@AverageJoe1 saidNo. You keep writing that rich people are "risking" something with their investments, but they don't do anything near as risky as what a first generation college student taking out a student loan or a young family buying their first home.
But the two transactions are not connected. A farmer in Idaho buys land next to a r/r track and risks his chickens awake all night. A farmer pays more money for similar acreage in a peaceful valley , but gets a lot of eggs,
Sorry I do not get your analogy. Do apples and apples. Or are you suggesting that “something should be done “ to equal out their status? Wha ...[text shortened]... can buy a row boat . They are not connected. Life ain’t fair, of course, but what is your point?
Your perception of risk is way off.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI see your point now, and you are correct. Yes, a millionaire can afford to take risks, since he has what we can all a cushion. So, he can take 5 risks, and if 2 of them fail, he will win 3 of them resulting in a net profit.
No. You keep writing that rich people are "risking" something with their investments, but they don't do anything near as risky as what a first generation college student taking out a student loan or a young family buying their first home.
Your perception of risk is way off.
Anyone can understand it, and it has been a fact of life for maybe 10,000 years. It would be nice if someone such as yourself would round out, after presenting this premise, a procedure?.. or a solution? Maybe an answer to what you apparently perceive as a problem?.
I can only see one solution if I follow. When someone dies, all of his assets escheat to the government. Everyone who is born will all start as Kamala once said..."All in the same place".
Some, like one on this Forum, may choose to live minimalist lives. Some work their asses off and get rich. But then what? Would they not all end up in the fix that you describe? Some rich, who can afford to take risk and get richer, and some who cannot afford to take risks if they have little money?
@no1marauder saidAs usual not being truthful...
"Unable to cover its tax cuts with additional revenue, the government continues to plunge further into debt. The budget deficit ballooned 20% year-over-year in July alone, according to the Treasury Department."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-s-economy-hasn-t-blown-up-under-tariffs-as-many-predicted-is-he-really-proving-the-naysayers-wrong/ar-AA1L4HsF?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=719f8166603e47df9a458ed6347fe054&ei=20
Ouch. But hardly a surprise.
"The change in the deficit was influenced by the timing of outlays. Fiscal year 2024 outlays were reduced because payments that were due on October 1, 2023, a Sunday, were shifted into the prior fiscal year. (Those payments were made in September 2023.) If not for that shift, the deficit so far this fiscal year would have been $37 billion (or 2 percent) more than the shortfall at this point last year. '"
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61304
@AverageJoe1 saidIf we want to promote upward mobility (and I think we do) the solutions to reward riskier behavior of those who want to succeed but did not grow up wealthy.
I see your point now, and you are correct. Yes, a millionaire can afford to take risks, since he has what we can all a cushion. So, he can take 5 risks, and if 2 of them fail, he will win 3 of them resulting in a net profit.
Anyone can understand it, and it has been a fact of life for maybe 10,000 years. It would be nice if someone such as yourself would round out, a ...[text shortened]... ord to take risk and get richer, and some who cannot afford to take risks if they have little money?
Trickle down economics is a massive failure and should have been cancelled decades ago. Stop government incentives for people who already have succeeded. Replace it with government incentives for low income and low wealth families who actually benefit from it. That's the solution to decreasing government debt while still rewarding risk taking in the economy.
@wildgrass said"Stop government incentives for sucsessful people. "
If we want to promote upward mobility (and I think we do) the solutions to reward riskier behavior of those who want to succeed but did not grow up wealthy.
Trickle down economics is a massive failure and should have been cancelled decades ago. Stop government incentives for people who already have succeeded. Replace it with government incentives for low income and low w ...[text shortened]... That's the solution to decreasing government debt while still rewarding risk taking in the economy.
Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos reached. ___(Fill in here an amount, and, how said amount is arrived at)____________million dollars of net worth in the year, let's say, 1994. Their inventiveness and creativity is shut down, they have what Bernie calls enough to live on. What would be Apple and Amazon today?
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy would their inventiveness and creativity be shut down because they were no longer mooching off the government?
"Stop government incentives for sucsessful people. "
Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos reached. ___(Fill in here an amount, and, how said amount is arrived at)____________million dollars of net worth in the year, let's say, 1994. Their inventiveness and creativity is shut down, they have what Bernie calls enough to live on. What would be Apple and Amazon today?
By the way, Amazon is still mooching off the government. The free handouts to these rich folks in 1994 created a culture of dependency in the tech world. That's why they grovel at Trump.
1 edit
@AThousandYoung saidOK, ‘we you, govt’ whomever are ‘letting ‘ the successful ‘get away’ with being successful……Get Away.
As I have said many times before,
Capitalism is where rich people get paid for not working.
Why do we let them get away with calling themselves "productive" and "hard working"?!
This is one of those ‘hanging comments’ that leaves the conservatives of us scratching our heads. We do not know what you mean, in the way of what you mean by it, and what do you think should change it.
Could you be big and elaborate. Today, Wildgrass says just above that successful people should have limitations on their success. I responded that I am glad that Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs did not have such limitations. So with that, please give us your philosophy..
@wildgrass saidThis ABSOLUTELY no answer, I ask you to tell us if we would have Apple and Amazon as we know it today. It is a very simple question and you just will not answer it. Why would you liberals not go straight to a question and answer it??
Why would their inventiveness and creativity be shut down because they were no longer mooching off the government?
By the way, Amazon is still mooching off the government. The free handouts to these rich folks in 1994 created a culture of dependency in the tech world. That's why they grovel at Trump.
Mooching. Jesus. You sound like a faerie. You would not say that if we were sitting in a board meeting.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI just re-read this post. Are you aware that you have just suggested that corporations should be able to free-wheel without government intervention or regulations? I believe that is what you just said.
Why would their inventiveness and creativity be shut down because they were no longer mooching off the government?
By the way, Amazon is still mooching off the government. The free handouts to these rich folks in 1994 created a culture of dependency in the tech world. That's why they grovel at Trump.
Quite conflicting statement. If they could do such free wheeling, they would be much much more rich and much much more successful.
Geez, you guys are really a mess. Very difficult to respond to conflicting messages.
@AverageJoe1 saidNo Amazon and apple would not be the same company today if they didn't receive hundreds of billions of free money from taxpayers. This is obvious.
This ABSOLUTELY no answer, I ask you to tell us if we would have Apple and Amazon as we know it today. It is a very simple question and you just will not answer it. Why would you liberals not go straight to a question and answer it??
Mooching. Jesus. You sound like a faerie. You would not say that if we were sitting in a board meeting.
Government picked the winners but it didn't have to be that way.
Instead, we we would have paid lower taxes or incurred less government debt. Other companies may have had a better chance to compete against the companies whose greatest skill was lobbying for government handouts.
I would prefer that world.
@AverageJoe1 saidRegulation is fine, handouts are not fine.
I just re-read this post. Are you aware that you have just suggested that corporations should be able to free-wheel without government intervention or regulations? I believe that is what you just said.
Quite conflicting statement. If they could do such free wheeling, they would be much much more rich and much much more successful.
Geez, you guys are really a mess. Very difficult to respond to conflicting messages.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThis suggests govt control and regulations. Obama had 1 million regulations. Since all that time, Trump is getting rid of them left and right. What would you think about everyone doing their thing and letting water see its own level. Next you will be saying that Apple is ‘too’ successful , that the government should step in, resulting in less quality from wannabe companies..
No Amazon and apple would not be the same company today if they didn't receive hundreds of billions of free money from taxpayers. This is obvious.
Government picked the winners but it didn't have to be that way.
Instead, we we would have paid lower taxes or incurred less government debt. Other companies may have had a better chance to compete against the companies whose greatest skill was lobbying for government handouts.
I would prefer that world.
You are a regulation guy.
@AverageJoe1 saidI'm not talking about regulation at all, and no one else on thread is either.
This suggests govt control and regulations. Obama had 1 million regulations. Since all that time, Trump is getting rid of them left and right. What would you think about everyone doing their thing and letting water see its own level. Next you will be saying that Apple is ‘too’ successful , that the government should step in, resulting in less quality from wannabe companies..
You are a regulation guy.
@wildgrass saidYou are getting far afield…, monopoly, regulation’s and law has been around for a long time, but you want to fiddle with it and I know why. You want everyone and every company to all be equal ….that would be quite impossible. Remember some people and some corporations work harder than others. I think they should be allowed to reap their gains and buy a yacht. The United States has more opportunity and more production than any other country in the world, be happy and reap in its rewards. If you would rather throw darts, let others reap in the rewards. They have nothing to do with you. Liberals think that everyone has something to do with everyone else. I totally disagree.
Regulation is fine, handouts are not fine.
“ at the end of the day, everyone should end up in the same place’. God help if that ever happens.
@wildgrass saidLet me get this straight . You suggest above that only the Apples and Amazon’s get what you call handouts. Lesser corporations do not?
I'm not talking about regulation at all, and no one else on thread is either.
Looks like a level playing field to me.