The largest transfer of wealth in history

a reply to: ClovenSky

I wonder what would happen in a closed society of just the 1%.

They would be forced to figure out how to fix their plumbing problems, rotate their tires and change light bulbs.

Never going to happen.

a reply to: Edumakated

If people choose not to educate themselves about econ and finance or if they don't possess the cognition to develop that expertise, should they then become rich targets to soak money and resources off of?

Could there possibly be a way to even the playing field while respecting everyone's free will?

a reply to: Edumakated

Oh I've done the same, but my financial adviser showed me the end game on minimum % IRA matching even from an early age and that still only gives me a couple years of retirement at best.

Granted, you are correct regarding exponential growth, and 'Middle Class' salary is a shockingly wide range so someone on the upper end would be in a very comfortable spot, while someone on the lower end not so much.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Edumakated

If people choose not to educate themselves about econ and finance or if they don't possess the cognition to develop that expertise, should they then become rich targets to soak money and resources off of?

Could there possibly be a way to even the playing field while respecting everyone's free will?

You cannot protect people from their own stupidity... to have freedom means you also have to be free to fail.

If there is one thing I would do that is ensure personal finance is taught in high school.

a reply to: Edumakated

But isn't that simply because of the way our econ/finance economy is setup. If you don't get a compounding 7-10% return above principle on your investments, you lose money over time. Is that ethical? Is that right?

Shouldn't we be able to create and manage our society that such inflation isn't present? That uneducated moral mom and pop can simply save money and have it purchase the same basket of goods as it did when they originally put it into savings.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.

Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.

Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.

Southern Indiana here. Most of the folks I interact with who are in the middle class can't afford to put money into their 401k (should they even be offered the opportunity).

Seems strange, most of the better employers here try to promote a little IRA savings to their employees. They will match what they put in up to a percent or two of their income. I mean, McDs doesn't have anything like that, but I do not think you can become middle class working at McDs. With Obamacare being enacted, lots of employers dumped their insurances and gave people raises. Even with the IRAs though, people do not have a whole lot of money in their pensions usually. It was better when employers actually took care of pensions than people having IRAs, people benefitted more if they lived to retire and pensions did go to spouses if the person died. I think our country went the wrong way with changing away from Pensions myself, Pensions were required to be fully funded by employers.

My employer actual does the IRA matching to 2%, its just that at a middle class salary that amount of money is inconsequential (as it supports retirement for a couple years at most in a very meager living condition), so I feel the net effect of stock fluctuations change the end result very little for those in that category

Most people I know have between fifty and a hundred grand in their IRA if they were putting it in regularly even at the two percent match for fifteen to twenty years. Coupled with social security it is enough to live off of, We have no mortgage anymore or car payments. The wife and I both work and we did so much when we were younger, it is nice just doing simple old people stuff these days. Why people want to go onto a cruise ship, huge sardine can, when they get old is something I cannot comprehend. I hate rushing and waiting at airports, I would rather sit around the campfire in the back yard with a coffee and cook on the big grill over the firepit.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: rickymouse
Because some of the tax break was used to do stock buybacks, it stabalized the stock market somewhat. The market is still risky and based off of improper indicators, but at least it helped a little.

Helped who though? Most lower/middle class folks have little to no vested interest in the stock market.

Half of the middle class people I know have stock based IRAs. Most of the middle class has pensions around here, they may not be great pensions but they do usually have some because the employer usually matches their contribution in good places.

I don't know how it is where you live, but around here middle aged people usually have some sort of stock investment program through their work. The young, not so much as the people in their later twenties and older.

Southern Indiana here. Most of the folks I interact with who are in the middle class can't afford to put money into their 401k (should they even be offered the opportunity).

Seems strange, most of the better employers here try to promote a little IRA savings to their employees. They will match what they put in up to a percent or two of their income. I mean, McDs doesn't have anything like that, but I do not think you can become middle class working at McDs. With Obamacare being enacted, lots of employers dumped their insurances and gave people raises. Even with the IRAs though, people do not have a whole lot of money in their pensions usually. It was better when employers actually took care of pensions than people having IRAs, people benefitted more if they lived to retire and pensions did go to spouses if the person died. I think our country went the wrong way with changing away from Pensions myself, Pensions were required to be fully funded by employers.

My employer actual does the IRA matching to 2%, its just that at a middle class salary that amount of money is inconsequential (as it supports retirement for a couple years at most in a very meager living condition), so I feel the net effect of stock fluctuations change the end result very little for those in that category

Most people I know have between fifty and a hundred grand in their IRA if they were putting it in regularly even at the two percent match for fifteen to twenty years. Coupled with social security it is enough to live off of, We have no mortgage anymore or car payments. The wife and I both work and we did so much when we were younger, it is nice just doing simple old people stuff these days. Why people want to go onto a cruise ship, huge sardine can, when they get old is something I cannot comprehend. I hate rushing and waiting at airports, I would rather sit around the campfire in the back yard with a coffee and cook on the big grill over the firepit.

Good for you bud

I've been entertaining fantasies of skipping off to some third world country where my 50k retirement lets me live like a king for my last couple of years.

The bailouts where the biggest nail in the coffin of capitalism.

It's the greedy corrupt CEO's who benefited from this travesty that tarnished the names of all the honest CEOs and business owners.

Captlism was never the problem....

The problem was allowing a certain select few CEO's and businesses being above consequences and the law.

a reply to: pexx421

Taxes are not the problem.
Overspending is the problem.

The United states has a GDP over $21 trillion.

China has a GDP of around $15 trillion.
Highly dependent on the US by the way.

Japan is 3rd with a little over $5 trillion.

Stop over spending.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Edumakated

But isn't that simply because of the way our econ/finance economy is setup. If you gon't get a compounding 7-10% return above principle on your investments, you lose money over time. Is that ethical? Is that right?

Shouldn't we be able to create and manage our society that such inflation isn't present? That uneducated moral mom and pop can simply save money and have it purchase the same basket of goods as it did when they originally put it into savings.

It is an investment, not a guarantee. There will be years you get 30% return and there will be years you might lose money. This is why hedge funds and other portfolio managers make so much money. They have been able to get consistently high returns, so investors flock to them in an effort to beat the market.

Over the long haul, the market returns about 7% annually. This is far more than inflation. You also have to manage your allocation. As you get older, you should be investing in less risky things like bonds since you will need the money. People should also be downsizing and reducing their expenses.

a reply to: Edumakated When companies get tax breaks in an area then they are extracting profit from that area without contributing their fair share back into that community. The people paid to create the infrastructure, homes, etc there and the company comes in and gets to use all that plus it pays less in to maintain them. even if I give you that example. What of the others?

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Edumakated When companies get tax breaks in an area then they are extracting profit from that area without contributing their fair share back into that community. The people paid to create the infrastructure, homes, etc there and the company comes in and gets to use all that plus it pays less in to maintain them. even if I give you that example. What of the others?

The contribution is 25,000 six figure jobs... you don't think those people spend money or get taxed? That is why the cities were tripping over themselves.... because the net benefit of those 25,000 employees exceeds the tax breaks given to Amazon.

Capital is fluid. If you over tax a company or individuals, they will seek cheaper alternatives.

a reply to: Edumakated and the others? I think y’all are missing the main point here. Which is that we live in a system and society where as time goes on businesses take more of the profit and provides less in benefits and wages. The banking and finance sector is consuming more and more of the surplus while wages and production get less and less. And all the debates about if the rich work for their money, or if bezos earned his billions, or if something is socialism, or if YOU happen to have some savings, none of that will change this. I think it’s short sighted to get hung up on partisan politics or personal views and to allow this growing monstrosity which is, I believe , the cause of all wars, poverty, and artificial scarcity to continue in this pattern. I think it’s denial.

a reply to: Edumakated

Let me respond to your Amazon contention with this. Louisiana probably thought the same when it offered drastic tax reductions on the oils refineries and plants there. And that’s what led to the situation today where they are one of the highest states for corporate profits, and yet the standard of living is among the lowest. They never got the tax base from those corporations so the infrastructure is falling apart, the education system is among the bottom 3, the parks are largely lacking, and poverty is rampant. They have higher mortality rates and shorter life expectancy than much of the nation all while raking in extremely high levels of corporate profit. The figures and projections don’t always add up, and usually it’s in the banks or corporations favor.

Double post

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776

originally posted by: Wayfarer
But none of this is shocking news. I'd rather hear Trump Supporters explanation for why this is in fact a really really really good thing for everyone.

Why would Trump supporters support something Obama put into motion?

I’m guessing most of them would be against the government meddling in a free market and paying billions to corrupt corporations.

Most Obama supporters were pretty disgusted by the bailout (despite the reasoning behind those large corporations holding thousands of employee's hostage in the negotiation). I've heard from several Trump supporters here on ATS in regards to 'reaganomics' style taxation that making the Ultra-Hyper-Mega wealthy even wealthier in some miraculous way directly benefits all the poor/middle class folks. I can't really wrap my mind around the continuation of funneling money away from folks like those on ATS to enrich those who already have more than they can spend in 10 lifetimes.

Fair enough, I could see how one may come to that conclusion.

a reply to: Edumakated

The top 1% of income earners in the US pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes. In fact, the top 1400 people paid more than 3% of the entire tax revenue. Just 1400 people paid more than $50 BILLION in taxe

Dribble...


The top earners have there money stashed in shell companies in off shore tax havens.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776
It was all actual bs. Citibank was the most fraudulent bank involved, but geithner was a disciple of Rubin who was the head of Citibank. But more importantly Citibank is the bank of the Democratic Party and largely bankroll them. The head of the fdic wanted to nationalize Citibank and create a public bank which would have pushed down fees and interest across the board, and obama had originally promised to write down the bad debt, which actually means to take over the loans and lower them to the realistic rate of equivalent rentals, lowering the monthly note and allowing people to keep their homes. But instead he chose to bail out the banks, stating that they were his donors, so he was on their side rather than his constituents, whom he called “the mob with pitchforks”.

The largest transfer of wealth in history...

Began with FDRS social security, and doubled down with Johnsons medicare,medicaid that now account for two thirds of total ANNUAL federal spending, times over 65 years.

Back to your regularly scheduled bull crap.

Excuse me? The largest transfer of wealth would be the disasterous trade relationship with China.

That costed us bigly.