Economic growth more likely when wealth distributed to poor instead of rich

Padawanbater2 said:
Economic growth more likely when wealth distributed to poor instead of rich

Common sense eludes you
Click to expand...

Pada, The history of lotto winners should give you a good idea of what happens to the wealth when it is given and not earned. That is a program that you can study that is real, and has some good info on what more than likely will happen with free shit.
 
nitro harley said:
Hey Rob.

Somebody should let the liberals know about all the empty store fronts that are there waiting for one of them to get off there ass and make something of their selves.

For some funny reason I think they are waiting for a conservative to hire them while they bitch about how hard everything is. imo
Click to expand...

As a kid, I worked with a Chinese family that took me in as an employee and learned about work ethic. Waiting for a handout was never my style or theirs. Plus I needed to eat.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Economic growth more likely when wealth distributed to poor instead of rich

Common sense eludes you
Click to expand...

Please define HOW you would distribute things? By edict ?

Also economic growth is stifled by regulation, but I already said I was only going to tease you today....hey what the fuck am I still doing here then? Sayonara.
 
nitro harley said:
Pada, The history of lotto winners should give you a good idea of what happens to the wealth when it is given and not earned. That is a program that you can study that is real, and has some good info on what more than likely will happen with free shit.
Click to expand...
Wealth distribution isn't "free shit", it's economic gains that workers have earned going to the actual workers themselves to spend and increase economic growth. When 99% of those gains go to 1% of the population, 99% of the population doesn't have the means necessary to facilitate that growth. A rich person needs as many pairs of jeans as a poor person, they're not going to buy 300 pairs of jeans just because they're rich. That excess wealth sits in banks, it doesn't increase economic activity, it doesn't grow the economy, it doesn't build new businesses or hire new employees, and this is bad for everyone, including you.
 
Rob Roy said:
Please define HOW you would distribute things?
Click to expand...
140926_$BOX_PercentWealthOwned.png.CROP.original-original.png


More along the lines of the "Ideal" selection with a progressive tax system and I'd eliminate the cap on taxable wealth
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Wealth distribution isn't "free shit", it's economic gains that workers have earned going to the actual workers themselves to spend and increase economic growth. When 99% of those gains go to 1% of the population, 99% of the population doesn't have the means necessary to facilitate that growth. A rich person needs as many pairs of jeans as a poor person, they're not going to buy 300 pairs of jeans just because they're rich. That excess wealth sits in banks, it doesn't increase economic activity, it doesn't grow the economy, it doesn't build new businesses or hire new employees, and this is bad for everyone, including you.
Click to expand...
Inb4 penis.
 
@nitro harley the idea that everyone earning half again to twice as much as they are now in real buying power would turn us all into 'lotto winner' zombies is funny! Gotta hand it to you! But what if it did? All that economic activity would in turn create more wealth for everyone. How about that.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
140926_$BOX_PercentWealthOwned.png.CROP.original-original.png


More along the lines of the "Ideal" selection with a progressive tax system and I'd eliminate the cap on taxable wealth
Click to expand...

The graph that breaks out the top one tenth of one percenters is sobering. Too bad the point is lost on those whose math skills aren't up to grade.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
140926_$BOX_PercentWealthOwned.png.CROP.original-original.png


More along the lines of the "Ideal" selection with a progressive tax system and I'd eliminate the cap on taxable wealth
Click to expand...
I know we're trying to be cool with each other, but that's a fucking fantasy bro.

It could not happen in the real world, I don't like the current distribution but your "ideal" system is just not workable.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
140926_$BOX_PercentWealthOwned.png.CROP.original-original.png


More along the lines of the "Ideal" selection with a progressive tax system and I'd eliminate the cap on taxable wealth
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough. I was insinuating that your method would involve force. I was spot on.

Please put down your gun and go help people with your labor or resources if that is your goal. Making others comply with your vision and using force to do it makes you the same as any other dictator.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
"Are there any counter arguments to this, where increasing the wealth of the super rich is actually beneficial to the economy?
I can potentially see the use of huge sums of money to invest in companies being a good thing. But the super wealthy already have huge sums of money, and in general don't spend vast sums on new businesses. They look for traditional return on investment with already successful companies.

I'm coming at this from a UK point of view where there is a rhetoric that welfare benefits need to be cut in order to balance the books without a considerable effort to recover money from the super rich." -myrtob1445
___________________________________________________________________________

"The argument would be that they'll create jobs with the extra money and invest in their business. But the reality is that this doesn't make sense. Without extra demand, there is no point in hiring more workers as workers are an investment and even though there might be extra money, if a worker won't bring in more money in terms of revenue there won't be any hiring. And if a business is in position to expand, they will. They'll get a loan of go out of pocket. They won't need a tax cut to do it and if they do, the business shouldn't really be expanding in the first place.

Might there be SOME benefit to increasing the wealth of the super rich along those lines? Maybe. But it's a maybe at best and the positive effects of increasing the wealth of the lower classes soars above the other way around." -ImAnIdeaMan
Click to expand...
Quoting other socialists doesn't add any evidence to your socialist claims.
 
UncleBuck said:
are you ever gonna show us how to build a house for under $100 per square foot?

or give pada the evidence he is requesting?
Click to expand...


The cost is so high why?

You are flailing in the branches and failing to strike the root. No offense, but your ability to dismiss the root causes is your flaw. Of course you don't know what the root causes are so it's like I'm talking to a toaster.

Yes, raisin bread please, buttered and slightly browned. Thanks.
 
Rob Roy said:
I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough. I was insinuating that your method would involve force. I was spot on.

Please put down your gun and go help people with your labor or resources if that is your goal. Making others comply with your vision and using force to do it makes you the same as any other dictator.
Click to expand...

still no evidence from the pedo.
 
Rob Roy said:
The cost is so high why?

You are flailing in the branches and failing to strike the root. No offense, but your ability to dismiss the root causes is your flaw. Of course you don't know what the root causes are so it's like I'm talking to a toaster.

Yes, raisin bread please, buttered and slightly browned. Thanks.
Click to expand...

hey pedo, you gonna show us all how to build a house for less than $100 a square foot, or just flap your pedo gums like the dumb old racist you are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top