"It's not our money. Stop coveting it."Mike, please,
stop. People are not coveting "rich" peoples money. They just want
as level of a playing field as possible. And there is no doubt that wealth
provides privilege. That is a fact, not a covetous act.Example of
how wealth can game the system. We'll pass on the most recent example via
the University admissions. Let's take Trump's wealth, things we do
know about it. Four times Trump has used the bankruptcy courts to get rid of
debt for his projects. The most famous of these Trump Casino in Atlantic City.
Trump's organization contracted with dozens of local contractors and
vendors to build this monument to his name."Hundreds of
companies" have filed for bankruptcy, Trump said earlier in the debate.
"I used the law four times and made a tremendous thing. I'm in
business. I did a very good job."What he did a "very good
job" of is walking away from having to pay these businesses for their
services and products. Large creditors could protect themselves, smaller one
just had to take it. That is the unfairness people are against...
as should you.
2Bits.... really. The plan going forward is based on one rich man who one one
year helped one class of students by paying off their student debt and one
university? That is the hope and proof that the system is working? This
happened at one university, one year. You do realize there are 4,360 Title IV
degree-granting institutions in the US. That is one school out of 4,360....
and that is a sign that the system is working?And this was a
university that was initially set up to serve a minority class of people...which
still serves largely a minority.The great news is it is a story that
people can rise up to a position where they are able to help people others out.
You can't give what you don't have. But this man rose up in a time
where there were programs to help him do exactly that. It was an overt act.
It was not incidental.Democrats don't vilify the rich... that
is a completely false argument. Many of the richest of the rich are democrats
for crying out loud. That line of divisive debate is not based on truth. What
many people - democrats and republicans alike - are against is greed that takes
advantage of the poor to amass more wealth. Huge Difference.
Nate You are forgetting a few things. Keeping the spending levels
the same and also cutting taxes is a double stimulus. Next is the
economy really better off with a close to trillion dollar deficit? It’s
an illusion just like if I spent beyond my means. I might look successful but it
is just debt.Next if spending is the problem then why cut taxes?
That doesn’t make sense. If I have a spending problem do I work less so I
have less money?Finally, republicans haven’t reduced spending
at all. They want to get elected so they don’t want to make the hard
choices. Tax cuts currently are worse than a spend and tax liberal because it is
all an illusion. Would you vote for a tax and spend liberal and you know it will
hurt your pocket or a tax cut and spend republican who is hiding the true cost
of cut because you didn’t sacrifice anything. You got your cut and
government services stayed the same.
@ShaunTax revenues are at an all-time high. You seem to think they
would be even higher without the tax cuts, but that it not necessarily true.
People make different economic decisions when they are allowed to keep more of
their own money.
2bitsI am fine with tax cuts but they are being used to buy votes.
The problem is conservatives have no political courage to cut
spending and on top of that they make it worse by putting us further in debt
with these tax cuts.If we have a spending problem the solution
isn’t to cut revenue it is to cut spending but republicans keep on cutting
@Cougar_et al fan:"I'd genuinely be interested to hear your
answer to your own question...."I think we'd do better
overall if we simply allow government spending to grow no faster than the
economy does.And until the debt is under control, I'd prefer
government spending growth to be 0.5 percentage points less than GDP growth.
Spending too much right now is like spending 15% of your retirement
savings in the first year of retirement, and never reducing spending. Yeah, it
allows a higher standard of living that first year, but you'll be broke by
age 75.Well, what we're spending right now is not sustainable.
There is also no tolerance for taxes high enough to meet that spending, at least
not in this country. It's a slow moving train wreck, but a train wreck
nonetheless. With any luck, the train won't hit the wall for
another 50 years or so. But when it does, it will be the end of the country as
we know it. ----That's not an answer to my own
question. But it points to one. We're trading comfort today for misery
tomorrow. Many people are better off today than they would be with lower
government spending, but it comes at a cost to their kids and grandkids.
@SC Matt - Saline, MIMay 20, 2019 12:21 p.m.You wrote:"There's an even better question, but one that's harder to
answer: "What do the poor have today, compared to what they *would have had
today* if conditions (tax rates, poverty programs) were different?"That's an interesting question. As you've said a few things on here
that I've both agreed and disagreed with, I'd genuinely be interested
to hear your answer to your own question....
Nunn24Unfortunately, labor is a commodity. You may not like that, or
agree. People are not, but the labor many provide is. Just like any commodity,
there are a number of sources from which you can obtain it. Make you labor worth
more than the next worker’s labor. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Isn’t there a biblical injunction saying something to the effect that
“he who provides not for his own is worse than the infidel”? Be
moral, make the labor commodity you provide more valuable.What if
the business owner cannot afford to pay the above market wages you suggest?
Where is the morality in causing a business to fail and costing others their
jobs?How do you know the rents charged are callous? How do you know
it isn’t just enough to cover the mortgage on it?
@Unrepentant progressive:"Square that circle for us, please,
please do so."Oh, goody, an easy question.But first,
I'll pose a question to you: If you knew that there was going to be a tax
law change but didn't know if the next change was going to be a tax
increase, or a tax cut, and you also knew that the change would apply to
everybody, would you want everybody's taxes to change by the same $$ amount
or by the same % of taxes they already pay?The liberal's answer
is a cop-out. "Just shift it further to the rich, no matter what." And I guess that's a kind of consistency. The consistency of not
having to really think about the issue. But I *have* thought about
the issue. And for me, the only way that ever makes sense is that those who
already pay more, get more of a cut. And if taxes have to go up, those who
already pay more will pay most of the burden of the tax increase as well.Same %, no matter what.So, a 5% tax cut will give a $50k
benefit to somebody paying $1M, and a $5 benefit to somebody paying $100. And for a 5% tax increase, it is a $50k tax increase vs. $5.Or would you prefer a $10k tax increase for somebody who was only paying $100
Mike Richards - South Jordan."So now a booming economy is
Trump's fault. A healthy stock market is the new scape goat. What total
nonsense. Every American who has a 401K plan or an IRA owns stock." Not every American has a 401K or IRA, they pay the highest price for the
tax cuts for the wealthy2 bits - Cottonwood Heights"RE: "market boom has been great for the rich"...---True. But it has also been great for the unemployed. But since it also
benefited another group (a group the Left hates)... it must be vilified,
right?Remember the saying... "A rising tide lifts all
boats"?"The boat of the wealthy rises faster.What in Tucket Provo"It is interesting the top three on the
Forbes 400 are BIll Gates, Buffet and Bezos all Democrats." Don't forget George Soros. It must irritate the conservatives to see
Dems create so many jobs, invent things and show great financial skills.Did you notice that the best educated and financially rewarded people
are in the blue states? 2 bits - Cottonwood Heights"Impartial7 RE: "By the time they wake up, it'll be too
late"...---"Too late for what?"Sounds like
you've already missed the boat.Now, about the deficit!
While Democrats are Vilifying the "Rich" today (and always)... Something
to think about...Last night I saw news of a guy asked to speak at a
college graduation, and he made the surprise announcement that he was going to
pay off the student loans for the whole graduating class! And he was a rich
guy! The villain of the left.Google "Billionaire Robert F.
Smith pledged to pay off student loans for every member of Morehouse
College's graduating class - CBS News"...Was it a poor man
who offered to pay off their student loans? Or a rich man?Have you
ever heard of a poor person doing this? I haven't. Maybe rich people
aren't scum who just want to hoard money after all?He gave $40
million to the students to help them get started. Can poor people do that?
Nope.So maybe having rich people in our country isn't a totally
bad thing?And just taking his money away from him when he earns it,
in the form of super-high taxes (as many Democrats propose)... Doesn't help
the poor. It doesn't go to the poor. It goes to the Government (who wastes
it mostly). Very little of it makes it to the poor to make them richer. They
get barely enough to survive from the government.
SCMatt"Where I come from, 20% and 12% are both bigger than
6.6%."Well, that is somewhat true, but playing with percentages
is a tricky thing. When that 20% means only a few bucks to some, that 6.6%
means hundreds of thousands to others. Square that circle for us, please,
please do so.procuradorfiscal"America can only
aspire to an 'equality' that amounts to all being made equally
miserable"That's a little over the top isn't it? This
is highly over speculative and downright nasty.No Names"Coveting is not the way to go"Are not the already wealthy
and Corporate America "coveting" their wealth and privilege? I
certainly concede that there is an element that is envious of those with great
wealth and privilege. However, the greater sin is the covetousness of those who
have already, not those who envy the person in possession.
@Nunn24 "'command economy' isn't actually at issue -- no one
is calling for that here."Have you thought about how the Green
New Deal would be implemented? Here are a few of its features."Medicare for all"Guaranteed employmentGuaranteed
college/trade schoolHousing as a human rightEliminate all fossil
fuelsRetrofit every building in AmericaOverhaul transportation and
agricultureThis is the very definition of a command economy. If you
support the Green New Deal, you are calling for a command economy. Nearly all of
the Democratic presidential candidates have expressed support for the Green New
Deal.I like your use of the word VOLUNTARY, and it is a most
important distinction to make. But not everyone is making it.
@Dart Thrower:"I have never heard a good explanation of why
billionaire hedge fund managers only pay 20% on their hundreds of millions. Or
why long-term capital gains are more sacred (also 20% top rate) than what a
person earns with their labor."You won't like this
explanation, so perhaps you will ignore it, but here goes:If you
invest $100 and then 20 years later you sell that investment for $300, but $200
buys what $100 used to buy, should you be taxed on the $200 income that you
made, or the $100 above inflation?I'd much prefer that the tax
system indexed investment income to inflation, and that in the above scenario
you're only taxed for the $100 that actually represents real earnings.However, some people think that method would be too complicated. So, a
compromise was made, and instead of an inflation index, the tax rate was capped.
However a laborer always earns current dollars, and therefore no
inflation indexing is needed.
@lost in DC "Over the past year, low-wage workers have
experienced the fastest pay increases"Not nearly enough. Housing
costs have tripled and quadrupled.@Nate"command
economy" isn't actually at issue -- no one is calling for that here.
The problem rather is that Conservatives use that as a Straw Man to
avoid the real issue: little sense of moral responsibility to VOLUNTARILY pay
one's employee a fair wage (they are not slaves, nor inhuman
"commodities") and to likewise voluntarily charge a housing rent that
isn't callously and amorally based merely on "what the market will
The Market "boom" did not make the rich richer. It was the GOP tax
plan. The market actually did much much better under President Obama
when compared to Trump's supposed "great performance".The stock market increased 82.27% during this same time under President
Obama.Under Trump, (who inherited a very healthy market) the
increase to this point is 17.56%The rich got richer due, and only
due to the GOP's massive tax give away to the ultra rich and corporations.
That caued the deficit to soar over one trillion more.So don't
tell us that it was the market that made the rich richer. It was the dishonest
GOP give away of our taxes to the filthy rich and corporations already flush
The rich get rich buddies elected for a reason.
Im just waiting for that middle class tax cut.
My vote for fixing taxes to make them more equitable is to provide the same tax
rates for "sweat of your brow" and "my money makes money for
me". I have never heard a good explanation of why billionaire hedge fund
managers only pay 20% on their hundreds of millions. Or why long-term capital
gains are more sacred (also 20% top rate) than what a person earns with their
labor. The US should honor the hard work of the average Joe and tax it at the
same rate as money earning money. And don't tell me that if we don't
kowtow to the rich they will leave. The US has by far the most generous tax
rates for the wealthy.
lost in DC - West Jordan, UTMay 20, 2019 10:43 a.m.Imp7I know
this may be asking a lot, but if you take an impartial and objective look at tax
rates, you will see that they went down for the middle class. Please explain how
having my tax rates go down shifts more burden to me.===You seem to be forgetting -- or ignoring -- the fact that tax cuts for the
middle class are limited to 5 years. But cuts for those at the top have no
It's sad that Americans who try to speak the truth are attacked so hard by
those who ignore the truth for whatever reason they choose to do so. Hang in there, Donna. And thanks for a good letter.
Nate,You have a good point. Nowhere in scripture does it say we should be
Forced to do the things you listed. In fact... that was the opposite plan from
the one we accepted (we believe we choose to have free will to do good, not be
Forced to do good).The solution is obviously to:Impart our
substance to the poor and the needy.Feed the hungry.Clothe the
naked.Visit the sick and administer to their relief.Succor those
that stand in need of succor.hold up the arms that hang down.Etc.But not by force. By choice. That would be the plan we accepted.
Not being forced to do the above by anybody, even government, but choosing to do
all of the above willingly.Do you give Fast Offerings to the
poor?Does anybody force you to give them?Did you choose to give
them?Good!Liberals will have to take the other route
(Government forcing them to do good). Not God's plan, but another plan.
@Kent C. DeForrest "No, but if you understand basic math, you also
understand that the trajectory we are on is unsustainable."Cool,
if it's unsustainable, it won't be sustained. The beauty of capitalism
is that if you see something isn't working, you have the liberty to change
your course.@Kent C. DeForrest "And in Utah, most of these
capitalist apologists are Latter-day Saints, who have scriptures that speak
specifically about the evils of wealth imbalances like we are seeing
today."And what do the scriptures say we should do about it?Impart our substance to the poor and the needy.Feed the hungry.Clothe the naked.Visit the sick and administer to their relief.Succor those that stand in need of succor.Preach the word of God to
them.These all appear to be individual, civic responsibilities.
Nowhere do I see the scriptures calling for a command economy, or forcing these
actions through taxation, or funding our own acts of charity out of the pockets
of the rich. They can all be done inside a free economy, and in fact may best be
done this way.
@Impartial7:"For most Americans, making less than 600 K, the tax
rate went down a small amount. "I'm trying to parse your
statement. The tax rate for somebody who is in one of the lower brackets
dropped 3 percentage points. (15% became 12%, and 25% became 22%.)3
percentage points out of 15 is a 20% drop in taxes. In the next bracket,
it's 12%.For those making over $600k, the drop is from 39.6% to
37%. That's a 2.6 percentage point drop, or about a 6.6% drop in taxes
paid.Where I come from, 20% and 12% are both bigger than 6.6%. "However, mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution
amounts went down as well as home equity loan interest went away for many.
"That's because the standard deduction went up. Instead of
itemizing because of $14k worth of deductions, the filer now deducts $24k
without itemizing. It's kind of hard to count that as a burden.
Impartial7Thank you for the reasoned and polite description.I
do not know others’ tax situations, but mine improved.According to bankrate dot com, the mortgage interest deduction caps at
interest paid on $1 million (married filing jointly). Those who lost some of
their mortgage interest deductions are the wealthy. The middle and lower
classes, with rare exception, are not carrying mortgage loans over $1MM. In
this area at least it increased taxes on the wealthy, but had little to no
impact on the middle and lower classes.The gas taxes and fees
– are those federal taxes and fees you can ascribe to the trump tax plan,
or local taxes and fees, over which he has no control?As for
charitable deductions – yes, the threshold to take advantage of them
increased, but the personal deductions also doubled. For many middle and lower
income folks the net effect was to their advantage. You are correct
about how huntsman, whose conservative credentials I question, really messed up
Utah’s tax system.
@NoNames:"The proper question to ask is what do the poor have
today, compared to what they had 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, and
100 years ago."There's an even better question, but one
that's harder to answer: "What do the poor have today, compared to
what they *would have had today* if conditions (tax rates, poverty programs)
were different?Economic growth is essential if we are to pay for
things we've already promised, and even more growth is essential if we want
to pay for things that we'd like to promise. There will always
be people pushing for the proposition that we should sacrifice growth for more
promises. As that side is more than sufficiently represented, I
will always be the counter, and argue that we need more growth to pay for it
all. Go slower. Let the economy get a little better, and then add on new
promises. But that idea isn't exactly new. Somebody wrote a
fable about it years ago. Something about a goose and some eggs.
Re: ". . . a lot of middle class GOP voters won't look at the numbers,
and believe the feel good rhetoric . . . ."At least that's
what desperate leftist politicians hope, anyway.It remains to be
seen whether the Left will be able to hoodwink America into voting for the ruin
that will certainly befall the Nation if it drifts further to the left. Their
approach seems to be suggesting that being better off is somehow bad, and that
America can only aspire to an "equality" that amounts to all being made
equally miserable -- except, of course, the Leftists in control.As
demonstrated most recently by Venezuela, but also by every leftist regime in
history -- the leftist oligarchs always come out on top.Here's
hoping the capture by the Left of the Nation's political, educational, and
entertainment industries hasn't left us so ignorant and foolish that
we'd buy into such claptrap.
@lost in DC - West Jordan, UTMay 20, 2019 10:43 a.m.Imp7I know
this may be asking a lot, but if you take an impartial and objective look at tax
rates, you will see that they went down for the middle class. Please explain how
having my tax rates go down shifts more burden to me."For most
Americans, making less than 600 K, the tax rate went down a small amount.
However, mortgage interest deductions and charitable contribution amounts went
down as well as home equity loan interest went away for many. This is similar to
Utah's plan. Slightly lower the tax rate, but eliminate deductions and
start taxing things never taxed before. Also, start raising gas taxes and fees.
It's the old GOP smoke and mirrors. Make the middle class think
they're getting a little back, but take much more from them in other ways..
It seems to work on half the population.
Anytime someone compares what the rich have to what the poor have they are on
the wrong track. The proper question to ask is what do the poor have today,
compared to what they had 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, and 100
years ago.I once toured a mansion built in about 1910. It had an
elevator, indoor running hot and cold water, central heat, power, etc. My
father's home of the same era lacked both indoor plumbing and electricity.
The only heat was from a wood burning stove. The only "refrigeration"
was a fruit box wrapped with a wet gunny sack in a tree in the back yard.I don't know how much lifestyle changes when a rich man acquires
his 2nd private airplane or private yaght. But it is easy to understand how much
things improve with power and indoor plumbing.As a child, I did not
enjoy air conditioning. Today, even in mild Salt Lake central air is common.Computers were once the realm of business only. Today, everyone has
one--with a mobile phone--in their pockets. Our people suffer not from hunger,
but from obesity. Cars are safer and more comfortable than ever.Today's poor live better than most of yesterday's rich. Coveting is
not the way to go.
The Trump economy has been good for the rich....and good for the poor. The
real standard of living has improved almost immeasurably even for low-income
earners. "Inequality" is not a problem in itself. Whenever
there is "success" that mean "inequality". Should I resent
Bill Gates making billions? I voluntarily bought a computer with his software
to make my life better! Should we penalize him for having helped so many people
make their lives better ? Every corporation that makes money does so by
supplying a product or service that people freely buy because they believe it
makes their lives better.
Imp7I know this may be asking a lot, but if you take an impartial and
objective look at tax rates, you will see that they went down for the middle
class. Please explain how having my tax rates go down shifts more burden to
me.PatrioticI see you could not argue the facts, so you argued
the source. Just because the WJS reported a fact it is no longer a fact? Thank
you for conceding. But please tell me, what is your objection to the
articles from the uber-liberal NYT, or CNBC?Where did all the
checkers at your grocery store go? Minimum wage laws priced them out of their
jobs, but with unemployment below 4% it’s easy to see they found better
jobs elsewhere. Sample Byline reported on 2/13/19 that those switching jobs saw
a 4.6% increase in pay.You blame interest rate hikes on trump?
Don’t you know the Fed controls rates?I did benefit from not
having to pay as much in taxes; I cannot help it if that offends youMy 401k will benefit from market increases even after I start drawing on it.
if yours does not, it may be unbalancedKentRead the book
yourself and tell us where it says that.
@Impartial7 8:25RE: "By the time they wake up, it'll be too
late"...---Too late for what?Too late to enjoy
higher unemployment (no excuse needed to not work there's no jobs even if
you wanted to work)?Too late to vilify the rich, and extol the
poor?Too late to tax families into oblivion (if they make more than
you do)?Too late to turn America's economy around (and straight
into the ground)?Too late for the Left to takeover America? (read "The Coming Insurrection" and "Rules For Radicals")Too late for what?Is more people working a bad thing?Is less people on food-stamps a bad thing?Is higher take-home for
middle-class families a bad thing?What's the matter... worried
about missing your opportunity here?What happens if we keep this
trend, and unemployment gets even lower? Is it a bad thing?What if
we don't punish people in the tax bracket above yours? Is that a crime?
A missed opportunity?
"I hate to break it to you, but a corporation will always shift a tax
burden, since it doesn't eat, doesn't sleep in a bed, doesn't
wear clothes, or many other things a human does. And it will always shift a tax
burden to either a worker (lower pay), a customer (higher prices) or a
shareholder (lower returns.)"Funny how a lefty seems to grasp
this concept when Trump raises tariffs, but goes way over their head when a
lefty raises taxes.
Conservatives believe that there are many winners in the game of monopoly, and
keep trying to convince others to play their game.This is the
economic plan of the GOP, that and as president Donald suggested, “We
should just go borrow a lot of money, hold it, and then sell it to make
money,” Cohn was “astounded” by the president’s
response, which he reportedly said illustrated a “lack of basic
understanding” about how federal debt works.Those who back up
this president have that same “lack of basic understanding” about
how federal debt works.
@Partial7:"the wealthy and corporations shift more tax burden on
them"I hate to break it to you, but a corporation will always
shift a tax burden, since it doesn't eat, doesn't sleep in a bed,
doesn't wear clothes, or many other things a human does. And it will
always shift a tax burden to either a worker (lower pay), a customer (higher
prices) or a shareholder (lower returns.) If you work you at least
two of those things. Three if you invest in a 401k.No matter what,
the tax burden that is nominally reported to the government on the corporate tax
return is a tax on every worker, customer or investor of that corporation.The same is basically true of the wealthy, since they likely got wealth
by doing the same sorts of things corporations do, like hire people and sell
products. The middle class ultimately bears the burden of any tax.
How could it be otherwise?
@Mike Richards, 2 bits, lost in DC:Trump's tax cuts & other
economic policies have benefited the poor & middle class, just as much as
denying climate change has benefited red states, such as Texas, Florida,
Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Georgia, the Carolinas, Alabama, etc. in the last few
years--all of whom have been hit by deadly weather-related disasters.Having 401K's that are doing well now, doesn't benefit you unless
you're actually retired & using them now. By the time many people who
currently have 401K's, retire, the huge deficit increasingly racked up by
Trump's tax cuts (unless it's fixed by Dems) will have caught up w/the
economy, & it will most likely have collapsed. And don't expect rich
CEO's & stock owners to care abt employees then, any more than they do
now. The mentality of many stock holders, CEO's, brokers, hedge
fund managers, bankers, etc., of today, (& those who mistakenly think
everyone who benefits from welfare programs are just lazy freeloaders), is
similar to the callous attitude of Louis XIV ("After me, the deluge")
& the nobility he surrounded himself with, & we all know how that
attitude benefitted his grandson, Loius XVI & his family & peers.
"Wealth is not a zero sum game."No, but if you understand
basic math, you also understand that the trajectory we are on is unsustainable.
Plot it on a graph, you'll see where we're headed. It ain't
pretty.I always find it interesting to see how conservatives (most
of whom are in the income category whose wages have stagnated over the past 40
years) defend the rights of the wealthy to game the system to their own
advantage. And in Utah, most of these capitalist apologists are Latter-day
Saints, who have scriptures that speak specifically about the evils of wealth
imbalances like we are seeing today. But it's easy to disregard these
verses from almost 200 years ago. Those principles surely don't apply to a
modern capitalist economy, do they? And doesn't GOP stand for God's
Only Party? He's surely a capitalist. It's in the Book of Mormon
somewhere, isn't it?
So Donna, you're worried about losing the dole.We should get
rid of the idea of a big sugar daddy (like Little Orphan Annie's
'Daddy Warbucks' picking up the tab for the 'po folk'. Such
programs should never have become what government does.Ultimately,
there is no 'free lunch'. It is all just a government sponsored Ponzi
scheme, which currently consumes over 80% of ALL Fedrral Government spending. It
will yet cause the ruin of our nation.Isaiah foresaw it over 2700
years ago--"And the people shall be oppressed, every one by
another, and every one by his neighbor..."--Isaiah 3:5 / 2 Nephi
13:5p.s. Although it would make Bernie Madoff proud!
It is interesting the top three on the Forbes 400 are BIll Gates, Buffet and
Bezos all Democrats. When. not if. the economy goes down if we get a socialist
president and Congress you will not be so happy unless you are a bureaucrat,
crony capitalists, or government worker. It is guarranted to go down hill. I am
not unsympathetic to the idea some are richer than they need to be. Taxing them
is popular with Democrats, but as they already pay a huge per cent of taxes and
if they move to a lower taxed state someone suffers.
@lost in DC:Sorry, quoting from the Wall Street Journal--a newspaper owned
by Robert Murdoch, the very same person who owns the famously "unbiased
& fact-based" Fox News & Entertainment--& which obviously tries
to sell to the country that a strong stock market benefits the ave worker, just
as much as it does those who actually own stock, because it creates jobs &
raises wages a piddlin amt (so CEO's & bank execs can continue to earn
their obscene salaries)--doesn't sell your claims one iota.Sure--wages have gone up a little for some people. Meanwhile, mega stores like
Walmart have gotten rid of thousands of jobs & installed mostly self-serve
check-out stations in stores across the country (My store used to always have
10-15 checkers--now it has 2). Where do all those former employees go to get
similar jobs in an ever shrinking physical-retail environment?It's easy to read a biased article & ignore realities of today's
economy, w/rising interest rates, house prices, medical/prescription costs,
& thanks to Trump's ever expanding tariffs, increases in everything
from food, clothing, & electronics to washers/dryers, automobiles, &
just abt anything else made w/steel or aluminum.
RE: "market boom has been great for the rich"...---True.
But it has also been great for the unemployed. But since it also benefited
another group (a group the Left hates)... it must be vilified, right?Remember the saying... "A rising tide lifts all boats"?The
unemployed can't be lifted without the rich also getting some benefit.
They are the one's creating the jobs. And when they need to hire more
people... they usually profit, as do the people they hire. That's how a
"Free Economy" works.So what if "non-Hispanic white
households" also benefit?How are you going to keep the
"non-Hispanic white households" from profiting, while only allowing the
demographic you like to prosper? Elect Bernie Sanders? Even he can't
do that!How do you propose we punish the people who create the jobs.
And at the same time motivate them to create more jobs? That makes no sense
Bernie fans!If Occupy Wallstreet types got their way...
America's economy would stall and jobs would go down the tubes. Do you
WANT to be unemployed?So why vilify people for being
"non-Hispanic whites" or 1%ers?Ever seen an economy grow
without 1%ers? I haven't.
Yeah, but a lot of middle class GOP voters won't look at the numbers, and
believe the feel good rhetoric that they aren't going backward as the
wealthy and corporations shift more tax burden on them. By the time they wake
up, it'll be too late.
So now a booming economy is Trump's fault. A healthy stock market is the
new scape goat. What total nonsense. Every American who has a 401K plan or an
IRA owns stock. A healthy stock market funnels dollars into their 401K and they
IRA. Every American who has that type of retirement fund gains when the stock
market is healthy. Every America who has a life insurance policy has money
(indrectly) invested in the stock market. Those insurance companies invest the
money they receive as premiums in the stock market. How do you think that they
have money to pay death benefits. The premiums that they charge could never pay
the total cost of the policies purchased. When I was an insurance agent, I was
taught how insurance works. It's fascinating from an economic point of
view.We are told to not covet. Why would we envy those whose
dollars makes it possible for us to buy homes or start businesses? Why would we
envy those whose dollars makes it possible for us to have a line of credit or
credit cards? Why would we envy those whose dollars were earned by THEM taking
risk when we were too timid?It's not our money. Stop coveting
Donna,Here are some recent articles I suggest you read prior to making
such comments:05/03/2019New York TimesOver the past
year, low-wage workers have experienced the fastest pay increases, a shift from
earlier in the recovery, when wage growth was concentrated at the top.03/13/2019CNBCThe recent jump in paychecks has come with an
unusual characteristic, as workers at the lower end of the pay scale are getting
the greater benefit.Average hourly earnings rose 3.4 percent in
February from the same period a year ago, according to the BLS. That’s the
biggest gain since April 2009 and seventh month in a row that compensation has
been 3 percent or better.What has set this rise apart is that
it’s the first time during an economic recovery that began in mid-2009
that the bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half — in
fact, about twice as much, according to calculations by Goldman Sachs.Jobs for the Forgotten Man 01/04/2019Wall Street JournalManufacturing employment fell by 210,000 during Barack Obama’s two
terms. It has risen by 473,000 jobs in Donald Trump’s first two years.Wealth is not a zero sum game.