mnealtx 0 #151 August 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote 1% own 40% of wealth - 21trillion Try as I may, I can't find this breakdown in your article. Where are you getting it from? Another question... Are you expecting all of the top 1% to die this year? What happens next year? say 1% die a year in a decade that's 2trillion (and all from dead people who can't take it with them anyway) And now the company is gone, so no more corporate taxes coming in. The workers are all unemployed, so less income tax and more exenditure on unemployment and supports. Less spending in the community, so less revenue/corporate taxes from them... .... yup, that seems consistent with the 'logic' of all the rest of your posts.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #152 August 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote 1% own 40% of wealth - 21trillion Try as I may, I can't find this breakdown in your article. Where are you getting it from? Another question... Are you expecting all of the top 1% to die this year? What happens next year? say 1% die a year in a decade that's 2trillion (and all from dead people who can't take it with them anyway) And now the company is gone. no, the company will be sold to pay off the deficit...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #153 August 8, 2011 Quote no, the company will be sold to pay off the deficit... sold to whom? Remember, you just shot all the people who could afford it, in order to collect their assets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #154 August 8, 2011 Quote Quote no, the company will be sold to pay off the deficit... sold to whom? Remember, you just shot all the people who could afford it, in order to collect their assets. put the bong down mate (sold on the market to whomever will buy - revenues paying off the deficit)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #155 August 8, 2011 Quoteno, the company will be sold to pay off the deficit... dude WTF are you on?? So how many of the shareholders have to die before the law will allow for the Federal Government to padlock the company, send everyone home, turn off the lights and nail up an auction sign? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #156 August 8, 2011 it's very simple. the shareholder is dead. his/her shares will be sold to the remaining shareholders (remember still 99% of the 1% are left alive each year) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #157 August 8, 2011 Quote (remember still 99% of the 1% are left alive each year) You're making numbers up. The intent was to have a rational conversation here, not one based on fantasy.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #158 August 8, 2011 if you can't handle figures get a calculator. now total national wealth is 54trillion 1% own 40% of the national wealth - 21trillion got these numbers down ok?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #159 August 8, 2011 Quoteit's very simple. the shareholder is dead. his/her shares will be sold to the remaining shareholders good deal. So when that becomes law and I grow through my 30s into my 80s I will certainly sell off my shares and give the money to my family before I die. Thanks for the heads up It's my money, I earned it, keep your paws off Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #160 August 8, 2011 QuoteIt's my money, I earned it, keep your paws off and now your dead - so keep your grasping fingers in the grave and let the next generation be free of your debt...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #161 August 8, 2011 Quote 1% own 40% of the national wealth - 21trillion As I said in a previous post, the article we've been discussing doesn't break this down. I asked a simple question, where did you get "1% owns 40%"?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #162 August 8, 2011 QuoteHistorical context Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning 40-50% in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century. It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II, when most people were working and could save a little money. There were progressive income tax rates, too, which took some money from the rich to help with government services. Then there was a further decline, or flattening, in the 1970s, but this time in good part due to a fall in stock prices, meaning that the rich lost some of the value in their stocks. By the late 1980s, however, the wealth distribution was almost as concentrated as it had been in 1929, when the top 1% had 44.2% of all wealth. It has continued to edge up since that time, with a slight decline from 1998 to 2001, before the economy crashed in the late 2000s and little people got pushed down again. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #163 August 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteHistorical context Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning 40-50% in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century. It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II, when most people were working and could save a little money. There were progressive income tax rates, too, which took some money from the rich to help with government services. Then there was a further decline, or flattening, in the 1970s, but this time in good part due to a fall in stock prices, meaning that the rich lost some of the value in their stocks. By the late 1980s, however, the wealth distribution was almost as concentrated as it had been in 1929, when the top 1% had 44.2% of all wealth. It has continued to edge up since that time, with a slight decline from 1998 to 2001, before the economy crashed in the late 2000s and little people got pushed down again. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html You do not really expect these numbnuts to read anything from a DOT EDU source do you.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #164 August 8, 2011 Quotefree of your debt... It's not my debt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #165 August 8, 2011 Quote http://sociology.ucsc.edu/...ca/power/wealth.html Ah, you got this from another article, that still doesn't use your number. Here's the number they use... Quote As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth Quote say 1% die a year in a decade that's 2 trillion I know better than to ask this, but where do you get the 1%/year? I'm guessing you're making it up. Even with your estimate of $2T/decade, that's only $200B/year. Not even close to paying for Obama's vision. BTW, your guesstimate is twice the value provided by the article you cited: Quote an estimated $1 trillion between 2012 and 2022 So, even doubling the inheritance tax doesn't put a dent into Obama's vision. The government has a spending problem that it will not be able to tax it's way out of.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #166 August 8, 2011 QuoteEven with your estimate of $2T/decade, that's only $200B/year. that's a steady way to pay off the deficit by 'recycling' old wealth to the next generation. it also only affects the wealthiest 1% of the population - and doesn't affect them at all while still alive...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #167 August 8, 2011 Does anyone see the problem with dreamdancer's equation in paragraph 6? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #168 August 8, 2011 Quotethat's a steady way to pay off the deficit by 'recycling' old wealth to the next generation. it also only affects the wealthiest 1% of the population - and doesn't affect them at all while still alive... Dude, the deficit is not John Travolta's fault. Yet you believe that when he dies the government should seize his aircraft and property. shut the front door Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #169 August 8, 2011 Quote that's a steady way to pay off the deficit by 'recycling' old wealth to the next generation. As the USC article said, there are extremely wealthy families that are happy paying additional amounts to the government. That's fine. God bless them. For the government to make it a policy to confiscate private property at death isn't fair to those families that have earned that wealth. There must be limits on government power. That's what our constitution is all about. Even the USC article says there's not alot of money there, in the context of $1.5T dollar a year deficits, and as such it makes no sense to make that part of tax policy.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #170 August 8, 2011 IMO you are debating him (dreamy) from a false premise. In the end he does not care about the money the gov owes He only cares that someone had more than he does He wants outcomes based equality enforced by the gov And that is just plain sick "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #171 August 8, 2011 Quote He wants outcomes based equality enforced by the gov That's a stated goal of the left, and I agree it makes no sense.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #172 August 9, 2011 Excellent article on inheritance/death tax: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/08/09/why_taxing_the_rich_does_not_work_99172.html Real numbers, even net present values!We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #173 August 11, 2011 Quotethe market has begun to anticipate further bouts of “quantitative easing”, or purchases by central banks of government bonds, both in the US and Europe. If the purpose of such purchases is to drive yields lower in the hope that investors will either spend or invest the money in higher risk assets, you kind of wonder whether there’s any sense in doing any more. Bond yields are sinking without any help from central bankers. But in any case, markets anticipate more of it. Yet the single most important factor that underlies all this is that when householders, businesses and the financial sector aren’t spending and investing, a savings surplus accumulates which has to go somewhere. In the search for safe havens, it goes first and foremost into government debt, where it is used to provide the demand which the private sector has decided to remove. When governments attempt to reduce their demand for debt, as is beginning to happen at the moment with fiscal austerity programmes, you get a self feeding pressure of excess demand on limited supply, and yields fall even further. What these yields are pointing to then, is a depression. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100011458/gilt-yields-are-signalling-a-depression/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
