put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
A wise man once said "Elections have consequences." I believe he also said ""I've got a pen and I've got a phone...and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions."
The left, why u no lke hte rulz?
(07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
(07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....
if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?
you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....
(07-30-2018 05:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....
if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?
you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....
well seeing as how american ownership in stock has gone down over the last 10 years, probably due to baby boomers wrecking the economy, I'd rather see wages go up across the country, which would affect every working citizen, versus something that only helps 50 percent of the country.
But that's just me.
(07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
Wrong. Please provide a link that shows ALL WAGE EARNER WAGES ARE DOWN, or retract and disavow.
(07-30-2018 05:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....
if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?
you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....
people have caught on to identity politics, time to pull the class warfare tricks out of the bag
(07-30-2018 05:21 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....
if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?
you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....
well seeing as how american ownership in stock has gone down over the last 10 years, probably due to baby boomers wrecking the economy, I'd rather see wages go up across the country, which would affect every working citizen, versus something that only helps 50 percent of the country.
But that's just me.
wrong.....and that's the problem.....it's not just you.....
How does even more money in the pockets of 5% of the population generate more spending by the other 95%?
We’ve hit the point of fiscal lunacy.
(07-30-2018 05:28 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]How does even more money in the pockets of 5% of the population generate more spending by the other 95%?
We’ve hit the point of fiscal lunacy.
maybe that money movement in totality creates more jobs......
but yeah, silly me for thinking such....
don't go to the inflation world......that guy is about as solid as it gets right now....
next???
(07-30-2018 05:25 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
Wrong. Please provide a link that shows ALL WAGE EARNER WAGES ARE DOWN, or retract and disavow.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/...or-workers
https://www.payscale.com/career-news/201...industries
these work for you?
Here's another
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax-...ses-879800
Link 1 - Fake News. The author even admits "Official data for the second quarter isn’t available yet"
Link 2 - A Fake News link mentioned in Link1. Nowhere does it say, backed by data, that wages for everyone went down. Instead, they are cherry picking a subset. Even the article admits that there are so few workers for certain jobs that their wages are increasing. The reason wages went DOWN for a subset group of hourly employees is because business started hiring like mad for entry level work, which led to MORE WORKERS. When averaging their salary in, it brings down the AVERAGE for that group, because you have an influx of low paying workers entering the market. The correct way to measure wages going up ad down would be to compare only the workers who worked in Q1, and compare those to the same workers in Q2. That would show wages up.
Link 3 doesnt even report facts, but instead base their analysis on a "study." A study in which their methodology page reports was created in 2017, PRIOR TO THE TAX CUTS GOING INTO EFFECT.
Again, nowhere did you show a link that showed actual data where the actual reported salaries for all workers went down.
(07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
Wages have been largely stagnant for the middle class since we were taken off the gold standard, imo.
(07-30-2018 05:21 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....
if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?
you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....
well seeing as how american ownership in stock has gone down over the last 10 years, probably due to baby boomers wrecking the economy, I'd rather see wages go up across the country, which would affect every working citizen, versus something that only helps 50 percent of the country.
But that's just me.
And how do you propose these wages will go up?
I see one of two rational ways:
1. we have some massive die off of working age people, maybe a plague or something.
2. Business accelerates and Co's need to chase a relatively finite supply of qualified employees by *ahem* offering better pay than the next guy.
Now, which is the best of those two ways?
If you picked the plague, then you better get started with the chemistry set.
If you picked incentivize business to expand and bring more people on board, how would one go about that? Taking more of their money, or less?!?
Eeeeeesh.
Want to grow middle class wages: Keep the wealth here in America instead of letting it escape to China.
(07-30-2018 05:21 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:09 PM)NCeagle Wrote: [ -> ] (07-30-2018 05:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]put the money back into the economy.....it's a pretty simple concept....
except it isn't that simple, because it doesn't happen that easily. Wages are down since the last tax cut. Corporations have gotten richer over the last 10 years, but median household incomes have barely risen, if at all. So if companies have been getting richer, how come their employees haven't?
oh god.....you listen to way too much rhetoric.....
if I net 100k when I sell a stock, and the amt. I give to the gov't is lowered, how does that not put more cash flow in movement relative to the economy?
you'll have to help me out why this isn't a good move if you believe in capitalism and incentive to work.....
well seeing as how american ownership in stock has gone down over the last 10 years, probably due to baby boomers wrecking the economy, I'd rather see wages go up across the country, which would affect every working citizen, versus something that only helps 50 percent of the country.
But that's just me.
A LOT of people got burned, and badly, in the '08-'9 debacle (I know I did as well as '01) and are still gun shy about stocks. Especially if they are going to need that money relatively soon for funding retirement.
Of course if they
did stay out, they lost out on one of the great stock market booms in decades.
The fact that we had to slog through the near decade until the last 18 months did indeed keep a lid on wages cause businesses weren't growing and expanding as they historically have following a recession, largely due to uncertainty and the onerous regulatory state coming out of DeeCee. Fortunately there are now signs that may be changing.
(07-30-2018 05:28 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]How does even more money in the pockets of 5% of the population generate more spending by the other 95%?
We’ve hit the point of fiscal lunacy.
Well it's bound to increase spending more than it going to the government.
(07-30-2018 05:28 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: [ -> ]How does even more money in the pockets of 5% of the population generate more spending by the other 95%?
We’ve hit the point of fiscal lunacy.
So you don't own any stocks, no IRA, no 401k or pension? That is lunacy. And it's waaaaay more than any 5% number. Hell most anyone in the public sector has one of these vehicles. I can go get a job at the local sheetz and they set one up for you.
Matter of fact just last night I encouraged my son to start having a bit withheld from his check every two weeks to go into a fund with a match from his employer after he got a letter offering the bene.
Yea, he delivers pizzas for Pizza Hut.
5% my left nut.
