Coming off record tax haul, Obama looking to raise them again

[ark steel]

Ark can expect a CIA hitman to show up at his door now.

Ark can only hope for an outcome that awesome.

 

[Superman]

Ark can expect a CIA hitman to show up at his door now.

ark would love for a Japanese man to show up at his door.

 

[21STEELERS21]

The worldwide problem is they are forecasting by 2016 that the 1% of the richest will own 50% of the world's wealth.
The biggest problem with that is the wealthy don't consume in proportion to their wealth. They don't consume anywhere
close to their wealth. And higher consumption equals more jobs.

So do you want a world where more people can earn a living and raise their families well or a world where the rich continue
to expand and hoard their share of world wealth. The extra money doesn't improve the wealth's lives. Someone like Bill Gates
probably made by the age of 25 all the money he would spend during his lifetime.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

With a republican congress this is a pointless gesture as there in not a snowballs chance in hell of him getting anything passed. What does he think he gains by this?

 

[Steeltime]

The worldwide problem is they are forecasting by 2016 that the 1% of the richest will own 50% of the world's wealth. The biggest problem with that is the wealthy don't consume in proportion to their wealth. They don't consume anywhere
close to their wealth. And higher consumption equals more jobs.

The meme that "x" percent of the population owns "y" percent of assets is a distraction - a non-issue.

The question is and always has been, "Does the person with those assets generate wealth for a significant portion of the population?" That is a point that the Democrats cannot understand.

To wit, Henry Ford became one of the wealthiest people on earth.

Was that to the detriment of humanity? Of course not - thousands upon thousands of Americans earned a good living while making his cars. His wealth created a TREMENDOUS boost to our national economic production.

The same for Carnegie and steel, or Rockefeller and oil. Their fortunes were built on the labor of thousands, who also earned a great deal of money making product that made our economy great, and our country the richest ever seen.

The same is not true for bullshit ventures like YouTube or Facebook. Those founders made billions but their actual contribution to the economic well-being of America is basically zero. How many people would lose a job if YouTube and Facebook disappeared today? 200? 500 maybe?

So do you want a world where more people can earn a living and raise their families well or a world where the rich continue to expand and hoard their share of world wealth. The extra money doesn't improve the wealth's lives. Someone like Bill Gates probably made by the age of 25 all the money he would spend during his lifetime.

But Gates' Microsoft also employs hundreds, in very good-paying jobs. His fortune was built on the labor of a lot of software pioneers who themselves made a ton of money. The crucial question must be, "Is so-and-so's fortune built on labor that makes such workers better off, and in many cases, much better off than they would have been without that business?"

In fact, that was Karl Marx's greatest error - he presupposed that industrial captains "stole" labor value. He completely missed the fact that very successful industrial captains paid a very good wage to a huge number of workers, and improved their lives and the lives of their children considerably.

Do you see my point??