patrick.net

Sniper says

In 2010 there were 27.9 million small businesses, and 18,500 firms with 500 employees or more.
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

Is multi MILLIONS enough for you, or do you need more?

Sorry you can't remember what you posted. The senility thing again. You said small business with a handful of employees, 500 is not a handful and is not a small business. How many of 27.9 million small businesses (under 500 employees by definition) have a handful of employees (which like everything you post has no definition) and a CEO?

Strategist says

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.

Forbes doesn't agree with you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/#290f03f41e2e

There is never a statistically significant relationship

But what would Forbes know, it's not like they write about business and the economy or anything. Plus they aren't patnet just make shit up experts.

Strategist says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

According to forbes of the forbes 400 richest only 30% started as middle class or below, 30% started wealthy, 40% started upper class of which 90% received as "substantial inheritance". But what would forbes know? They aren't just make shit up I have an anecdote so it's true because I say it's true masters of the obvious experts like on patnet.

Strategist says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

According to Forbes of the forbes 400 only 30% started middle class or lower, 30% started wealthy, 40% was upper class of which 30% of those received a "substantial inheritance". But what would Forbes know? They aren't the just make shit up I have an anecdote so it's true because I say it's true masters of the obvious experts like here on patnet.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.

Forbes doesn't agree with you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/#290f03f41e2e

There is never a statistically significant relationship

But what would Forbes know, it's not like they write about business and the economy or anything. Plus they aren't patnet just make shit up experts.

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

bob2356 says

Hey, I was about to mention most of them. I guess Bob has a little difficulty understanding the obvious.

According to forbes of the forbes 400 richest only 30% started as middle class or below, 30% started wealthy, 40% started upper class of which 90% received as "substantial inheritance". But what would forbes know? They aren't just make shit up I have an anecdote so it's true because I say it's true masters of the obvious experts like on patnet.

I'm not surprised. Most wealth is inherited. Not all billionaires have the foresight and wisdom to give away their wealth like Gates and Buffet.
The best lifestyle you can give your children is an upper middle class, well educated lifestyle.

anon_4460e says

The last thing cheap-labor conservatives want is prosperity.

Defenders of corporate greed - whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you.

If you are a wealthy elite - or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads - your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.

And that is all there is to Republicans: Work cheaper or starve.

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Strategist says

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Higher cap gains = MORE investment. It discourages dividends and stock buyback nonsense and encourages investing in the future.

Strategist says

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

That's right, concentration of wealth at the top is yugly devastating for the economy.

That's why the rich should be taxed heavily. Giving them tax breaks and hoping they do the right thing hasn't worked in the past

If you don't agree then tell us how do we keep from concentrating the wealth at the top?

Strategist says

If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Thank you.
That's why inequalities are bad.
This is why no one should be ok with the rich owning more and more.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Strategist says

New investment would dry up because a large capital gains tax would not make it worthwhile.

Forbes doesn't agree with you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/#290f03f41e2e

There is never a statistically significant relationship

But what would Forbes know, it's not like they write about business and the economy or anything. Plus they aren't patnet just make shit up experts.

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Now you are really grasping for straws. Forbes exists to be the mouthpiece of the ultra rich libertarian set.

Why don't you provide something showing the long term effect capital gains has on investment. Back to it's true because I say it's true. But that's all you post anyway.

Sniper says

bob2356 says

Sorry you can't remember what you posted.

No, I remember, YOU were the one to run away when I answered your question.

You didn't answer any question. You threw out something that had nothing to do with what you posted. Try again. How many small businesses with a handful of employees have a CEO. It's really a simple question, but maybe you should define what you consider a handful since it's obviously confusing to you.

Sniper says

Bobby boy says

You mean like trump and the Koch bros? Did they all start out poor? You said many, how many? Run and hide.

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Walt Disney, Larry Page, William Harley, Bill Hewlett, Anthony Chapman, Tony Maglica , Harold Matson, Michael Kittredge???

You mean those rich guys.. Run and Hide.

Hey Bobby, want to try again?

Try again at what? The question still stands. How many of the rich started out poor. The question will probably stand forever.

Strategist says

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Money circles the globe finding the cheapest labor, tax shelters, and the highest paying customers having little to do with Americans unless they are lobbying for taxpayer subsidies.

Today Americans can only afford stuff that's made in China.

If you can find something made in America, that is rare, Americans are not buying a lot of it unless it is guns.

You cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You cry communism all the time as soon as any social benefit is mentioned.

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates

Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?


Sniper says

Steve Jobs

And Steve Jobs? He grew up in Mountain View and Los Altos, CA. Not exactly poor...

anon_8f378 says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates

Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?

Bill Gates with the big time corporate lawyer father, banker mother, and grandfather? He had to walk all the way to the car to go to prep school. That Bill Gates who worked his way up from poverty?

No one would have ever heard of Bill Gates if Gary Kildell had not been at a customer site when IBM came around without even calling first then left because Gary's secretary wouldn't sign a non disclosure. Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

bob2356 says

Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

But he spent his nights coding DOS...
Wait, errr.... he bought a piece of software called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty OS" for 50K from a bum and somehow IBM bought that to run its personal computers, and through an incredible act of corporate charity, let Microsoft sell it too.

bob2356 says

Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

Being a fuckweasel always helps a lot too.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

Gates was in the right time and place, nothing more.

But he spent his nights coding DOS...
Wait, errr.... he bought a piece of software called QDOS for "Quick and Dirty OS" for 50K from a bum and somehow IBM bought that to run its personal computers, and through an incredible act of corporate charity, let Microsoft sell it too.

The only software gates wrote was a horribly buggy basic interpreter for the Altair and he scammed Ed Roberts at MITS claiming he had a working basic then after he got an appointment he scrambled to cobble something together in time to demo it. Gates ethics didn't improve with time.

Sniper says

So what's YOUR solution?

Solutions are easy:
For example: don't trade as much and don't import as much cheap labor, thereby increasing the share of labor.
AND/OR - tax the rich more, invest in the future of the nation, i.e. things like infrastructures, education and the like, which have a return over time. Or reduce the deficit.

Sniper says

That's easy to do. End EBT cards, Section 8, WIC, Unemployment, Obamacare subsidies, TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, Solar Credits, Electric vehicle credits, etc., etc., etc. This would go a long way in reducing the deficit. You OK with discontinuing those programs?

No mention of the 2 biggest welfare programs of all, dept of agriculture and dept of defense You are truly the perfect trumpbot.

Sniper says

who do you think is backstopping all the current college loans? The tax payers!

No, the student. If I recall correctly, student loans cannot even be dumped in bankruptcy. So what is the tax payer on the hook for if it has to be paid back no matter what and can't be discharged?

bob2356 says

dept of agriculture

Jesus Christ I want to give you a medal. I'm in the Midwest and more rural. The amount of farmers and their wives I see driving $60k plus cars is ridiculous. They're smaller in numbers and have little interaction with the general public, but farmers are some of the largest welfare queens in the country. And I get it, if you don't have some backstop to agriculture it could go to shit quickly, but the current state of affairs is disgusting.

anon_277ad says

Strategist says

Actually it's the other way round. If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

That's right, concentration of wealth at the top is yugly devastating for the economy.

That's why the rich should be taxed heavily. Giving them tax breaks and hoping they do the right thing hasn't worked in the past

If you don't agree then tell us how do we keep from concentrating the wealth at the top?

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

If no one is prosperous, who will buy the stuff corporations make?

Thank you.
That's why inequalities are bad.
This is why no one should be ok with the rich owning more and more.

Lets say Bill Gates has $100 million, and Charlie Jones the janitor has $10,000 in savings. If Bill sees his shares rocket to $500 million, how does that hurt Charlie the Janitor? He still has $10,000. Lets say you guys are so upset at the disparity in wealth, you drag Bill to the guillotine and take off his head. How does that benefit Charlie, when he still has $10,000?
The disparity in wealth does not hurt the poor, just as wealth equality does not benefit the poor. Everyone being equally dirt poor does not benefit anyone, like in Venezuela.

bob2356 says

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Now you are really grasping for straws. Forbes exists to be the mouthpiece of the ultra rich libertarian set.

Why don't you provide something showing the long term effect capital gains has on investment. Back to it's true because I say it's true. But that's all you post anyway.

You want too much evidence for little things that no one will bother reading. What's the point?

Strategist says

The disparity in wealth does not hurt the poor, just as wealth equality does not benefit the poor. Everyone being equally dirt poor does not benefit anyone, like in Venezuela.

Actually, disparity in wealth does cause the poor to suffer more since they cannot compete as much for certain things, like land or college tuition. The golf course gets built close to downtown for the rich, and the housing for the workers is pushed further out, for example.

Consider that the guy with $10,000 is in fact objectively poorer if everyone else on earth except him gets, say, $1 million. Prices will rise, and he will be fucked.

Or think of it this way: the economy is entirely about control over labor. There is a fixed amount of labor available in the short term. That means that the total amount of money is really just a representation of that labor. If you create money and give it to the very rich, they get a larger share of that labor to work for themselves and not for anyone else.

In the long term, there are population changes and technology changes, but still, basically, money is just about making you do things for other people.

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

Ah you guys are gonna argue that the rich worked so much more than the rest that they actually deserve to own 50% of the world.
It would be unfair if they owned only 35%, right?

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Big Difference. You should take that hint and change your ways.

I’d ask you to prove this, but you cannot, so I won’t

Strategist says

Patrick says

What no one ever points out is that both the richest and the poorest generally live off of the labor of others.

The very rich do it by economic rent extraction, enforced at gunpoint. The very poor do it by social programs, also enforced at gunpoint.

The solution is to stop taxing labor completely and get serious about taxing land and capital gains instead.

Then everyone will have an incentive to work.

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

In real or nominal terms?

Why do you think this would happen?

I agree with Strategist: Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.
Dead people don't need incentives. And we don't need young brats with no incentives at all.

Heraclitusstudent says

Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.

How many people in the country will that affect?

How is it any different today than in 2009 when we were bailing the 1%ers out fawning over Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and Mike Bloomberg, because they said the 1% own 50% of the wealth back then. Everyone that voted for Obama maintained that Obama avoided a depression for Obama's first disastrous term.

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.

How many people in the country will that affect?

Why does it matter how many? It will affect all.

Robots could displace 375 million workers by 2030: McKinsey
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/robots-could-displace-375-million-184000826.html
Work hard. Very hard. And very smart. And for pennies.
Otherwise you're obsolete.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Very clever. We all know how biased the media can be. The graph does not address the long term affect capital gains tax has on investment. Throw it away.

Now you are really grasping for straws. Forbes exists to be the mouthpiece of the ultra rich libertarian set.

Why don't you provide something showing the long term effect capital gains has on investment. Back to it's true because I say it's true. But that's all you post anyway.

You want too much evidence for little things that no one will bother reading. What's the point?

If it's a little thing that no one will bother reading then why is it such a big part of your argument? You can't have it both ways. Too much evidence? You have provided zero evidence. But you always provide zero evidence. Only it's true because I say it's true.

anon_8f378 says

Sniper says

You mean like Bill Gates

Are you implying that Bill Gates was born poor? The Bill Gates who went to a private Preparatory School?


Sniper says

Steve Jobs

And Steve Jobs? He grew up in Mountain View and Los Altos, CA. Not exactly poor...

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were self made billionaires. If they were born in Venezuela, they would both be looking for food in dumpsters.

Patrick says

Consider that the guy with $10,000 is in fact objectively poorer if everyone else on earth except him gets, say, $1 million. Prices will rise, and he will be fucked.

Yes, he would be fucked. The rich who have lots of money would get fucked too. Hyper inflation fucks all.

Patrick says

Or think of it this way: the economy is entirely about control over labor. There is a fixed amount of labor available in the short term. That means that the total amount of money is really just a representation of that labor. If you create money and give it to the very rich, they get a larger share of that labor to work for themselves and not for anyone else.

I presume you mean they would get a larger share of the labor to work in the businesses the rich own. That is not a bad thing. We want more jobs.

errc says

You do know that many of the rich once started out working for minimum wage. The difference between the rich and you now is, that the rich worked hard to climb the ladder to success, while you just sit and complain that you're not getting your share.

Big Difference. You should take that hint and change your ways.

I’d ask you to prove this, but you cannot, so I won’t

Sure he can prove it. Here goes.

https://www.theclever.com/15-extremely-successful-people-who-started-from-nothing/ 15 Extremely Successful People Who Started From Nothing

errc says

Here are the problems that would surface:
1. Stock market would crash.
2. Real Estate would crash.
3. No one would save in their 401K's, becoming dependent on the state for retirement.
4. The poor who don't want to work, still won't work, because they would not be paying taxes anyway.
5. New investment in companies would dry up, and go overseas.

In real or nominal terms?

Why do you think this would happen?

Both in real and nominal terms.
"Capital moves to the highest rates of return" If the returns on capital are cut, it goes where the grass is greener. (adjusting for risk)
eg. If Bank of America cuts it's CD rates from 2% to 1%, but Wells Fargo cuts it from 2% to 1.5%, where would you advise granny to put her money, if she was not interested in any other investment?

Heraclitusstudent says

I agree with Strategist: Any inheritance above $5 millions should be taxed 95%.

Sniper says

How many people in the country will that affect?

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.
I would go with 20% for those with $50 million, all the way to 70% for those with $1 billion or more.
The dead don't need incentives, and their spoilt rotten brats don't need the 3rd Lamborghini.

bob2356 says

You want too much evidence for little things that no one will bother reading. What's the point?

If it's a little thing that no one will bother reading then why is it such a big part of your argument? You can't have it both ways. Too much evidence? You have provided zero evidence. But you always provide zero evidence. Only it's true because I say it's true.

I provide lots of evidence, but it just isn't practical to dig through mountains of data for each and every opinion I have.
I never lie. My opinions are based on facts I have read and come come across over time, and therefore have no need to even lie. Sure, I can be wrong at times because I am not perfect. Just ask my wife of 30 years, and she'll tell you how perfect my driving is. I think my driving is perfect.

Strategist says

Too many would be needlessly affected. $5 million is not a fortune like it used to be.

$5 million might not be a fortune, but when almost 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, and the average retiree is entering retirement with $120K saved up for retirement, there really won't be that many in that +$5 million category.