Quote:

---

What part of median do you not understand, median is the mid point so 50% of incomes are below the median, how many are American citizens, well that is an unknown

---

If you'll look above, I had to explain it to you, so you can be certain I understand it quite well. As to how many are American citizens, yeah, I'm sure the illegal immigrants are all reporting their income. Right

Quote:

---

I only used the data given. No matter what data you use say 50% that's 160M bellow the median, but that figure does not allow for the number that is in the median so bring better data and we get more accurate figures. I get your inference about non Americans, but for the sake of argument we use for both above and bellow median as <50, and >50 respectively.

---

Oh good grief. The number that is in the median is ONE!! And it's not for the sake of argument. It is by definition. 50% above and 50% below. Learn a little.

I can go with your numbers then so now that's out of the way, what of those 175M people who are below the median. You seem to keep dodging that real question about real people.

I am not dodging the question. There are ALWAYS half the population below the median, but the higher the median is, the better off those people are. So if 50K used to be the median, but now it is 58K, then there are more people making over 50K than before. Before it was 50% making over 50K, but now it would be perhaps 55 or 58% making over 50K. Do you see that? It's not complicated.

Median income is just a standard of measure. The higher it is, the better the economy is and the higher the standard of living is. It's a tool of comparison from one year to another. It doesn't mean that everything is wonderful for everyone. That has never happened and never will happen. If Obama was still pres, you would be out writing a song about the wonderful rise in median income. You are nit-picking it only as a symptom of your TDS.

Lets see how that works then. Median income rises populations grow, and the number of people below the median grows too? So when you going to address those below the median? You blow it off because that doesn't affect you, just more souls for your charity, and MO'money forced from your pocket for the souls your charity can't get to. Jl gets to keep beetching about what he is forced to do.

Now I understand your logic better.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN! 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN! 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! IS IT BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR NOW???????? THERE WILL ALWAYS BE 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN!!! IF THE POPULATION GROWS, THEN YES, THERE WILL BE 50% STILL BELOW THE MEDIAN!! IF YOU WANT FEWER PEOPLE BELOW THE MEDIAN, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO OUT FIND WAYS TO LOWER THE POPULATION! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?????????

IF THE MEDIAN INCOME GOES UP, THEN IT'S GOOD NEWS FOR EVERYONE! THAT MEANS THERE ARE MORE HIGHER INCOME JOBS AVAILABLE! THAT MEANS THAT MANY PEOPLE BELOW THE OLD MEDIAN INCOME STARTED MAKING MORE MONEY AND RAISED THE MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL. IT IS GOOD NEWS! WE SHOULD REJOICE WHEN IT HAPPENS! ONLY A LIBERAL DEM WILL LOOK FOR AN POINT TO ARGUE HERE. STOP HATING TRUMP AND WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!

I ADDRESSED THE BELOW GROUP IN MY LAST POST!!!! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN HOW TO READ AND COMPREHEND????


I hope by using all caps that maybe it will finally begin to sink in with you. Would you be happy if you read in a headline, "Good news! 5 Million Die in Hurricane So There are Fewer People Below the Median Income!"

This all goes back to your hatred of Trump and your refusal to acknowledge anything good that might reflect well on him. It is really breathtaking to watch. I've never met anyone with a case of TDS like you have. Incredible. It colors everything you believe.

Didn't mean to make your head explode, just pushing back against the futility of your arguments and ignoring the obvious and that's simply INCREASE the circulation of capital. Very simple really as turning up the spigot on that trickle down money tank.

No need to kill people or pray for a hurricane.

Quote:

---

No need to kill people or pray for a hurricane.

---

Then stop your bellyaching about the increase of the number of people below the median. Population goes up, then both groups (above and below) increase. Can't be stopped.

Quote:

---

Didn't mean to make your head explode, just pushing back against the futility of your arguments and ignoring the obvious and that's simply INCREASE the circulation of capital. Very simple really as turning up the spigot on that trickle down money tank.

---

Platitudes.

I hope you learned something. When the median income goes up, it's a good thing, even if your hated Mr. Trump is pres, it's still a good thing.

Think carefully about this The only way the median income can go up is for the below 50% group to start making more money, or for the above 50% group to start making less money. So if it goes up, then one of those is happening. Do you understand that?

Do you understand increasing circulation to more folks? It's more than a platitude. It's a key untapped revenue source. You could consider doing your homewok and engaging in reasonable thought rather than the knee jerk emotional reaction and distraction games you like to play. That's not a path to discussion and reaching consensus. Go ahead keep judging success by statistics you know nothing about. Think people before profits to clear your vision.

The Demo end game is based upon Marxist theory: Destruction of the MIDDLE CLASS....this is what Bernie and Company want.....BUT, the truth about ANY POPULATION OF HUMANS: There will ALWAYS be a "lower class" and it will be sizeable....even in the commie utopias of Cuba and Red China, despite their proclamations of it not being so, there exist a huge lower class....INESCAPABLE reality.

Well for sure rich dudes don't go off to war in a number to defend a gnat, so a grunt class is always needed for that.

Quote:

---

You could consider doing your homewok and engaging in reasonable thought rather than the knee jerk emotional reaction and distraction games you like to play. That's not a path to discussion and reaching consensus. Go ahead keep judging success by statistics you know nothing about. Think people before profits to clear your vision.

---

Says the man who quotes no stats, gives no data, and had no idea what the "median" in "median income" meant, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take what you say seriously.

I would like to ask one question. You talk about "increasing circulation". What do you mean by that?

Given the fact that even rich guys catch hell during a down business cycle, recessions, and depressions imagine that the lower down the economic ladder then are so adversely effected also. Certain sectors are prone to those cycles more than others, but the poor are always affected. Anybody can be poor through no fault of their own, and while you may use median income as a sign of growth you cannot ignore the income inequality that even that inplies for us all. Income in the upper groups has grown so much faster than every other group put simply no matter what the economy is doing. Add to that wages and prices you are still left with a stressed middle class and the poor have no hope of seeing a dollar. This is the monetary policy of this country, has been for a long time, and it can be changed with simple adjustments to the tax code to trickle down a greater share of the good economy, or even better set a higher level eligibility for distributing funds and resources to the poor. Consider that while some have the option to invest, some cannot even save, and still others cannot pay a decent rent.

Now if your still with me, seems evident given the above condition and the Monetary policy has to be tweaked to allow for not just safety net programs, both private and public, but access to enough capital to build a modicum of wealth during good times to survive those conditions during the not so good and bad times. In essence increasing circulation is a bottom up policy rather than top down one that closes the wage inequality gap rather than widens it.

I think you may find it's also runs counter to make any tax reduction benefit permanent. A thing I liked about Ronald Reagan that while I disagreed with him on many things working with his congress to be very flexible on tax and monetary policy was impressive very I thought, though overly modest at times.

Good video

Quote:

---

you may use median income as a sign of growth you cannot ignore the income inequality that even that inplies for us all. Income in the upper groups has grown so much faster than every other group put simply no matter what the economy is doing. Add to that wages and prices you are still left with a stressed middle class

---

I am not "using" median income as a sign of growth. It is simply true. You can not like it(because of your TDS), but it is still true. I don't think the MC is "stressed", but I would agree that the growth in income of the top 5 or 10% relative to everyone else is not a good thing.

Quote:

---

This is the monetary policy of this country, has been for a long time, and it can be changed with simple adjustments to the tax code to trickle down a greater share of the good economy,

---

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% pay nearly all of the income tax, and the bottom half pay next to nothing. How you adjust that to make it more fair?

Quote:

---

or even better set a higher level eligibility for distributing funds and resources to the poor.

---

This is the bottom line for you. You want to take money from some Americans and just hand it out to other Americans. I don't see any justification for that. It amounts to legalized theft. It is one thing to ask a person to fund schools, highways, national defense, courts, the police, and other areas of government that benefit everyone. It is entirely different to just take money from one person and give it to another.

The conversation we should be having has nothing to do with the dufus, but the repub supply side policy that ALWAYS redirects wealth to the top through a tax cut vehicle. You seem to keep implying though they deserve it, because your crumbs that trickle down are most welcome, rather than an honest cut of the pie. At least you acknowledge that it might be unfair. Ya think, and that's not even a conversation about poverty yet. Only you nut cases think a deficit funded tax cut would be a great idea for rich guys when its you as a taxpaying consumer that pays for it.

We both know it's a big fat lie that it pays for itself, or that the rich guy deserves such a HUGE tax cut and the rest deserves crumbs. Consider rich guys only pay taxes on half their money in the first place. Go ahead then keep giving them more and try to keep up with the volume of people who need help.

Look at the community you serve and multiply that by any number you choose to represent the people outside of your community that will need help and however way you cut it that's a huge number who get no crumbs. I find it ironic a man of God would balk at efforts to help others and call if FORCING him to help people he doesn't know by taking HIS money, but making a rich guy richer at a faster rate than anybody else is just perfectly fine. That goes beyond profits before people which is just old fashion greed, and smacks of having BS and reality all mixed up.

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

I have "acknowledged" nothing about "fairness". My comment was that it is not a good idea for most of the capital and wealth to be in the hands of a very small minority.

For the five hundred and second time, when the wealthy pay nearly all of the income taxes, then you need to find another horn to toot other than tax fairness. It's a ludicrous argument.

No crumbs? What planet do you live on? We give people food stamps that can be used in restaurants and help pay for their housing, and that's not to mention a free public education. And your continuing lie, which you know full well it is, of misrepresenting what I have said about our PERSONAL responsibility to help poor people gets old. Every person has that personal responsibility. Now I can say that since I accept the Bible as authoritative. You have nothing to appeal to beyond your own personal opinion which seems to be that charity is all about electing people that will force people other than you to help the poor.

Quote:

---

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% pay nearly all of the income tax, and the bottom half pay next to nothing. How you adjust that to make it more fair?

---

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

---

I think you lost that vote but another election is coming so don't give up hope.

Quote:

---

I have "acknowledged" nothing about "fairness". My comment was that it is not a good idea for most of the capital and wealth to be in the hands of a very small minority.

---

I gave you credit for that even if the rest of your rant was utter crap! Read it again.

Quote:

---

For the five hundred and second time, when the wealthy pay nearly all of the income taxes, then you need to find another horn to toot other than tax fairness. It's a ludicrous argument.

---

You have your ludicrous peeves to argue about, I have mine so what?

Quote:

---

No crumbs? What planet do you live on? We give people food stamps that can be used in restaurants and help pay for their housing, and that's not to mention a free public education.

---

WE give them? I thought you were forced to give people those things?

Quote:

---

And your continuing lie, which you know full well it is, of misrepresenting what I have said about our PERSONAL responsibility to help poor people gets old. Every person has that personal responsibility.

---

The way I choose to exercise and carry out MY responsibilities is my business so why are you in it?

Quote:

---

Now I can say that since I accept the Bible as authoritative. You have nothing to appeal to beyond your own personal opinion which seems to be that charity is all about electing people that will force people other than you to help the poor.

---

Good for you, glad for you, but I think I will just skip the book of ancient man and go with a direct relationship with a God that I understand and understands me. Its more than just a single subject of how best to be charitable, but about life itself and how best to live it, though I am still learning as more is revealed. That elected official thing that you are forced to comply with is your own personal problem to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

---

Why have our taxes paid for over 300 golf vacations for our wealthy president?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#7ce5408e28aa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

---

He can't hear you Clete he has his head stuck up the dufus's arse to his shoulders, so let him enjoy the experience. Economics ain't his strong suite so he has no clue he is being rapped, robbed, and pillaged.

Quote:

---

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

---

Learn how to read, Clete. I didn't say it was not fair. Think a little. Tal is the one who is questioning the fairness of the tax system.

Quote:

---

The way I choose to exercise and carry out MY responsibilities is my business so why are you in it?

---

That's fine with me, but why do you allow yourself that privilege but not others? Why do you think it is OK to elect pols who force others to do what your reserve as a right for yourself.

Quote:

---

He can't hear you Clete he has his head stuck up the dufus's arse to his shoulders, so let him enjoy the experience.

---

I had to laugh at that. It was just yesterday that your were loudly posting about how uncivil and insulting Trump was in his public comments. Well my friend, you are the most uncivil and insulting person on this site. You are closer to Trump in that regard than anyone else I know. I guess congratulations are in order.

Quote:

---

Economics ain't his strong suite so he has no clue he is being rapped, robbed, and pillaged.

---

Says the man who had no idea at all what the word "median" in "median income" meant. Another of your comments that made me laugh. And then your melodramatic comments about being raped, robbed, and pillaged were good for a laugh as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Learn how to read, Clete. I didn't say it was not fair. Think a little. Tal is the one who is questioning the fairness of the tax system.

---

At least I'm not the only one JL puts down. :(

I prefer to say "corrected". He needed to be corrected. You frequently need to be corrected. I don't mean that to be insulting. You brought the subject up. I have little patience with someone who purports to represent the teaching of the Bible, but then cannot support her professions in any way and cannot respond to any counter points. It is too important to be treated so casually.

You correcting peple? My turn to laugh. You have to say something that's correct first. No worries I'm PATIENT!

Says the man who did not know what "median" meant and had to be corrected by you know who.

Your definition is incorrect, your data is faulty and incomplete and you know who fails again. Hey are we going to trade insults the rest of the evening? Naw I don't thinks so, so for a few hours here you get the last word. How you managed to be the most insulting person on this forum is quite obvious.

Quote:

---

Your definition is incorrect, your data is faulty and incomplete and you know who fails again.

---

You would be much more honorable if you simply admitted being wrong. What is it about you guys and making things up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Says the man who did not know what "median" meant and had to be corrected by you know who.

---

get over it you used the incorrect statistic, median doesn't mean average, and it rarely accurately approximates the average in an imperfect world

I did not say it meant average. Can you not read at all? It has been discussed to death here that median means the middle value and not the average. An average income would be less desirable to use since large increases in the income of the wealthy would slant an average, so median income was the exactly correct stat to use. It's been around for decades and is frequently used to compare years to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I did not say it meant average. Can you not read at all? It has been discussed to death here that median means the middle value and not the average. An average income would be less desirable to use since large increases in the income of the wealthy would slant an average, so median income was the exactly correct stat to use. It's been around for decades and is frequently used to compare years to each other.

---

Only if you want to distort the facts, you want to compare incomes, compare the quartiles, then you will know what the top earns in comparison to the bottom

Here is the comment attached to the median graph it shows the opposite in meaning to that which you projected

Quote:

---

U.S. economic growth is not translating into higher median family incomes. Real GDP per household has typically increased since the year 2000, while real median income per household was below 1999 levels until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality.

^[11]

---

Who is guilty of not being able to read now. By the way jl how many economic subjects did you take when gaining your degrees, I took several in the course of my career

Quote:

---

Only if you want to distort the facts, you want to compare incomes, compare the quartiles, then you will know what the top earns in comparison to the bottom

---

I would if that was what I had been wanting to do, speaking of comparing income levels. That can be a valid conversation, but it was not what we were talking about. I was simply showing Tal that people in the United States are generally better off now than 30 years ago, and that is clearly true. If you will look at that graph, then you will see that median income is significantly higher than it was in 1990 which was my point of comparison. The comment you zeroed in on looked at the year 2000 and the sixteen years following, but did not include the past three years which DO show income growth relative to 2000. So I read quite well. The notation you highlighted was accurate but changed nothing concerning what I was saying.

You know, you have a burr in your saddle about something. I really don't care what it is, but it's clouding your thinking. My stat was correct and used properly. You'll just have to find something else to complain about.

Let's stay here because even you acknowledge that the faster growth of the rich relative to that median was unfair, and that's the essence of the data analysis. To identify stuff in relationship to other stuff. Instead of rationale dialog on the DATA you provided we get this stupid ideological rant about who knows what median means. Talk about dumbing down the conversation, I was waiting for a scripture quote to bolster your position. Heck guy we couldn't even constructively examine the case pro or con that YOUR data showed!

I didn't make that up either, before you give me your latest fall back refrain. Now if that makes you feel attacked or insulted, think for a minute what anyones reaction be to disdain and personal criticism, and yeah that's coming from the guy you called the most insulting member of the forum by the guy who regularly insults EVERYBODY.

Drink another cup of coffee, Mr. Trump..er, Tal. Calm down. Man, you guys can get so worked up. Sometimes I think you must never talk with anyone else who refuses to go along with your liberal world view. If you don't want to be known as insulting and uncivil, then maybe you should take at look at your post directly above and ask yourself if it could be characterized as "uncivil" and "insulting".

And one more time, I have not said that the faster growth of the rich is "unfair". I said it is probably not wise for too much wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a few super wealthy persons. Now as to what to do about it, that's a tough problem. I imagine that when the market goes through a cycle of correction, which it will, and the DJA drops fifteen or twenty percent in a month, then that will take care of much of it.

Quote:

---

Heck guy we couldn't even constructively examine the case pro or con that YOUR data showed!

---

What prevented you from discussing it?

Quote:

---

but I would agree that the growth in income of the top 5 or 10% relative to everyone else is not a good thing.

---

Quote:

---

And one more time, I have not said that the faster growth of the rich is "unfair". I said it is probably not wise for too much wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a few super wealthy persons. Now as to what to do about it, that's a tough problem.

---

I respectfully submit it's not that tough to identify a solution, a simple tax code adjustment fixes that right up by stopping the bottleneck of CASH flowing one way, at blinding speed, thus increasing circulation in a controlled and targeted way that allows a greater cash infusion into the economy by consumers rather than government or corporations. It also lessens the NEED to HELP so many and put them on a good orderly direction to becoming consumers and good product citizens. You calculate the savings yourself at reducing poverty from the bottom up, not by demanding strict and harsh requirements, but a doable path to self reliance based on skills that increase opportunity.

Increasing the circulation flow from the bottom up also has the benefit of addressing guys like you who are forced to give money for someone else that you so incessantly beetch about, and it doesn't hurt the rich AT ALL!

The tough part is getting elected officials to get off their arses and actually do it, as opposed to the legalized stealing we are now subject to. That how to make America great again, by turning hundreds of thousands of poor people into CONSUMERS AND 1st class contributing citizens.

I'm not sure why you have my two quotes above other than to show I did not say the situation was "unfair"???

Quote:

---

I respectfully submit it's not that tough to identify a solution, a simple tax code adjustment fixes that right up by stopping the bottleneck of CASH flowing one way, at blinding speed, thus increasing circulation in a controlled and targeted way that allows a greater cash infusion into the economy by consumers rather than government or corporations.

---

I think what you are suggesting is that we go to the upper income people, who already pay 88% of the income tax, and ask them to pay even more so the feds can then give it to lower income people. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest we address the continuing trillion dollar budget deficits? Do you suggest we continue to borrow at the current pace, or would you suggest we use that increased revenue to narrow the deficit?

Now you said you wanted to discuss these things, so I'm asking discussion questions in what is hopefully a civil and non-insulting manner.

A little info to chew on.

• "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2018-update/

This "FAIRNESS" stuff has to stop: Life is UNFAIR. Its even Biblical that there will be rich and there will be poor: You aren't changing that with any degree of government regulation or taxing. The dichotomy of the left's arguments and rails against the rich are that as long as these "RICH" are liberals, they are O.K....but if they don't cotton to the left's lean, these "RICH" are bad.

Please: This is not Obama's Economy anymore....the guy has been gone, out of the White House since January '17! Obama is old news! This is Trump's Economy, he owns it, for good or for bad.

Trump's Economy is doing wonders and we all know it.

I would agree in part on that. The issue to me is not so much fairness as legality and availability. Are rich people breaking the law to become rich? In most cases that does not seem to be the case. Can anyone become rich if he/she is willing to put the hard work and discipline into it? For the most part I think it is "yes" to that, though people with serious mental or physical limitations are likely left out. I've known a few people in my life who have become wealthy. They all worked hard at it and would laugh at the concept of a 40 hour work week. It is more like fifty or sixty or seventy hours a week and being "on call" at all times. I don't envy them one cent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not sure why you have my two quotes above other than to show I did not say the situation was "unfair"???

I think what you are suggesting is that we go to the upper income people, who already pay 88% of the income tax, and ask them to pay even more so the feds can then give it to lower income people. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest we address the continuing trillion dollar budget deficits? Do you suggest we continue to borrow at the current pace, or would you suggest we use that increased revenue to narrow the deficit?

Now you said you wanted to discuss these things, so I'm asking discussion questions in what is hopefully a civil and non-insulting manner.

A little info to chew on.

• "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-la...a-2018-update/

---

Good questions and thanks but my whole point was to slow the cash flow going up, and increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers and yes the options and opportunities for economic growth takes on a whole new meaning with what can be done with the added revenue of half the population. That's why I included what you said in my post, not as anything other than a point of possible agreement.

It's just a logical thing to EXPAND the macroeconomy for a more efficient long term outcome. You wouldn't have to borrow from anyone to do anything, so with no debt to service by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls this country can pay the bills and maybe go to the moon for vacation. LOL, rich guys wouldn't be paying most of the taxes either which would be okay with you I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

This "FAIRNESS" stuff has to stop: Life is UNFAIR. Its even Biblical that there will be rich and there will be poor: You aren't changing that with any degree of government regulation or taxing. The dichotomy of the left's arguments and rails against the rich are that as long as these "RICH" are liberals, they are O.K....but if they don't cotton to the left's lean, these "RICH" are bad.

Please: This is not Obama's Economy anymore....the guy has been gone, out of the White House since January '17! Obama is old news! This is Trump's Economy, he owns it, for good or for bad.

Trump's Economy is doing wonders and we all know it.

---

Did I mention parties or politicians? I was hoping you saw the value of transcending both for the end goal of accomplishing something for everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I would agree in part on that. The issue to me is not so much fairness as legality and availability. Are rich people breaking the law to become rich? In most cases that does not seem to be the case. Can anyone become rich if he/she is willing to put the hard work and discipline into it? For the most part I think it is "yes" to that, though people with serious mental or physical limitations are likely left out. I've known a few people in my life who have become wealthy. They all worked hard at it and would laugh at the concept of a 40 hour work week. It is more like fifty or sixty or seventy hours a week and being "on call" at all times. I don't envy them one cent.

---

Everybody isn't going to be rich like the 1% no matter how hard you work, so why should you work 2 or 3 jobs to be poor? Oh yes the working poor are a bigger part of the landscape than the 1% by a lot. Big difference between working hard and spinning your wheels since the goal should be an economy that works for EVERYBODY.

Quote:

---

Everybody isn't going to be rich like the 1% no matter how hard you work, so why should you work 2 or 3 jobs to be poor? Oh yes the working poor are a bigger part of the landscape than the 1% by a lot. Big difference between working hard and spinning your wheels since the goal should be an economy that works for EVERYBODY

---

.You cannot work three jobs and be poor. I'm not saying you will drive BMW's but you won't be poor.

Quote:

---

Good questions and thanks but my whole point was to slow the cash flow going up, and increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers and yes the options and opportunities for economic growth takes on a whole new meaning with what can be done with the added revenue of half the population. That's why I included what you said in my post, not as anything other than a point of possible agreement.

It's just a logical thing to EXPAND the macroeconomy for a more efficient long term outcome. You wouldn't have to borrow from anyone to do anything, so with no debt to service by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls this country can pay the bills and maybe go to the moon for vacation. LOL, rich guys wouldn't be paying most of the taxes either which would be okay with you I'm sure.

---

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. It's sounds like you want to increase taxes on the lower half ("by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls"). Bear in mind that you have to come up with a trillion extra dollars. As of last year, personal income taxes only brought in 1.4 tril, so you have to increase that by 75% just to balance the budget, and that assumes you don't crash the economy by doing that. So I'll have to ask again specifically what you are proposing, especially the part about how you will " increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers." How do you propose that be done?

Talaniman: O.K., you are correct about transcending the politics of it all and keying-in on what is good for all people. I just don't think the broad-brush approach of hanging all our problems on the "RICH" is the correct approach. As jlisenbe has stated, most of the RICH got that way honestly...and if you have a problem with how they work their taxes, then we need to change laws: they are legally working with what the tax laws ALLOW them to work with and around in terms of loopholes.