[King Boo]

How do you spend all that money? I mean really, take a look at this site. Nevermind the politics of it, it does a good job illustrating just how much money we're talking. As that site shows, he basically makes hundreds of dollars in what amounts to seconds. How can you spend that even if your wanted to? So of course they sit on most of it and store it away.

they could just...you know...pay some taxes. hire some more people. donate it to a good cause.


but i keep reading that if they get taxed, they won't create more jobs. i feel bad for them, it's a lose lose situation.

[RDreamer]

but i keep reading that if they get taxed, they won't create more jobs. i feel bad for them, it's a lose lose situation.

Go ahead and punch anyone who says that right in the head. It's ok, there was obviously nothing going on upstairs anyway, so you won't do any real brain damage.

[Reuenthal]

I support an increase of taxes for the super rich. Not sure about increasing taxes for the rich in general. (Income between 250 thousands and say 2 million or something, maybe even somewhat above that).

I doubt the super rich have an issue with spending money due to taxes but there can be an issue with not only incentives but also money available for investments when you also take in mind expenses with the rich who are not super rich in my view, on how much they can spend, hire or whether to do so and where. Incentives being combined with taxation, that is if you invest in X you get a smaller tax rate also sounds something I would like but not to an extend to make the taxes inefficient.

I recall reading that the super rich have a lower taxation rate than the rich who are not as rich as them and I found that baffling.

[Chichikov]

I doubt the super rich have an issue with spending money due to taxes but there can be an issue with incentives with the rich in my view, on how much they can spend, hire or whether to do so.

We're talking income taxes, not spending taxes.
I mean sure, if they have less money they have less to spend, but again, if we're not taking from rich people we have to take that money from someone else, and that person would have less spending money too.

Also, you really think the lack of incentives to be rich in this country?
Like, for real?

[daycru]

The more money you die with the better your seat in heaven. Hoarding for the end of days.

[Reuenthal]

We're talking income taxes, not spending taxes. I mean sure, if they have less money they have less to spend, but again, if we're not taking from rich people we have to take that money from someone else, and that person would have less spending money too. Also, you really think the lack of incentives to be rich in this country? Like, for real?

If you are not taking them from there you might also not take them from anywhere which means an increase of debt (that means you are taking them from your economy at some point you need to reduce the debt and run surplaces) or reduce spending in certain areas that don't affect the poorest most disproportionately such as military spending . The United States is lucky not to be following what several European nations are that is tax increases for everyone while facing a bad economy. That had quite negative results.

Also, you really think the lack of incentives to be rich in this country? Like, for real?

I haven't said there is a lack of incentives to be rich.

The category of rich includes many people. I think raising taxes on the super rich won't affect incentives in spending negatively (or sufficiently negatively to not be done) but raising taxes on the non super rich could have a negative effect on the non super rich contributions to the economy at this time point. I don't support lowering taxation there either. I believe this is not the best time point to be raising taxes for most of the population. There is a lack of incentives generally for spending from the poor and middle class to upper middle class and so on and what is needed right now is for economic activity to increase and for people to have the money to spend.

I also agree with Obama's stimulus.

[Ether_Snake]

Without a USSR of some sort, politicians are loyal to corporations instead of country.

[Lagspike_exe]

do these super rich people even spend money? it always sounds like they store it away, just to see who can die the richest. i am sure these banks have some kind of pac-man like leader board. at least there are some cool elites like bill gates and others that try to spend it for something good

It's more about "the game" than about what you can actually buy with all that money.

Without a USSR of some sort, politicians are loyal to corporations instead of country.

This, in essence, is what's it all about. Western middle class should worship Lenin. There was no other man in history that did so much for the middle class. Global elites won't allow it ever to happen again, at least not until something resembling a revolution appears and they realize they could lose absolutely everything. The world economics are going back to pre-1917 state. Unless you're very rich, be very afraid of what's to come. The second half of the 20th century will be remembered as a golden age for many years.

[Taxman]

Look, I did my best to find it. They're just really good at hiding things. I'm just one guy.

[Chichikov]

If you are not taking them from there you might also not take them from anywhere or reduce spending in certain areas that don't affect the poorest most disproportionately such as military spending which means an increase of debt. The United States is lucky not to be following what several European nations are that is tax increases for everyone while facing a bad economy.

This is an unrelated question though.
Yes, the appropriate level of revenue is important, but regardless of your desired level, there's still a question of how and from whom we are collecting the taxes.
I think having rich people paying a lower effective tax rate than middle class people (like we have in this country) is bad for the economy (money has a marginal utility) and bad for society.
Regardless of the overall level of taxation.
Do you disagree?

The category of rich includes many people. I think raising taxes on the super rich won't affect incentives but it will have a negative effect on the non super rich at this time point. I don't support lowering taxation there either. I believe this is not the best time point to be raising taxes for most of the population.

I really don't understand how that suppose to work.
Like, if your tax rate go up by 5%, would you like to get a raise less?
Would you try less hard at work?
I know I wouldn't.

[commedieu]

edit; Just not worth it.

The more money you die with the better your seat in heaven. Hoarding for the end of days.

i like you.

And its never changed. Heh.. man.

[Chrono]

I make much less then those billionaires, and I don't try to avoid taxation, at all. It is possible to do in my income level, I know people who do it, it's quasi-legal in you can get a couple of grands in a good year. But it's textbook anti-social behavior and I try my best not to engage in such activity (though admittedly, not always successfully). p.s. Do you really don't understand that your tax rates could've been significantly lower if we didn't have so much tax avoidance? Why do you think it's a good idea to have a system that reward those who has the most expansive accountant? This has nothing to do with tax rates. High, low, libertarian, in each case, it's better to have a fair system that reward productive activity, don't you think?

My comment was about those angry Guardian posters and how they see themselves as noble victims of those evil rich, you'r reading too much into my post.

I have no problem with taxing the rich, in fact I think taxes should be higher on them almost everywhere around the world and those that avoid them should be executed.

Without a USSR of some sort, politicians are loyal to corporations instead of country.

And who elected those politicians? People get what they deserve. Even when politicians are not elected more often than not they're still a reflection of the people they represent.

[Chichikov]

My comment was about those angry Guardian posters and how they see themselves as noble victims of those evil rich, you'r reading too much into my post. I have no problem with taxing the rich, in fact I think taxes should be higher on them almost everywhere around the world and those that avoid them should be executed.

Heh, sorry.
I tend to have a bit of a hair trigger on this issue...

[Reuenthal]

This is an unrelated question though. Yes, the appropriate level of revenue is important, but regardless of your desired level, there's still a question of how and from whom we are collecting the taxes. I think having rich people paying a lower effective tax rate than middle class people (like we have in this country) is bad for the economy (money has a marginal utility) and bad for society. Regardless of the overall level of taxation. Do you disagree?

What I recall seeing was that the super rich break the progressive taxation system but it remains progressive until it reaches that point. I would however not mind if my impression was wrong if that was the case. And yes if the middle class payed more money, I wouldn't mind changing that, which might mean lowering their taxes or a combination of both that and a minor raise of the others instead of simply raising the later's taxes.

I really don't understand how that suppose to work. Like, if your tax rate go up by 5%, would you like to get a raise less? Would you try less hard at work? I know I wouldn't.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. I am talking about spending. Having less money available especially at a time of low confidence in economy and unemployment issues will lead to less spending.

What you are talking about is something entirely different. And yes tax rates can affect how hard you work but it is not a complete science in that we know exactly how much it affects and at what rate. Maybe raising the tax rate from point X to point Z won't affect you at all on how hard you work. But at some point it does play a role. I doubt the taxes in the USA as big enough that there is a serious problem of people not working hard due to taxes though. Because even if this is not the best period of economy even if you don't have the highest confidence which means lower spending you still want to make money so you will work hard and the taxes are low enough that you keep much of it. Spending or investing money does not directly make you money immediately no matter what, it has a risk and you might try to outsource or hire less employee's to do more things if you haven't got much of it or you simply can't operate successfully and open your business due to people not spending enough to buy the stuff or services you offer. Now those factors don't really affect that much the super rich in comparison although if spending from others rose then they too would spend more because it would be more profitable to do so. That is why, especially as it seems to me the system is not as fair as it should be when it comes to them I am in favor of raising their taxes.

[Ether_Snake]

And who elected those politicians? People get what they deserve. Even when politicians are not elected more often than not they're still a reflection of the people they represent.

So who will you vote for exactly?

[quadriplegicjon]

Rich people have seen their income skyrocket since the 1970s, while the middle class has seen their income stagnate. This phenomenon has been in full force for the last 40 years, regardless of the administration.

Yes, but that doesn't address his point at all. There are two issues at play, income inequality... and taxation inequality. While there is some overlap there, it doesn't negate his point or the graph.

[commedieu]

Yes, but that doesn't address his point at all. There are two issues at play, income inequality... and taxation inequality. While there is some overlap there, it doesn't negate his point or the graph.

If the point is that voting, doesn't bulk up the poor and middle class. Which is what my point is, not sure anyone else was making it. So I think its targeted to me, his point makes the point.

point.

[//B1G]

It's ridiculous - the point of having money is to spend it, when all you do is store your money in some secret cache it may as well not exist. These people need to have their money taken from them and redistributed to those that need it, and specifically so to those in areas where the conversion rate will do wonders for a developing nation and people.
I don't care what kind of political stance you'd like to align that with, us regular folk need to assimilate into one force and take back over our political machinations.
We have them in numbers. We need to resume control of our system before they take that ability from us. Something needs to be done.

> lol, point.

[Ether_Snake]

It's ridiculous - the point of having money is to spend it, when all you do is store your money in some secret cache it may as well not exist. These people need to have their money taken from them and redistributed to those that need it, and specifically so to those in areas where the conversion rate will do wonders for a developing nation and people. I don't care what kind of political stance you'd like to align that with, us regular folk need to assimilate into one force and take back over our political machinations. We have them in numbers. We need to resume control of our system before they take that ability from us. Something needs to be done. > lol, point.

Accumulation of wealth is accumulation of influence.

Try this guys: replace the world wealth with influence. It changes your perception completely. It makes you realize that we don't live in a democracy. But wealth really is influence.

Redistribution of wealth? It really is: redistribution of influence.

[Partial Gamification]

Accumulation of wealth is accumulation of influence. Try this guys: replace the world wealth with influence. It changes your perception completely. It makes you realize that we don't live in a democracy. But wealth really is influence. Redistribution of wealth? It really is: redistribution of influence.

Perhaps potential influence but not intrinsically the same. It all comes down to what is done with the capital. I do generally agree with you but things are more nuanced than such a clear-cut statement allows.

[Pizarro]

This, in essence, is what's it all about. Western middle class should worship Lenin. There was no other man in history that did so much for the middle class. Global elites won't allow it ever to happen again, at least not until something resembling a revolution appears and they realize they could lose absolutely everything. The world economics are going back to pre-1917 state. Unless you're very rich, be very afraid of what's to come. The second half of the 20th century will be remembered as a golden age for many years.

Really? What about China and Best Korea right now?

[pompidu]

they could just...you know...pay some taxes. hire some more people. donate it to a good cause. but i keep reading that if they get taxed, they won't create more jobs. i feel bad for them, it's a lose lose situation.

Telling society that they won't create jobs is a scare tactic. If they won't make the jobs, someone else will.

[News Bot]

Really? What about China and Best Korea right now?

Isn't the problem with them more that they are led by scum?

[Mr_Moogle]

Really hoping America has its own french-style revolution but I don't see it happening.

[water_wendi]

Really hoping America has its own french-style revolution but I don't see it happening.

At the point we are at now violence seems to be the only option.

[daycru]

Really hoping America has its own french-style revolution but I don't see it happening.

Dude, this is the reverse French Revolution. People taking to the streets to defend the elite. How much bitching was there about the evil death tax when they will never, ever have an estate that even sniffs the point where they'd get dinged with a tax.

[WeAreStarStuff]

These people are so rich it's really quite hard to grasp. I mean the Rothschild's; they have houses like this:



The problem is if you talk to anyone about a global elite they just lump you as a conspiracy theorist, shout 'Merica, and go on about their way.

[krameriffic]

How is Romney gonna explain this one?

Yeah, when you see a figure like $22 million of income on his tax return, you just gotta wonder how much money he made that is NOT on his tax return.

[//B1G]

At the point we are at now violence seems to be the only option.

It doesn't matter, peaceful protests get shut down by the elite like we saw in NY or the police result to violence as a preventative measure before we even throw the first blow, just like in the Bay area.

If we decide to get violent we'll get killed, plain and simple. Even if it came to an arms battle we'd be so outgunned it's not even funny. The only way to oppose them is to infiltrate the government the same way they've done, only we need to do it with bodies as opposed to using money because we obviously couldn't compete when it comes to lobbying. We need to vote the common man into offices everywhere, then we need to change legislation back to defend our rights and take from the rich - just like they've done to us.

[water_wendi]

It doesn't matter, peaceful protests get shut down by the elite like we saw in NY or the police result to violence as a preventative measure before we even throw the first blow, just like in the Bay area. If we decide to get violent we'll get killed, plain and simple. Even if it came to an arms battle we'd be so outgunned it's not even funny. The only way to oppose them is to infiltrate the government the same way they've done, only we need to do it with bodies as opposed to using money because we obviously couldn't compete when it comes to lobbying. We need to vote the common man into offices everywhere, then we need to change legislation back to defend our rights and take from the rich - just like they've done to us.

The problem is that money equals control. The only thing that will seemingly correct this is violent revolution. And for it to have any lasting influence it cannot stop at the borders. If their assets are safe in a haven country, wage war against that nation until there is no safe refuge.

[Devolution]

The very least the rich could do is make a bunch of unemployed people their whores. Jesus. If they're trying to take us back to serfdom least they could do is employ more people on their estates too.

[//B1G]

It doesn't matter though, as of now the country is still ran by votes when it comes down to it. Throwing more money at elections and more into the system will not sway an educated vote. If legitimate politicians enter the arena and we vote them into office over those corrupted we can win back our government, it's honestly that simple.

Like I said, although I am an advocate of violence in many situations, I honestly don't think it will work for us. We'll be out-gunned, out-trained, and not to mention all of the ways they could successfully quash an uprising with methods that wouldn't even bring a policeman/swat team/etc. into the fray.

[Verelios]

It doesn't matter, peaceful protests get shut down by the elite like we saw in NY or the police result to violence as a preventative measure before we even throw the first blow, just like in the Bay area. If we decide to get violent we'll get killed, plain and simple. Even if it came to an arms battle we'd be so outgunned it's not even funny. The only way to oppose them is to infiltrate the government the same way they've done, only we need to do it with bodies as opposed to using money because we obviously couldn't compete when it comes to lobbying. We need to vote the common man into offices everywhere, then we need to change legislation back to defend our rights and take from the rich - just like they've done to us.

...This is going to be an ugly cycle if it really does happen like that.

[Dragoon En Regalia]

My current hope at this point is that these individuals will take so much capital from the global network that the whole system fails apart. As awful as that would be, it'd end with them having a bunch of special paper that is now worthless. That would be the time to strike, and to rebuild a global economic system where there'd be more equal wealth distribution.

Money = influence, but only if the systems of the world are in working order. Destroy the global economy, and you'll destroy those ultimately tied to it. And if we can't do it, then they'll do it themselves, whoever they are.

[Henchmen21]

No, because the lower classes can't do anything about it.

Yes we can and have before. Ever heard of the French Revolution. You know where the poor and downtrodden cut off the heads of the greedy & rich. If this shit keeps up, it will happen again. That's why they have an entire news (lol) channel devoted to lying to the stupid to keep them in place.

[Dragoon En Regalia]

A new French Revolution could only work if the upper classes were as unorganized and dandy as they were back in the late-18th century. Whether the new uber-rich have gotten any smarter is up to debate.

[Yoda]

[Flying_Phoenix]

It's more about "the game" than about what you can actually buy with all that money. This, in essence, is what's it all about. Western middle class should worship Lenin. There was no other man in history that did so much for the middle class. Global elites won't allow it ever to happen again, at least not until something resembling a revolution appears and they realize they could lose absolutely everything. The world economics are going back to pre-1917 state. Unless you're very rich, be very afraid of what's to come. The second half of the 20th century will be remembered as a golden age for many years.

Lenin essentially turned the Marxism into a state capitalist dictatorship (as oppose to a country that would have most likely had its economy imploded but at least wouldn't have been as brutal). But in your defense he really was someone that truly believed in the "revolution" even though it wasn't the revolution most believed in 1917.

[Flying_Phoenix]

We'd be outnumbered if we revolted? Well that's easy to fix just do what the other nations with revolutions do, recruit a share of the military. Aren't a decent number of them poor to begin with?

Isn't the problem with them more that they are led by scum?

Their problem (in terms of human right abuse) was that they followed the Lenninist model. In terms of economy China abandoned Communism for a hybrid economy that is working very well for hem (in contrast to the popular belief that they are on the road to an economic model that mirrors the United States). North Korea can't trade with anybody and has a shit "Junte" model.

[Ether_Snake]

My current hope at this point is that these individuals will take so much capital from the global network that the whole system fails apart. As awful as that would be, it'd end with them having a bunch of special paper that is now worthless. That would be the time to strike, and to rebuild a global economic system where there'd be more equal wealth distribution. Money = influence, but only if the systems of the world are in working order. Destroy the global economy, and you'll destroy those ultimately tied to it. And if we can't do it, then they'll do it themselves, whoever they are.

That's what I think will happen, ultimately bullshit gets sweeped out. The variable is how long it takes to get there.

Wallstreet-types have one fatal flaw: greed. It's always profits now, problems later.

Right now people look at them and think the rich are getting richer, when in reality they are getting more desperate than ever. Regular folks are seeing someone swimming and waving his arms around thinking he's an Olympic swimmer when he's really drowning.

[ssolitare]

"Oh you don't have insurance anymore, unemployment, food stamps and welfare, just get used to it. Why don't you work harder?"

Words of the devil.

[Flying_Phoenix]

If the system collapses I don't know why one would look at that well. Last time it happened it led to support for enormous slave states and a genocidal maniac.

Right now people look at them and think the rich are getting richer, when in reality they are getting more desperate than ever. Regular folks are seeing someone swimming and waving his arms around thinking he's an Olympic swimmer when he's really drowning.

I don't understand.

[Ether_Snake]

If the system collapses I don't know why one would look at that well. Last time it happened it led to support for enormous slave states and a genocidal maniac. I don't understand.

The rich are getting desperate. They are doing hit-and-runs at anything that can fill their pockets. They don't know where to go to make more and more money anymore. They try to manipulate everything they can, eliminate all social benefits so everything can be privatized, eliminate all of their taxes, eliminate jobs, etc. The economy died on them, so they are going around robbing and manipulating everything to make more cash.

They are getting desperate, but people think they are getting stronger.

[Salazar]

Being told I should worship Lenin is certainly a curious one.

[Man Puncher]

We're on to you, lizard people.

[Yo Gotti]

There's no reason to believe that the richest of the rich are getting desperate. Consumer spending is high right now. I'd think if anything they're making more money than before. The world's governments would probably get desperate before the ultra-rich would, and that's already kind of happening.

[Big Icarus]

The rich are getting desperate. They are doing hit-and-runs at anything that can fill their pockets. They don't know where to go to make more and more money anymore. They try to manipulate everything they can, eliminate all social benefits so everything can be privatized, eliminate all of their taxes, eliminate jobs, etc. The economy died on them, so they are going around robbing and manipulating everything to make more cash. They are getting desperate, but people think they are getting stronger.

If that's desperation, I'd hate to see what they would do if they were truly self assured. I mean, if I had almost unrivaled control over the worlds economy and could ghost write the laws of most first world nations I'd be pretty confident. Hell I'd almost get crass about it and make my actions practically transparent to the poor rabble I was subjugating. I mean what could they even do one I practically run the world?

But maybe that's just me.
I guess I'm just not as delusional as some are.

[Kad5]

If they just released all that money it'd probably result in hyperinflation.

[Gray Man]

There's a storm coming Mr. Wayne.

[//B1G]

The rich are getting desperate. They are doing hit-and-runs at anything that can fill their pockets. They don't know where to go to make more and more money anymore. They try to manipulate everything they can, eliminate all social benefits so everything can be privatized, eliminate all of their taxes, eliminate jobs, etc. The economy died on them, so they are going around robbing and manipulating everything to make more cash. They are getting desperate, but people think they are getting stronger.

This is really far from the truth - about as far as can be I'd say. The rich are most certainly not getting desperate... their wealths are increasing at unfathomable rates; there is no literally no reason for them to be getting desperate and to think otherwise is just being ignorant.
Sorry if that's a little too blunt, but I don't know how to sugarcoat what I say.