Wake up, giving money to rich will not create jobs.
invite response
2012 Nov 2, 8:58am 53,398 views 138 comments
« First « Previous Comments 34 - 73 of 138 Next » Last » Search these comments
Damn, I just realize Wong is an uneducated moron who has never taken a day of Economy class in college. He has absolutely no idea what demand means.
You live in San Jose, CA..Santa Clara County aka Silicon Valley... and yet you ignore over the decades how UBER rich and wealthy have poured billions into new ventures... created new industries, companies, jobs and incomes.
You have an agenda.. its pretty clear from the start of your topic... substitute individual high worth investors with government funded and mandated projects... higher taxes for crazy Green projects..
Bottom line.. you believe with zeal only the govt is the solution.
You live in San Jose, CA..Santa Clara County aka Silicon Valley... and yet you ignore over the decades how UBER rich and wealthy have poured billions into new ventures... created new industries, companies, jobs and incomes.
No, you didn't read what I wrote. I never said the investment never created jobs. Damn, I know English is not your first language, but how many times I have to say this. This is what the problem is with someone who has never spent a day in college class, especially with someone whose first language is not English.
No, you didn't read what I wrote. I never said the investment never created jobs. Damn, I know English is not your first language, but how many times I have to say this. This is what the problem is with someone who has never spent a day in college class, especially with someone whose first language is not English.
No.. what your getting is opposition to your statement.. and you are failing.
BTW.. im white and native to Santa Clara County as is my family for several generations.
But go ahead with the left wing racial profiling.. I am enjoying it.
Wong,
You are unbelievable. You are quickly losing your credibility. You are a liar and a moron. Ok, I guess you don't need English to live in S.C. County. I don't know in which country, but who cares. In Silicon Valley, a majority has college degree, but obviously, you are the minority.
You must be feeling pretty stupid to be the one of few in Silicon Valley.
By the way it is not "what your getting"; it is "what you're getting."
By the way it is not "what your getting"; it is "what you're getting."
Like so many who have used corporate email since the mid 80s... we all learned that grammer and spelling doesnt matter.
You are unbelievable. You are quickly losing your credibility. You are a liar and a moron. Ok, I guess you don't need English to live in S.C. County. I don't know in which country, but who cares. In Silicon Valley, a majority has college degree, but obviously, you are the minority.
Clearly, you are just another migrant from the east coast with left wing agenda.
marcus
2012 Nov 4, 4:11am
"Political Hit Job: What Senate Republicans Don't Want You To See or Know"
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/11/01-4
In an astounding, little-reported act of hubris, Senate Republicans apparently killed a study by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service when its findings contradicted their favorite economic myth: that giving tax cuts to the rich helps anyone but themselves. After the study found that lower tax rates for the wealthy "do not appear correlated with economic growth" - though they do increase economic disparities - Senate GOP leaders protested the study's "methodology," tone, and use of terms like "tax cuts for the rich," and removed it from public view. Charging the move had "the hues of a Banana Republic," Democrats have re-published it.
rooemoore
2012 Nov 4, 4:15am
Like so many who have used corporate email since the mid 80s... we all learned that grammer and spelling doesnt matter.
It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 4:15am
Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem
You have got to be kidding. Wealth disparity is THE problem. All of the rest are symptoms are it. I honestly can't believe that it's so hard for others to see this--it's plain as day and simple to observe through history.
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 4:17am
Damn, I just realize Wong is an uneducated moron who has never taken a day of Economy class in college. He has absolutely no idea what demand means.
There is absolutely no way he is a controller at a large high tech company. Zero.
I'd be shocked if he has a business degree.
There is absolutely no way he is a controller at a large high tech company. Zero.
I'd be shocked if he has a business degree.
Nope, not large.. I suggest you go work in a SV tech companies for 3 decades.
You wont last long as some left wing Obamatron.. welcome to the real world.
It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.
where did you say your other home was ?
New York.. maybe! City Slickers !
it really is amazing how arrogant the east coast people can be.
Peter P
2012 Nov 4, 5:15am
Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem
You have got to be kidding. Wealth disparity is THE problem. All of the rest are symptoms are it. I honestly can't believe that it's so hard for others to see this--it's plain as day and simple to observe through history.
Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed.
That said, the society must not make it harder to achieve. We must build a business-friendly environment:
1. Universal healthcare - no more employer-specific plan to enslave people
2. Abolish minimum wage - this hampers employment and pushes jobs overseas
Remember, Henry Ford made his cars affordable to his workers NOT by imposing a minimum wage across the board - he improved manufacturing by way of innovation.
rooemoore
2012 Nov 4, 5:56am
Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed
So there are two choices? Anything goes or communism? It is possible to redistribute wealth in a way that helps level the income imbalance and retains incentive to work hard.
Peter P
2012 Nov 4, 6:06am
Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed
So there are two choices? Anything goes or communism? It is possible to redistribute wealth in a way that helps level the income imbalance and retains incentive to work hard.
Moderation may be as extreme as the two ends.
It has been said that Capitalism is about men exploiting men and Socialism is the other way around. Any attempt to moderate or redistribute wealth in leads to Capitalism-without-failure. We all know what that means.
Wealth redistribution is always evil. All effort should be made to encourage wealth creation.
Peter P
2012 Nov 4, 6:09am
I maintain that wealth disparity may be higher than it needs to be only because of efforts to reduce the gap. Bailouts and stimulus programs invariably benefit the rentiers.
The mass is always wrong. Thus any conscious effort by and for the mass to overcome the "elite" will inevitably backfire.
Peter P
2012 Nov 4, 6:18am
The answer: Education and free communication.
Education is not always the answer. The People must retain its individuality and drive to acquire knowledge.
I seriously think many people should not consider going to college.
PolishKnight
2012 Nov 4, 6:21am
Here's the fundamental problem: In theory, socialism is a great idea. Create and empower a middle class (the buzzphrase of the left) via education and mass transit, etc. and everyone benefits.
The problem is the the leftist elite wind up becoming crony capitalists and in order to retain power, throw the middle class under the bus and buy votes via the welfare state (until they don't need votes anymore, then they throw the lower class under the bus too.) That's how it's worked out nearly everywhere since the early 1900's other than Sweden, etc. which are isolated, european ethnic environments or occupied American territories (Japan) (open them up for immigration and see how it goes. Ask the Japanese how tolerant they are of diversity.)
Other than it not working and degenerating into ethnic cleansing and corruption, socialism is a great idea. Toodle loo!
Peter P
2012 Nov 4, 6:26am
Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
Moreover, regardless of whichever system being followed, the world is always unfair to losers. But one system encourages winning...
justme says
Most VC money comes from pension funds and university endowments, in particular public pension funds of big states. THAT is were the money comes from.
Too risky for pension funds, universities and govt funds. If they did, pretty much many went belly up back in 2000.
Nope! its mainly high worth individuals and corporations. They are the only ones who can tolerate the risks.
Yet another post by mr. wrong that shows his assertion that he is employed in the field of accounting/finance is fiction. Here's the faq page from trade association of venture capitalists that says the most of vc money is from "pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, foundations, family offices, and high net worth individuals.". I'm pretty sure they would know what they are talking about.
http://www.nvca.org/index.php?Itemid=147&id=119&option=com_content&view=article
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 7:40am
Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed.
Of course I don't want wealth to equalize. Where did you get that idea??
It just can't get to the level it's at now or the economy ceases to function.
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 7:42am
It has been said that Capitalism is about men exploiting men and Socialism is the other way around. Any attempt to moderate or redistribute wealth in leads to Capitalism-without-failure. We all know what that means.
Once again history disagrees with you. The US did pretty damn well with highly progressive taxes. Much better than it has done since the top rate and capital gains rates were lowered.
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 7:44am
Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
Here's the fundamental problem: In theory, socialism is a great idea
And once again, when posters have no legitimate argument, they resort to strawmen.
Noone, let me repeat, Noone on this board is advocating socialism. Can we get that straight please??
Progressive taxation is not Socialism.
marcus
2012 Nov 4, 8:16am
The mass is always wrong. Thus any conscious effort by and for the mass to overcome the "elite" will inevitably backfire.
This may be the case, but what if the redistribution is small and not a conscious goal, but rather a side benefit ?
We are in a system now that is the opposite of wealth redistribution, and the gullible right wing sheep are crying NO NO ANYTHING BUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION !
Raising taxes to a level where our economy works bettor, and to where we are actually living within our means is not first and foremost about wealth redistribution.
The benefits of doing this are obvious. It's called fiscal responsibility, or at least it used to be considered fiscal responsibility. Taxes need to be at or close to a level where we cover our spending.
If paying our bills were the highest goal, then those powerful and rich people who pay a lot would be motivated to see less govt waste in spending in all areas, rather than only focusing on entitlements. And it would naturally take a lot of waste and corruption out of govt spending.
Bottom line, government works better when you actually pay for it.
rooemoore
2012 Nov 4, 9:05am
It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.
where did you say your other home was ?
New York.. maybe! City Slickers !
it really is amazing how arrogant the east coast people can be.
I'm a sixth generation Californian. My ancestors came here in 1840. Yes, I do own an apartment in NYC.
You claim to be an educated businessman. Your communication skills in this forum betray that claim.
PeopleUnited
2012 Nov 4, 12:23pm
In other words: wake up, stealing from others and giving to the "poor" will not create jobs.
Here's the faq page from trade association of venture capitalists that says the most of vc money is from "pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, foundations, family offices, and high net worth individuals.". I'm pretty sure they would know what they are talking about.
Facebook IPO.. someone is pissed !
Peter P
2012 Nov 4, 1:13pm
The benefits of doing this are obvious. It's called fiscal responsibility, or at least it used to be considered fiscal responsibility. Taxes need to be at or close to a level where we cover our spending.
It is like telling workers that their incomes need to be at or close to a level where they cover their spending.
You claim to be an educated businessman. Your communication skills in this forum betray that claim.
Im sure even a doctor has great penmanship when it comes to writing prescriptions...
Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking the $431.5 billion we are spending in FY12 on welfare programs (including the EIC where it exceeds taxes paid, housing, unemployment, and family and children support) is the biggest problem the federal budget has.
But if we bring up the $85B those making over $1MM per year get in tax reductions based upon the 15% capital gains rate, then we are socialist and waging class warfare. We are talking the .1% here....the richest of the rich. $85B in special tax handouts.
I mean, why shouldn't someone who makes more than $1MM per year NOT get a special tax rate that happens to be about 43% of the tax rate for ordinary income at that level? They clearly deserve it.
Billionaries paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Until you agree to fix that, anything you say about fiscal responsibility or "fair taxes" is bullshit.
Republicans actually believe that those people receiving this welfare would rather do nothing and live in poverty than work a $100k+ a year job and live well.
Wealth inequality is THE problem. It is so large that it makes all other problems that you republicans like to bitch about trivial. Some of you guys understand that but you think government caused the inequality.
I am still waiting for a Republican to show me a better way of freeing up the capital the wealthy have than taxing them.
I'd be all for it if it was based in real math. I'm waiting...
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 10:25pm
Progressive taxation is not Socialism.
And Earth is flat.
OK--why don't you give me your definition of socialism then? Because it clearly differs from most textbooks ones.
OK--why don't you give me your definition of socialism then? Because it clearly differs from most textbooks ones.
If I recall correctly a heavily progressive income tax was what Karl Marx recommended as the first step in his communist manifesto. Progressive income taxation is anti free market and discourages productivity. It is therefore wealth destroying. A free market economy is the most efficient. Anything else is using the "political means" rather than the productive means to get wealth and is less efficient and decreases general wealth available... So while Progressive taxation is not Socialism in its entirety it is socialist in nature.
FortWayne
2012 Nov 4, 11:31pm
The premise that free market is a cure to all ills is false. It has never functioned well for society. Human history is full of struggles and poverty.
People struggled to survive and often died in those "free markets" that chest pounding conservatives for some reason are so in love with lately.
I understand our system today isn't perfect, but going back to survival of the fittest isn't my idea of a "conservative" lifestyle.
coriacci1
2012 Nov 4, 11:41pm
Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem
expropriated surplus value IS the problem.
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 11:53pm
Progressive income taxation is anti free market and discourages productivity
Really--please explain the mechanism for that. How does a progressive income tax discourage productivity?
A free market economy is the most efficient.
Who is arguing against a free market economy?? How is that relevant?
tatupu70
2012 Nov 4, 11:54pm
expropriated surplus value IS the problem.
I think you misquoted me there. I strongly believe that wealth disparity IS the problem.
Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking the $431.5 billion we are spending in FY12 on welfare programs (including the EIC where it exceeds taxes paid, housing, unemployment, and family and children support) is the biggest problem the federal budget has.
Not to mention that all that assistance money goes directly or indirectly toward buying basic consumption that equals profits to the top end. The bottom 80% own roughly 7% of all financial assets. So, where does the money go when the bottom 80% buy toilet paper?
The premise that free market is a cure to all ills is false.
I hardly think anyone holds this premise but -agreed
FortWayne says
It has never functioned well for society.
Like communism a "free market economy" is probably a Utopia which never can exist, however if you think about it like a continuum with free market (liberty) on one end and communism (authoritarian) on the other then history is pretty clear that tending toward free markets has indeed "functioned well for society". I believe our current system is about 70% toward authoritarian and best described as a "Kleptocracy" or "Crony capitalism".
Confusing free market with survival of the fittest is not helpful the first and most legitimate purpose of government is protection (a monopoly on the use of force) and a "free" market implies mutual accord or the lack of force.
People have and will continue to struggle, suffer poverty, and yes die regardless of the political system invented. The first two are relative terms and the later inevitable.
As for conservative and liberal they are useless terms in modern usage with infinite vague definitions which change with each use.
« First « Previous Comments 34 - 73 of 138 Next » Last » Search these comments
The jobs are created only when the company needs people to create products, goods and services, not when they have money. I don't understand how you can be fooled into thinking that just because the companies or rich investors have more money from the tax break, they will hire. Do you think they will hire you to just sit around without producing anything, just because they have money to burn? You just wanna free money? Or you want to get paid for your hard work?
So why do you believe that giving money to the rich will create jobs? It seems to decrease the value of your money. The company is not going to hire you based on how much money they have saved or get from the investment but how much labor they need to produce or develop goods or services. So why?