subprime loans was a necessity in the UK, to respond to to the active sale of subprimes by banks in the US market. It was necessary in the short-term to ensure market buoyancy. I don't think it was a good move, but the UK market would have suffered worse and earlier if it hadn't happened. It was reactive, though, not proactive, and the same reasons Blair made it happen could and should have been read as an early warning of what was to come from the US markets. The crunch has happened because of the sheer volume of subprime lending in the US, a ludicrous and unsustainable explosion in property prices both here and in the US, and the mistake of inter-investing in an unstable/unsustainable US economic boom(cum-burst).
I don't think it's reasonable to blame housebuyers, who were looking at a housing price explosion, for taking attractively presented mortgages. Getting on the housing ladder was inevitably going to be perceived as the way to go. You're supposed to be able to depend on your bank, and the banks have always insisted that you could. The Northern Rock fiasco was the first of its kind in something like 130 years in the UK.. punters can't be blamed for being blind-sided by it. When the ordinary person borrows from the bank, they believe the bank has the money to lend. If anything, the banks have misrepresented themselves in this way.. something that in pretty well every other transaction would be illegal.
I blame the brokers. All of them. They're the ones that get richer whether the economy is in a good state or a bad state, or if it's going up or down, as long as the cash is flowing.. and they don't give a damn about you or me.
In fairness to Blair, I think forcing subprime loans was a necessity in the UK, to respond to to the active sale of subprimes by banks in the US market. It was necessary in the short-term to ensure market buoyancy. I don't think it was a good move, but the UK market would have suffered worse and earlier if it hadn't happened. It was reactive, though, not proactive, and the same reasons Blair made it happen could and should have been read as an early warning of what was to come from the US markets. The crunch has happened because of the sheer volume of subprime lending in the US, a ludicrous and unsustainable explosion in property prices both here and in the US, and the mistake of inter-investing in an unstable/unsustainable US economic boom(cum-burst).
I don't think it's reasonable to blame housebuyers, who were looking at a housing price explosion, for taking attractively presented mortgages. Getting on the housing ladder was inevitably going to be perceived as the way to go. You're supposed to be able to depend on your bank, and the banks have always insisted that you could. The Northern Rock fiasco was the first of its kind in something like 130 years in the UK.. punters can't be blamed for being blind-sided by it. When the ordinary person borrows from the bank, they believe the bank has the money to lend. If anything, the banks have misrepresented themselves in this way.. something that in pretty well every other transaction would be illegal.
I blame the brokers. All of them. They're the ones that get richer whether the economy is in a good state or a bad state, or if it's going up or down, as long as the cash is flowing.. and they don't give a damn about you or me.
so thats mexican workers german car makers and some painter from whereever... not to forget that most of that will end up in wiedekings pockets
how about this for a start?
http://www.aflcio.org/corporat ... ages/2007_trend_chart.gif
and that doesnt include their ridiculous severance packets
Yeah, but they don't just hoard their money in the basement--and it's not just mansions cars and paintings they buy. Everything from groceries to sports tickets to animals to LFS--it all goes back to the economy somehow. If they don't buy it themselves, they pay someone else to buy it for them at an additional expense.
And everyone who works for rich people, well, it's voluntary. No one else is capable of offering them a better deal.
It's not just CEOs who are rich, either. What about members of the entertainment industry? sports stars? There are people of almost all classes who buy tickets regularly.
Wealth isn't a black hole where the money vanishes. To the contrary: it moves faster through their hands whence it came.
thats hardly the point though... this is mostly about greed and being in a position where you do get away with it which is proof enough that a completely free market doesnt work
do you honestly believe that a ceo or hamilton works 500 times harder than a nurse?
do you honestly believe that a ceo or hamilton works 500 times harder than a nurse?
Of course not, but they still pay their medical bills and health insurance companies.
If it doesn't pay off to be rich, who is going to want to try and get rich? If no one cares about financial success, everyone is going to be lazy and no progress is going to be made.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_agent_problem
There is a limit to how much CEOs can "exploit and dominate." When CEOs ask for too much money, their company obviously isn't going to be as successful.
maybe in the us but you may have heard that a few 2nd and 3rd world countries have better public health than the us
im sorry? were talking about a slight increase in tax here... also dont you think theres a slight difference between rich and filthy rich?
im not sure this applies to the discussion but i havent got enough time right now to do much more than quickly skim across it... however:
"Even in the limited arena of employment contracts, the difficulty of doing this in practice is reflected in a multitude of compensation mechanisms (‘the carrot’) and supervisory schemes (‘the stick’)"
you may have heard the term golden parachute a few times lately... youll notice that several millions worth of severance packages and an almost guaranteed ceo employment at some other company hardly qualifies as 'the stick' as normal employees experience it if they dont work hard enough
which would be of substance if the ceos were liable with their own assets as eg someone who actually owns a company... the reality is quite the opposite though
Sure they will. As soon as the get in a pickle, good ole' 'dubya' will give them 750billion of the taxpayers money.
These CEO's are one of the many reason's we are in this tuff spot.... kind of like this guy.....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428641,00.html
One of the many company's that the 750billion will 'bailout'.
If the world could vote
(141 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG