When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Aug 8, 2019.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,365
    Like most American's, it was better before the Republicans trashed the US economy. And a lot better before I got the Iraq War loaded unto my national identity. (As the old joke put it: you know what they call a German who opposed the Nazi takeover of their country, did what a reasonable person would do to prevent evil from taking control of German industry and capabilities, politely objected to the degradation of their once wonderful country by thugs and corrupt swine?
    They call them "German". )

    But it's still pretty good - not as good as the Northern Cheyenne enjoyed in their heyday, but not bad at all.

    The tragedy of the wrecking of my favorite country by people who should know better, who have no excuse even for ignorance after the photos of Abu Ghraib, takes the glow off.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    That's pretty bad. This capitalism doesn't sound so good. Let's just stop it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    That's interesting. Mine hasn't really changed all that much regardless of the administration. Taxes and prices of many goods have come down since the days you speak of but otherwise it's about the same on a personal level. Inflation was the big problem when Reagan first came into office I remember as I was in grad school at the time and inflation was ridiculous (over 10 percent).

    Speaking of how the U.S. is viewed or how the U.S. behaves on the world stage, I'm not happy about that. I don't have a problem with the way it behaved in the Reagan years (other than the Iran-Contra affair). The Cold War ended, we didn't get into armed conflicts other than bombing Gadaffi's house.

    The obsession with war started with the Chaney bunch as I recall. The worst of what is going on now started with G.W. Bush. There's not a lot to like since then. Obama tried his best but the country is just too conservative to get much done.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,365
    My taxes have gone up, and so have my neighbors's, and so have most Americans's. What little was cut from the Feds was added to the State and local levies, plus a bit extra, to cover the shortfalls. Also, the prices of the big ticket items I have to buy - medical care, housing, machinery repair and maintenance, especially - have gone up considerably.
    Bullshit. Republican Party line contrived nonsense aimed at avoiding the blame for the consequences of bad Republican Party governance and behavior.

    Not the country, in other words. It's not "the country's" fault. The country is solidly to the liberal, left, and libertarian, side of both major Parties - let alone the Republican Party, which is essentially an extremist rightwing cult, ideologically and behaviorally fascist, incompetent at governing.

    And "the country" was not sitting in Congress, acting as judges, or attending the strategy meetings of the major media outlets and their corporate support - the meetings where it was decided that wingnut welfare would dominate the media scene, and (before "me too") that Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt and Charlie Sykes and David Brooks and Megan Kelly and Sean Hannity and on into Republican media infinity would be handed large piles of real US money and given jobs for life no matter what they said and did.

    The Republican Congress and Republican Supreme Court and Republican major media framing is what blocked Obama - nothing and nobody else played a significant role. "The country" was not even informed - to this day it's common to have people (especially Republican voters) deny it even happened

    The famous restaurant meeting of Republican Congressional leadership, immediately after Obama's assumption of power, where they openly and formally agreed to block everything Obama attempted to do for the next four years, regardless of what it was, and then blame him for not getting anything done (successfully among the wingnut faithful, as we see in the posts above), was just the second most flagrant event in the long list of examples. (Filibustering their own bills if Obama was going to sign them into law was the most flagrant - that was spectacular).

    Obama's mistake was to attempt reason and compromise and negotiated dealings with those corrupt clowns, to treat the Republican leadership with civility and respect - as if they were acting in good faith, and would keep promises, and in general act in the best interests of the United States, instead of acting as their long established nature (fascist scum) indicated they would.

    Because whatever troubles anyone here might have telling the rich apart from everybody else, the Republican Party leadership has no difficulty identifying its sugar daddies or figuring out how to keep them happy.
     
  8. pluto2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,013
    Any networth above one billion US dollars is considered filthy rich in my opinion.

    People who say that money doesn't buy happiness are simply lying in my opinion.

    Money is everything these days and people will fight and even kill someone else just to get the money.

    You should see the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith to see how money really makes the world go round.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,327
    People who say that money buys happiness don't know many rich people.
    People will also fight and kill to get land, and drugs, and even sneakers. Doesn't mean that drugs (or sneakers) are everything.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
  10. river

    Messages:
    14,523
    Flat progressive tax .

    1% at the lowest to 20 -25% at the highest . The higher the gross income , higher the tax .

    Below a million , zero tax . 2.5 to 3 million 1% . And zero capital gains tax .
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2020
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    You can't run a country only taxing those who make a million dollars a year.
    I agree with zero capital gains tax but not in the way I think you mean it. Capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all.

    A flat progressive tax is a contradiction in terms. It's either flat or it's progressive.

    In general it's not workable to let one group decide that everyone else but them should be the subject of some law, in this case everyone else being taxed.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    14,523


    Highlighted

    Where did I say this read again my post #187 .
     
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    "Below a million , zero tax ."
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    14,523
    But above a million the tax kicks in .

    Again my post #187 .
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    As I said, you don't want to tax anyone that makes below a million a year. That's not doable.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,365
    Money may not buy happiness, but it does buy evil. And fear, as well as greed, is selling.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    We'd better keep money away from you then. How are we doing?
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,327
    We would then defund roughly 95% of the government.

    What would you give up? The military? The CDC? Public roads? Social Security? Medicare? Air traffic control? The FCC? Actually it would have to be all of those.

    What would you do once that happened?
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,365
    I rest my case.
    - - - -
    Depends. With a progressive wealth tax (as well as income tax) the inequality in the US would probably allow one to keep Federal tax receipts about what they are now, at least for a few years.

    It's a bit startling to notice what has happened to income and wealth distribution in the US since the New Deal rollbacks started kicking in.
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    You mean wealth re-distribution.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,327
    Definitely not with a cutoff below 1 million a year, and with a top marginal rate of 25%. (Which is what he was proposing.) That's far lower than it is now, and removes over 90% of our current income.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,327
    Nope. Just taxation. All those government programs, walls, F-35's and whatnot take a lot of money.
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,049
    Iceaura was talking about income inequality. I'm beginning to think you are disingenuous in your comments.
     

Share This Page