Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (324129)	2/2/2007 2:36:34 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573430

The problem with your overview is that the wealth is being redistributed back to those of us who are the wealthiest. Its not being given to the wealthiest. Its created by organizations owned by the wealthiest. If the wealthiest own stock, they own that fraction of the company. That fraction of the wealth is theirs, its not being given to them. If they the income is from bonds then they lent the money out, and get the contracted rate of interest. If they are employees of the company they are receiving compensation for their services. What is the point of this exchange? You are given info and three posts later, you act as if it never existed. The wealthy are not just benefiting from the stocks they own.....they are also consuming the profits in the form of bonuses and other financial instruments. Some of the bonuses being paid in the last few years have hit the stratosphere and are outrageous. And even if owning shares is what made it possible for them to consume more and more of the country's wealth, so what? The majority of the wealthy in this country didn't earn their wealth, they inherited it. And then your president comes long and gives them back even more of their wealth. As you point out, its their wealth. It isn't being given to them by Bush. The government under Bush has been taking it away from them, it just hasn't been taking away as much, measured by the income tax rates (in actual dollar amounts its taking more). They have one of the lowest tax rates in the world under Bush. He's given his rich friends a free ride and then he has guys like you defending the scam. Of course, its a good reason......why should we try and preserve her wealth just because she was born into a rich family? You shouldn't take her wealth because its her wealth. Its the same reason why I shouldn't take your money or property, because its yours. Answer the question....why should we be preserving her wealth? What do you get out of it? And again your rhetoric focuses on Paris, but the actions you support are hardly limited to her or people like her. You support higher tax rates and increased regulation that will effect millions of people, not just Paris Hilton. 1 - The middle class is getting wealthier, We've been through this.....they are gaining but not nearly as fast as the wealthy are. So you admit their gaining. In other words other people aren't getting wealthier at their expense. They are benefiting not being harmed. Tim, I posted to you the statistics that show the lower classes have also gained income since 1977. That's not news and its never been my argument. The argument has been that the rich are gaining income at the expense of the poor. In fact from 1979 to 2000, the income of the rich grew 7, 8, 9 times faster than the lower quintiles. If the rich are gaining considerably more income at a much faster rate than the lower quintiles, then its very likely they are gaining share at the expense of the lower classes. Which doesn't mean the rest of the middle class doesn't own shares and benefit from them. You seem to have a problem with the idea that people who aren't investing, or who are investing small amounts, don't get the same return as people who invest large amounts. Your problem doesn't make sense to me. Also non-stockholders benefit from this investment as the economy as a whole benefits. 2 - If you define wealthy as upper middle class on up, then they pay the majority of the tax income. The top 10%, and perhaps even the top 5% pay the majority of income taxes. 1999 data - * The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. * The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. Those statistics are outdated since Bush's tax cuts. Please tell me why I should care? Because it shows that your statement "The vast majority of those transfers are on the back of the middle class who also are not participating in the eating of the wealth pie." is wrong. Its wrong for two reasons. 1 - Its not true that the vast majority of the transfers are on the back of the middle class and 2 - Its not true that the middle class is "not participating in the eating of the wealth pie". No its simple truth. If you take from the wealthy then your screwing them out of something. You can argue that its justified, you can argue that it makes things better for the country as a whole, but it still doesn't change the fact that your "screwing" them. You are not screwing them......its the cost of doing business in a country where the politics are orderly, the monetary unit is relatively stabile, there are rarely major upheavals, the quality of life is decent, etc. The US is the rare country in the world.......stabile, democratic, wealthy, growing, etc. The wealthy are hardly getting "screwed".