you are making my point for me, 364k which is top 1% really isn't that much money. But "Chasm widens between rich and poor in US" is referring to those people as the rich, and how they are screwing over the rest. Oh, and 7 year law firm associate? LOL
And you're making it for me, by emphasizing how stratified the class differentiations have become. Thanks. OH sorry, are you a partner? Where? Wachtell? Cravath? or maybe Quinn Emanuel, going west coast? Or are you just some internet asshat who likes to make douchey comments and pretend he is wealthy? Ehh, wait, don't tell me, I don't really care. Thanks and merry christmas.
Did I say I was a lawyer or I was wealthy? As for being an "internet asshat", you already got 20k posts on that front.
I've never understood all of the b****ing about stratification of wealth. WTF difference does it make to anyone what Bill Gates earns. The important information from the article was that income growth in every group has outpaced inflation. That means everyone is better off. What difference does it make if you are 1% better off than before, but Warren Buffet is 200% better off. How does his relative prosperity negatively affect you. You can still buy more stuff than you could before. Oh, ad regarding the lunacy of tax cuts during the war: tax receipts are higher than ever. If tax cuts lead to higher receipts, isn't that exactly what the government should do when they need more money?
This subject has been discussed during your demise texxx, therefore I cannot be of further assistance which would only incentivize your misbehavior, it may encourage other BBS resurrections.
Tax cuts have risen after tax hikes as well as during recessions too. Should the government cause a recession to increase tax revenue? In fact, over the last 60 years or so, tax receipts have only gone down 6 times - 3 of those were during this Bush administration, so your "tax cuts = higher tax receipts" argument might not work so well.
It's the holidays. Can't we all just get along? (Sam, you should know better than to say anything specific about your personal life. The sharks never stop circling.) Impeach Bush for being an Idiot.
If you withdraw 1/20th (5%) of your assets per year, and your money lasts 20 years (or even 80 years), something is very, very wrong with your investment formula. If you average a measly post-tax annual 5% return on your investments, your money would last you forever.
1. T_J, did you start in the bottom 20%? I did not. I would like to hear what opportunities you know of for that bracket that compare to our opportunities. 2. Of new "millionaires," how many started in the bottom 20%? 3. Whichever way you feel about the gap, do you believe it is a sustainable system? Will we just build the gates of gated communities higher? separate neighborhoods and towns even more? Honest question.
B-Bob, I don't know the answer to your question. I have never been part of the bottom 20%. But I do know this: Very few in the US stay in the bottom 20% for long. The so-called chronically impoverished (defined as those who remain below the poverty level for more than 5 years) in the US is one of the smallest groups in the world. Normally, the poor in the US are the young, the elderly, and the temporarily unemployed.
If tax receipts are not dependent on tax rates, shouldn't we have lower rates to allow individuals to have more money? BTW, were any of those times when the tech bubble burst, when the housing bubble burst, or when 9/11 happened?
Tax receipts are partially dependent upon tax rates - but they steadily grow regardless. So saying "tax receipts are up and tax cuts occurred" does not suggest any kind of correlation that you suggested. Certainly some of the drops happened during the tech bubble burst and post-9/11 (not the housing bubble, since that is this year) - but those years also had relatively strong economic growth with only one 6-month recession considered the mildest in history. They also happened in the years immediately following Bush tax cuts. Between 1960-2004, tax revenues went down in the following years: 1971: 3% drop (followed by increases of 10%, 10%, and 12% in '72-'74) 1983: 3% drop (followed by increases of 10% and 9%) 2001: 2% drop 2002: 7% drop 2003: 4% drop (followed by 5% increase in 2004) Tax receipts pretty much continually increased during other tax increases, cuts, recessions (far more severe), previous bubbles, and all sorts of other problematic events over the past 50 years. I'm not suggesting tax cuts can't increase revenues (I think the Reagan cuts certainly had an impact). I'm just saying that trying to suggest that these Bush tax cuts led to increased revenues doesn't seem supported given the historical evidence.
And now you understand why I live in Minnesota. I make less than half of what my friend living in Brooklyn yet I can afford a house, a car and travel.
