the rich get richer

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1572119 wrote:If the program is enacted with some foresight, they will be restricted in removing their illgotten gains.
  No it is not happening today, but the momentum is building.
  
  And you are right the rest of the world does have more combined wealth than the US, so?

  I said nothing of world wealth. I spoke of world economy. With world economic opportunities greater than a century ago. Wealthy have already begun to leave so restrictive legislation will be reactive and may be too late.
  
  "
  "In 2012, a Bloomberg report found a growing number wealthy Americans were choosing to give up their U.S. citizenship rather than pay high taxes when living outside of the country. Now, in light of the expiration of the payroll tax cut, 2013 could be the biggest year for expatriation due to high taxes to date.
  
  Some of the more notable Americans who have recently given up citizenship include actor Jet Li, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin and socialite Denise Rich."
  
  [LEFT]
  Read more: Americans Turn in their U.S. Citizenship to Avoid Taxes
  
  [/LEFT]
  
  I wish you luck in building your momentum. If you are relying on this as the key to US prosperity I hope you are a patient man.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1572121 wrote:away to increase opportunity as the GI Bill did after WWII

  ...we live in a very different economic world today than following WWII.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1572126 wrote:I said nothing of world wealth. I spoke of world economy. With world economic opportunities greater than a century ago. Wealthy have already begun to leave so restrictive legislation will be reactive and may be too late.
  
  "
  "In 2012, a Bloomberg report found a growing number wealthy Americans were choosing to give up their U.S. citizenship rather than pay high taxes when living outside of the country. Now, in light of the expiration of the payroll tax cut, 2013 could be the biggest year for expatriation due to high taxes to date.
  
  Some of the more notable Americans who have recently given up citizenship include actor Jet Li, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin and socialite Denise Rich."
  
  [LEFT]
  Read more: Americans Turn in their U.S. Citizenship to Avoid Taxes
  
  [/LEFT]
  
  I wish you luck in building your momentum. If you are relying on this as the key to US prosperity I hope you are a patient man.

  two nominal Americans and one known corrupter of the political system. Hopefully when the action is taken they will lose the bulk of their assets when they take their permanent one way trip out of our country.
  
  Hopefully the momentum is there, we will see.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1572128 wrote:...we live in a very different economic world today than following WWII.

  yes times are different, a post secondary education is much more necessary today than then.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1572146 wrote:two nominal Americans and one known corrupter of the political system. Hopefully when the action is taken they will lose the bulk of their assets when they take their permanent one way trip out of our country.
  
  Hopefully the momentum is there, we will see.

  
  More hope. If it's hope you are banking on, I wish you luck.
  
  Ther are more than 2. Lol. There are also many more who are still here but have moved their assets.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1572147 wrote:yes times are different, a post secondary education is much more necessary today than then.

  ...but not truly desired by by the masses. Secondary education can be had by anyone ....especially the financially disadvantaged....if they choose to get it.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1572151 wrote:...but not truly desired by by the masses. Secondary education can be had by anyone ....especially the financially disadvantaged....if they choose to get it.

  I think the masses want it
  Even though millions can not afford to go, we have:
  Enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, enrollment increased 37 percent, from 15.3 million to 21.0 million. Much of the growth between 2000 and 2010 was in full-time enrollment; the number of full-time students rose 45 percent, while the number of part-time students rose 26 percent. During the same time period, the number of females rose 39 percent, while the number of males rose 35 percent. Enrollment increases can be affected both by population growth and by rising rates of enrollment.
  
  Between 2000 and 2010, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 27.3 million to 30.7 million, an increase of 12 percent, and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 35 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. In addition to enrollment in accredited 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and universities, about 539,000 students attended non-degree-granting, Title IV eligible, postsecondary institutions in fall 2009. These institutions are postsecondary institutions that do not award associate's or higher degrees; they include, for example, institutions that offer only career and technical programs of less than 2 years' duration. In recent years, the percentage increase in the number of students age 25 and over has been larger than the percentage increase in the number of younger students, and this pattern is expected to continue. Between 2000 and 2010, the enrollment of students under age 25 increased by 34 percent. Enrollment of students 25 and over rose 42 percent during the same period. From 2010 to 2020, NCES projects a rise of 11 percent in enrollments of students under 25, and a rise of 20 percent in enrollments of students 25 and over.
• isadore

  the source for the above
  http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1572149 wrote:More hope. If it's hope you are banking on, I wish you luck.
  
  Ther are more than 2. Lol. There are also many more who are still here but have moved their assets.

  I guess one question would be how many is "many more."
• gut

  I don't begrudge people the money they've earned, and even leaving sizeable amounts to their children. However, I don't support estates presenting significant "multi-generational" wealth.
  
  Estate taxes used to be at least 60% (including state/inheritance taxes)...which means your grandchild still theoretically gets 36% of your estate. But that ignores that some inheritances are large enough to grow back well beyond 100% in real terms, even after expenditures, with investment gains.
  
  I also don't think Bill Gates should have to give the bulk of his fortune to govt if he instead wants to give most of it to charity. If he didn't, even at a 95% estate tax he's still be leaving over $3B to heirs. And with such a high number tax %, people would end-up giving most of their fortune to charity - which is a problem if your goal is to maximize revenues.
• gut

  I also don't think it's right to re-distribute a fortune to people who mostly have nothing to do with its production. So let's instead argue that Bill Gates should have distributed his fortune to his employees...With an estimated 100k employees worldwide, that would imply everyone at MS could have $600,000+ in additional wealth. The problem with that is it would misallocate resources - you'd end-up with the rocket scientist sweeping floors because he can't make nearly as much money anywhere else.
  
  Maybe what it all really boils down to is if the govt was better at spending our money, people would be willing to pay more in taxes (and in the case of people like Gates, maybe even overpaying because the govt would be more productive with the money than various charities).
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1572162 wrote:the source for the above
  http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

  
  Mor kids than not have no interest in going.
• HitsRus

  

  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june14/mobility_01-24.html

  Yes, we were quite surprised, because I think many Americans have the perception, and certainly the public conversation has been that prospects for upward mobility are declining in the U.S.And, to the contrary, what we found is that your odds of climbing up the income ladder haven't actually changed significantly, even while the amount of inequality, as has been widely discussed, has increased substantially over this period.

  The wealth disparity fell during the Great Depression as the upper %'s were hammered by investment losses.
  Upward mobility has not changed (declined)in 40 years. A surge in upward mobility occurred post WWII from economic expansion fueled by the baby boom.
  
  Thanks Baby boomers!
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/as-obama-hammers-income-inequality-gap-grows-under-his-presidency/

  In other words, income inequality has become more pronounced since the Bush administration, not less.
  "Rich people have pulled away, largely because the top 1 percent has been doing quite well -- and disproportionately doing quite well under President Obama," Brooks said. "Remember that the stock market has doubled in value since President Obama took office, and at least 80 percent of those gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the income distribution."

  Thanks, Obama !
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1572191 wrote:Mor kids than not have no interest in going.

  Gosh census statistics show 50% of 20-21 year olds are registered in college or vocational school. Plus the fact that others in their 20s. 30s, 40s 50s come back for post secondary education and\or vocationa ltraining. ] Plus millions of others who would want to go to school
  Free post secondary education would provide a service that would help most Americans, increasing their opportunity.
  https://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/2012/tables.html
• Con_Alma

  Sounds like there no need to help....if you buy into your stats.
  
  There's either enough aid available based on the massive amount taking advantage of it or there's no additional interest.
  
  That doesn't even address the issue of we don't even have the money now to pay for additional aid and taxing to get it is just more Robinhood like efforts.
  
  P.S. Free secondary education isn't going to happen. I think OWA learned that with the backlash they received about it.
• isadore

  HitsRus;1572200 wrote:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june14/mobility_01-24.html
  
  
  The wealth disparity fell during the Great Depression as the upper %'s were hammered by investment losses.
  Upward mobility has not changed (declined)in 40 years. A surge in upward mobility occurred post WWII from economic expansion fueled by the baby boom.
  
  Thanks Baby boomers!
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/21/as-obama-hammers-income-inequality-gap-grows-under-his-presidency/
  
  
  Thanks, Obama !

  Gosh a ruddies what do the authors of the report have to say.
  Yet the growth rate of absolute mobility has slowed, as economic growth has slowed to a disappointing level over the last 15 years. The incomes of middle-class and poor families have slowed even more sharply, because a large share of recent economic gains have gone to a small slice of affluent workers — often described in political shorthand as “the 1 percent.”
  For all the continuity over recent decades, the authors emphasized that parents appeared to cast a longer shadow over their children’s lives, in some ways, than before. As inequality has risen, pushing the rungs on the income ladder further apart than they once were, the average economic penalty of being born poor has grown over time.
  “It matters more who your parents are today than it did in the past,” Mr. Chetty said.
  “The level of opportunity is alarming, even though it’s stable over time,” said
  Emmanuel Saez, another author and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/upward-mobility-has-not-declined-study-says.html?_r=0
  Today, the odds of escaping poverty appear to be only about half as high in the United States as in the most mobile countries like Denmark, Mr, Sauz said.
  
  http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Business/Pix/pictures/2010/3/10/1268227012893/OECD-report-001.jpg
  　
  　
  　
  It makes a laugh out of the claim of “land of opportunity.”
  And of course Obama has been trying for years to aid in income inequality by trying to raise taxes on upper income groups. He has been frustrated by the gerrymandered House of Representatives. They have been able to protect the economic advantages including tax cuts put into effect by the Reagan\Bush administration.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/business/obamas-tax-plan-would-spare-many-affluent-families.html
  
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1572208 wrote:Sounds like there no need to help....if you buy into your stats.
  
  There's either enough aid available based on the massive amount taking advantage of it or there's no additional interest.
  
  That doesn't even address the issue of we don't even have the money now to pay for additional aid and taxing to get it is just more Robinhood like efforts.
  
  P.S. Free secondary education isn't going to happen. I think OWA learned that with the backlash they received about it.

  Free secondary education has already happened, although many right wing royalists would like it done away with. But free Post secondary education is a very achievable goal. The massive profits made by the economic elite of America are a rich source of funding. There is obvious interest in it and millions who can not afford to take the opportunity. And of course in the new evolving economy further education and training are increasingly necessary.
• isadore

  gut;1572165 wrote:I don't begrudge people the money they've earned, and even leaving sizeable amounts to their children. However, I don't support estates presenting significant "multi-generational" wealth.
  
  Estate taxes used to be at least 60% (including state/inheritance taxes)...which means your grandchild still theoretically gets 36% of your estate. But that ignores that some inheritances are large enough to grow back well beyond 100% in real terms, even after expenditures, with investment gains.
  
  I also don't think Bill Gates should have to give the bulk of his fortune to govt if he instead wants to give most of it to charity. If he didn't, even at a 95% estate tax he's still be leaving over $3B to heirs. And with such a high number tax %, people would end-up giving most of their fortune to charity - which is a problem if your goal is to maximize revenues.

  a continuing economic based aristocracy could be a true drag on economic opportunity in America
• gut

  Con_Alma;1572208 wrote: P.S. Free secondary education isn't going to happen. I think OWA learned that with the backlash they received about it.

  It could happen, it just won't be worth the time as it will be viewed as inferior to someone willing to pay/take out a loan to get their degree from a better school.
  
  "Hey, I have a college degree from Podunk U".....great, here's your broom.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  " But free Post secondary education is a very achievable goal."
  
  It already works to some degree in other countries, like more socialized sovereigns in Europe - here is the kicker. There are standards. Not everyone is a special snowflake and expects to get a college education, they weed out students early.
  
  It is the same way with immigration. It sticks in my crawl to hear the American intelligentsia praise some European universal healthcare system, but completely ignore that if you aren't a citizen, or have a valid work visa. You can't just move to Norway, or France, or Germany, or the UK and just expect to get government benefits. No country has ever successfully handled open immigration and birth-death social safety nets. If an American 'liberal' is upset about 'intolerant' right-wing views on immigration they'd be shocked to hear the mainstream views of immigration in the EU. We are far and away the most open country for immigration.
• bases_loaded

  

  Post secondary education is over saturated. World needs more ditch diggers.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1572264 wrote:
  It already works to some degree in other countries, like more socialized sovereigns in Europe - here is the kicker. There are standards. Not everyone is a special snowflake and expects to get a college education, they weed out students early.

  
  Good point. Can you imagine the outcry from the left if 8th grade students were herded toward shop, home ec, or trades? LOL "sorry, kid, you're stupid....let's teach you how to use a mop and a broom"
• gut

  bases_loaded;1572269 wrote:World needs ditch diggers, too

  Might be my #1 all-time favorite quote from a movie....Hollywood today probably wouldn't allow that line to make the cut.
• isadore

  gut;1572257 wrote:It could happen, it just won't be worth the time as it will be viewed as inferior to someone willing to pay/take out a loan to get their degree from a better school.
  
  "Hey, I have a college degree from Podunk U".....great, here's your broom.

  gosh a ruddies that did not happen in Norway, Denmark and Finland that has the best school system with outstanding public universities
• isadore

  bases_loaded;1572269 wrote:Post secondary education is over saturated. World needs more ditch diggers.

  ditch digging mostly done by machines.
  post secondary education is not restricted to academic education but also include advanced vocational training.