Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The information came from the Credit Suisse 2014 Global Wealth Databook (GWD), which goes on to reveal much more about the disappearing middle class.

1. Each Year Since the Recession, America's Richest 1% Have Made More Than the Cost of All U.S. Social Programs

In effect, a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. Even as conservatives blame Social Security for being too costly.

Much of the 1% wealth just sits there, accumulating more wealth. The numbers are nearly unfathomable. Depending on the estimate, the 1% took in anywhere from $2.3 trillion to $5.7 trillion per year. (All numeric analysis is detailed here.)

Even the smaller estimate of $2.3 trillion per year is more than the budget for Social Security ($860 billion), Medicare ($524 billion), Medicaid ($304 billion), and the entire safety net ($286 billion for SNAP, WIC [Women, Infants, Children], Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing).

2. Almost None of the New 1% Wealth Led To Innovation and Jobs

In 2005, for every $1 of financial wealth there was 66 cents of non-financial (home) wealth. Ten years later, for every $1 of financial wealth there was just 43 cents of non-financial (home) wealth.

What happens to all this financial wealth?

Over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate. Business startup costs made up less than 1% of the investments of high net worth individuals in North America in 2011. A recent study found that less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs came from very rich or very poor backgrounds. They come from the middle class.

On the corporate side, stock buybacks are employed to enrich executives rather than to invest in new technologies. In 1981, major corporations were spending less than 3 percent of their combined net income on buybacks, but in recent years they've been spending up to 95 percent of their profits on buybacks and dividends…………………………..

The FTT has extraordinary revenue-generating potential, on a global scale. The Bank for International Settlements reported in 2008 that annual trading in derivatives had surpassed $1.14 quadrillion. Just one-tenth of one percent of that is a trillion dollars.

It's also a fair tax. While average Americans pay up to a 10% sales tax on shoes for the kids, millionaire investors pay a zero sales tax on financial purchases. They pay just a .00002% SEC fee (2 cents for every thousand dollars) for a financial instrument.

In addition, the FTT is easy to administer and difficult to evade. Clearing houses already review all trades, and serve as collection agencies for transaction fees.

And as evidence of its suitability, three of the top five countries on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom are Singapore, Hong Kong, and Switzerland, all of whom have FTTs.

kalm wrote:The first couple of paragraphs are for JSO to debunk, but if the first stat is true...

The authors remedy is a Financial Transactions Tax which appears to work well in low financial regulatory countries. It seems like a clean way to generate revenue and discourage casino like investing, without having to increase regulatory bureaucracy.

What say you?

The information came from the Credit Suisse 2014 Global Wealth Databook (GWD), which goes on to reveal much more about the disappearing middle class.

1. Each Year Since the Recession, America's Richest 1% Have Made More Than the Cost of All U.S. Social Programs

In effect, a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. Even as conservatives blame Social Security for being too costly.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:The first couple of paragraphs are for JSO to debunk, but if the first stat is true...

The authors remedy is a Financial Transactions Tax which appears to work well in low financial regulatory countries. It seems like a clean way to generate revenue and discourage casino like investing, without having to increase regulatory bureaucracy.

What say you?

I'll admit, I stopped reading after this drivel. Just because the richest 1% made more, that does NOT automatically make it a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. This (wealth generation) isn't a fucking closed system. It's not a zero-sum game.

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'll admit, I stopped reading after this drivel. Just because the richest 1% made more, that does NOT automatically make it a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. This (wealth generation) isn't a **** closed system. It's not a zero-sum game.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:The first couple of paragraphs are for JSO to debunk, but if the first stat is true...

The authors remedy is a Financial Transactions Tax which appears to work well in low financial regulatory countries. It seems like a clean way to generate revenue and discourage casino like investing, without having to increase regulatory bureaucracy.

What say you?

I'll admit, I stopped reading after this drivel. Just because the richest 1% made more, that does NOT automatically make it a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. This (wealth generation) isn't a fucking closed system. It's not a zero-sum game.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'll admit, I stopped reading after this drivel. Just because the richest 1% made more, that does NOT automatically make it a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. This (wealth generation) isn't a **** closed system. It's not a zero-sum game.

So you believe perpetual growth is possible?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So you believe perpetual growth is possible?

So do you believe there's a ceiling to growth?

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So do you believe there's a ceiling to growth?

Give me an example of something that grows forever.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Give me an example of something that grows forever.

Guvmint.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Give me an example of something that grows forever.

Guvmint.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Give me an example of something that grows forever.

Guvmint.

It's also a fair tax. While average Americans pay up to a 10% sales tax on shoes for the kids, millionaire investors pay a zero sales tax on financial purchases. They pay just a .00002% SEC fee (2 cents for every thousand dollars) for a financial instrument.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Give me an example of something that grows forever.

Guvmint.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So do you believe there's a ceiling to growth?

Give me an example of something that grows forever.

I'll admit, I stopped reading after this drivel. Just because the richest 1% made more, that does NOT automatically make it a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. This (wealth generation) isn't a **** closed system. It's not a zero-sum game.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I'll admit, I stopped reading after this drivel. Just because the richest 1% made more, that does NOT automatically make it a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich. This (wealth generation) isn't a **** closed system. It's not a zero-sum game.

Ok I don't need to put too much effort into responding because someone else pretty much already said what I was thinking as I read it.

I don't see any of it as having demonstrated any unfairness or anything. I guess if you want to say, "hey look there's this big pot of money we could tax" there is indeed a big pot of money they could tax. But there's nothing at all in the discussion that constitutes evidence of unfairness or a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich.

Otherwise, I think it's disgusting that we have people sitting around with their mouths watering constantly thinking of how government can confiscate even more of people's money.

Chizzang wrote:When you're talking about billionaires
(and as far as I can tell that's what we're talking about)
You might as well forget about trying to "get more" because it's not going to happen

Its a far more productive process (more can be learned from)
The exercise of reducing government spending

As it turns out - because we are so divided and unfocused - we will successfully accomplish neither
50% of the population says TAX MORE and the other half says SPEND LESS

all the while nothing gets done on either front
However if 100% of the people said: SPEND LESS and GET SMALLER - it might actually happen

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Ok I don't need to put too much effort into responding because someone else pretty much already said what I was thinking as I read it.

I don't see any of it as having demonstrated any unfairness or anything. I guess if you want to say, "hey look there's this big pot of money we could tax" there is indeed a big pot of money they could tax. But there's nothing at all in the discussion that constitutes evidence of unfairness or a reverse transfer from the poor to the rich.

Otherwise, I think it's disgusting that we have people sitting around with their mouths watering constantly thinking of how government can confiscate even more of people's money.

How many of those people do you think exist?

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:When you're talking about billionaires
(and as far as I can tell that's what we're talking about)
You might as well forget about trying to "get more" because it's not going to happen

Its a far more productive process (more can be learned from)
The exercise of reducing government spending

As it turns out - because we are so divided and unfocused - we will successfully accomplish neither
50% of the population says TAX MORE and the other half says SPEND LESS

all the while nothing gets done on either front
However if 100% of the people said: SPEND LESS and GET SMALLER - it might actually happen

I would say far more than 50% are for cutting spending.

And no, what were talking about is that

1). We can afford the crumbs

2). A FTT has proven effective in countries more financially "free" than ours.



Pessimist.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
I would say far more than 50% are for cutting spending.

And no, what were talking about is that

1). We can afford the crumbs

2). A FTT has proven effective in countries more financially "free" than ours.



Pessimist.

Everybody says they want spending cut... virtually 100% agree


(as long as its somewhere else)
And I'm not a pessimist - but - nothing can change in a system designed to never change

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:



Everybody says they want spending cut... virtually 100% agree


(as long as its somewhere else)
And I'm not a pessimist - but - nothing can change in a system designed to never change

I know you're not a pessimist. You're a cynic (which is good).

And the system was designed to change. In fact it changes all the time.

kalm wrote:2). A FTT has proven effective in countries more financially "free" than ours.