What I haven't heard is a clear statement that "Millionaires shouldn't draw Medicare, Social Security, VA nor any other government assistance." It wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes so much if millionaires were cut off.
CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES! -- but as it is Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
We have no income tax in NH for years...so all the rich ppl from Massachusetts have been moving here for many years and raising the cost for regular ppl. The state gets money from property taxes mostly so rent is higher for everyone. Everytime we try to pass a state income tax the rich ppl defeat it. They run the state (like most states).So low public services...but the roads are ok .Its a good place to live if you can afford the rent.
Does he not realize that the Rich buy nicer more expensive cars, nicer expensive houses, nicer kitchens, oh and more expensive lifestyle that can be taxed.
Don't forget rich people are mostly business owners so they have to pay sales taxes on all the equitment it takes to run and operate their business.
@Salvysahagun - Rich people buy a lot less often overall than non-rich people do. Rich people don't buy yachts and cars every month like non-rich people have to buy groceries every month. Equipment for business can potentially be deductible expenses.
@Salvysahagun - Not always but a lot of the time. There aren't many expenses with a sales tax that non-rich people can use as a deductible. Rich people do by more expensive food (not sure if they eat out more or not, a lot of them can afford personal chefs and nutritionists) but overall they still don't buy expensive stuff as frequently in a lifetime as non-rich people buy cheap(er) stuff.
Buffet also fails to report the Money he paid in Taxes through his corporate tax on his companies when reporting his income tax. Thats almost 18% (income) + 25% (corporate) is 43% tax. 7% above highest marginal.
@Draugh39 Math has everything to do with nature. Nothing in nature has no math, nothing in math is alien to nature. A little observation reveals this easily. You can't found counter-evidence, that's certain
"Economics deals with people and the behaviour of people and each person is a
You simply do not understand the difference between mathematics being used in the study of nature or being part of nature. Maths is used to create models which describes nature. Nature is NOT the models. Furthermore you can make scientific theories without maths, just look at the work of Pasteur and Darwin.
"nothing in math is alien to nature"
Really, please tell me where you have observed a 23 dimensional hypercube?
@Draugh39 when you collect any 23 (there's plenty) aspects of nature for which one does not depend on the other you can indeed construct such a hypercube.
Nope you can't. YOU CAN MAKE A MATHEMATICAL MODEL. The question was have you ever OBSERVED a 23-D Hypercube and that you haven't because you can't see in more than 3D.
You say "23 aspects that does NOT depend on the other"?! If that is the case then the model is bollocks. If you don't have correlation between the 23 dimensions you can't have an object described in this 23-D space, as that REQUIRES correlation between them.
Many non-visual parts of the world are also as good as 3-D sight.
And all can be combined.
Are combined.
I don't actually process information in only a 3-D way at any time. It's too simple.
Dimensions are NON-CORRELATED not correlated by the way or you can reduce one down into the other, removing a dimension. Non-correlation is REQUIRED (e.g. (0,0,1) can not represent any multiple of (0,1,0) )
And here you show that you don't understand the difference between a model and reality. Science is observation based, until you you have experimental verification it is just "pretty mathematics" as the model has not been tested against reality.
Furthermore an object described in n-dimensional space (such as a hypercube in 23 D) actually shows correlation between the n-axis as each point on the object is a vector product.
Nope. If you are constructing a random coordinate system you are correct. However if the coordinate system is selected in order to describe an object (which is what was talked about) there is a correlation as each point on the object are vector products of the basis vectors and thus show the correlation between those. You can't select those base vectors randomly anymore. They are however normally set to be orthogonal, is that what you are referring to?
@Draugh39 Nature has more than 23 orthogonal vectors if you count more than just a measure of distance. That is what I'm talking about. Ratios of forces, ratios of chemical reactions, ratios of multiple size-scales. All independent, and yes, you can form a hypercube to describe it. It's not a model, it's the actual observed reality.
You are missing the point. The original statement was:
"[you] "nothing in math is alien to nature"
Really, please tell me where you have observed a 23 dimensional hypercube?"
Maths often describe things that do not occure in nature. 23 D hypercubes have never been observed. Thus maths describe things that does do not occur in nature, just like any other language. A math's model isn't reality and can can be contrary to nature. You need observations to determine its truthvalue.
For example: I work with "incommensurately modulated structures" which needs to be described in more dimensions than "3" (quasicrystals are a subgroup of this). However I can't just pick any random orthogonal basis set in order to do describe the crystal structure. The ones I use must describe the periodicity and symmetry of the atomic arrangement. If I select this wrongly it will fail to describe the structure, because it doesn't show the correlation that exists in the object. Ok?
@ytgv3fc7 "You're really, really far down the list of being worth replying to."
You don't like to answer a question you don't have the answer to because you've never thought about it. Just see how many stupid answer you have returned in this video alone.
@allgoo19 You better - so far I've given you the most profound knowledge you've EVER laid your eyes on so I'd like to see you try to twist that around the other way.
Just so you understand what I mean. There is a difference between a coordinate system that describes nothing and a coordinate system selected in order to describe an object. ok?
Economics deals with tangible resources. From nature. People can't do things which nature does not allow. That's why the mathematics of nature allows smart people to win in markets. People lose only by failing to understand this.
This puts nothing more than 1 to 10 variables per resource & locale and you rarely need to use them all to make a winning play
That doesn't matter. How those resources are used are still based on the actions of humans and those actionas are NOT the same in all cases. This is easily observed. Are you telling me that the use of resources is the same in a capetalistic and a socialistic country?! (If so cite your sources)
Economics is a social science for that very reason.
Well actually, as Warren Buffett is an agnostic-atheist, the Bible states that he will go to Hell. On the other hand Hell might be a nicer place than Heaven all things considered....
All sales taxes are regressive since people spend AFTER income tax dollars when they consume goods. Also, rich people pocket most of their income, so much of what they make isn't subject to sales taxes. Meanwhile, the Middle Class and working poor spend EVERYTHING they make, so the sales tax burden on them is heaviest as a percentage of income.
I wish the red states would leave the union already, if they did, the budget would pretty much balance itself, taxes could be raised, & a surplus would be created.
It's not hard solving the US debt problem, it's hard getting through to those idiots who vote for republicans.
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, ruined home values, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Cenk is a complete retard or he just blew Gyorgi Schwartz.
Economic growth and stability is the goal in Georgia.
Georgia is trying to keep small businesses alive during this Progressive Armagedon.
Georgia must have a balanced budget unlike Obamaland and can't print Progressive fiat dollars.
According to the Federal reserve bank of Georgia:
"relative marginal tax rates have a statistically significant negative relationship with relative state growth" - it will have a positive long term effect.
The whole American tax system sucks. VAT's the fairest way to go. Sweden, France, and many other countries use it, and they actually have LOWER personal tax rates as a result--which surprises most people. In America, our only tax policy is to be to find the softest, politically-vulnerable targets to soak: the youth, student tuition, the evil "rich" who actually keep the country productive. Pretty much the most economically regressive method of taxation.
yeah but then those evil rich people will have to pay more for their toys
just dont tax clothes, food, the house you are living in, and used cars
gas taxes pay for roads
then you wont need 401ks and you can invest your money without thinking your getting a deal by not having to pay taxes on money you wont see inflated away
Cenk : in Europe, we have VAT around 20 % in every country (up to 25 in some), plus income tax (and the poors in Europe pay more taxes than the wealthy in USA). If you want social goods (like free education or health care), everyone has to pay for it. Our european system of taxation may be less progressive than in the USA, but at least everyone here has access to some social goods.
Most of your taxes don’t even go to the government they go to the Federal Reserve they create the money out of thin air then loan it to your government at interest that the IRS rip form you through those very taxes, they aren’t just taxing there gain there taxing there inflation the higher they make the inflation the more of your money they take. Your being robbed
All the budget cuts, all the culture wars, all the antiabortion protests and all the wars are all about one thing- making the rich richer. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar.
I am curious if Cenk realizes that most sales taxes (although this could be different) are not on needs. Unprocessed food, and basics like electricity do not have a sales tax. It is on the extras in life. So if the poor can afford a new TV, then I am not really concerned that they have to pay a sales tax.
@robertrulebirtannia and that is what exactly is needed here. America is like the Titanic, sinking fast and manned by idiots, carrying wealthy snobs and immigrants. No happy endings.
Well come on people. When the GOP promised lower taxes to get the votes last year who did you think they were talking about? The poor, Ha. The lower middle class, Ha. The middle class, double Ha. Nooo the tax cuts have always been for the rich cronies that bought and paid for them. Is anyone really surprised by this.
All gov't services must be stopped and all income taxes must be cut.
All wars and all subsidies and all bail outs and all departments and all regulations... gov't must shrivel and shrink into 0.1% of what it is today.
There must be no income taxes, only sales taxes if gov't needs any funding. Only vice taxes and excise - alcohol, gambling, drugs - that's what gov't must live off of.
We need a flat tax rate for the entire nation. All citizens whether rich or poor could pay something like 8% of income. This would lift the burden on the poor and it would also stop the conservatives from bitching about liberals trying to punish success. This would work if we stopped giving aid to countries who don't need it.
@TheGiantRobot Saving does NOT hinder the economy. Savings promotes survival & has been in extreme deficit in North America for a long time. A healthy amount of saving is NO LESS than 30% of income. Anything less is foolish, 0% is total suicide.
It does. Economic trade happens when there's trade. When they talk about a slowdown in the economy they are talking about a slow down of trade. This is why it's so devastating to move most of our wealth into the hands of only a few - they don't need to spend it, so it just sits.
If you want the lower classes to save, you must not be for raising sales taxes. It's hard enough for them to save as it is. It's not suicide, it's murder.
@TheGiantRobot trade happens when there's trade? Your words, not mine. Circular argument.
Slowdown of the economy is NOT trade: it's a slow-down of PRODUCTION, or using a less accurate metric, consumption. Devastation is having NO wealth - it WILL be spent as soon as it can be but there's nothing of value to spend it on except HARD ASSETS. Food & fuel are low-risk assets to hold, real-estate is a high-risk asset, companies are often high risk too. Too much fraud today.
It's not a circular argument, I'm pointing out trade = trade, it couldn't be simpler.
Slow down of the economy is certainly not slow down of production when they are talking about the U.S. economy. They are always referring to transactions - again, trade.
For that to be a circular argument, "trade = trade" would have to be a fallacious argument. Are you actually disputing that trade = trade?
With the level of ignorance, (erroneous) semantic nitpicking, and repeated attempts to do so even when you are corrected, I'm not inclined to believe anything you report as being accurate.
@TheGiantRobot Fallacious arguments also include those which offer no information: contradiction is not required. So your argument is indeed fallacious.
You did not correct me for you were wrong. You did not correct yourself either so you're wasting your time AND still wrong. Production alone is the metric of the economy, everything else you wrote is incorrect. A producing economy can CONSUME without trading. This is HEALTHY. Trading without producing is DANGEROUSLY STUPID.
OMG. You couldn't really be more full of shit, could you? I bet it's hell in there, and I'm glad. You love bullshit, you deserve it. And here's a funny little thought for you - when you die, you go to what you love. Have fun.
@TheGiantRobot I am not trying to get people to buy gold & silver. I am happy to show the math of why doing so is beneficial. You can do anything you want. If you want to hold paper & pretend it's money, that's fine by me. It just means later on you'll be broke & I won't. Please enjoy your poverty. The purpose of the math videos is to taunt idiots who can't / won't buy silver + gold for being dumb, and to teach smart people how to read the fraud in all markets
@Rundstedt1 are you foolishly referring to me with a Tea Party video? Tea Party people are a) stupid + b) Republican + c) American. I'm CANADIAN & belong to no political party.
It doesn't matter, there are lunatics in Canada too obviously, and you have been pushing the exact same garbage as they do. You have been sounding like a Canuck Glenn Beck.
@TheGiantRobot I'm only the most incredible genius you have ever been graced to talk to ever, you should be grateful, little one. Production & only production is a proper metric for the economy. Everything else is a fraud. You either obey the fraud out of ignorance or complicity. My true and powerful knowledge allows me to avoid being a victim of this nonsense fraud at all times.
@TheGiantRobot Feel sorry for your own ignorance. Look at what the silver prices just did the last 2 weeks and look at my videos showing this weeks in advance. It's me that's feeling sorry for your ignorance - my genius has proven itself in cold hard facts.
@TheGiantRobot slowdown of the economy is always production, any other metric is either flawed or fraud.
In the case of referring to transactions this is deeply flawed. Once incorrect data is included from BLS models and other things then it becomes fraud. Production is the only proper metric of economic activity, never trade.
@TheGiantRobot I want ALL people to save, not just the lower classes, and I am for abolishing estate taxes of every kind, and using sales tax rebates for the lower income people. We live in this system in Canada, we have GST rebate cheques. The rich get none. This is the right way to do things, proven repeatedly by example.
If you want all people to save, you don't tax sales of regular items. Poor people can't save what they don't have. It's quite basic. Creating a complicated patchwork to repair a fundamentally upside down system is wasteful, easy for people of means to get around, and probably done for one reason only - it's making someone rich.
@TheGiantRobot "I won't go on, because allgoo19 has said it all."
That person has shown only ignorance, if you agree with his/her points then you too are quite ignorant.
"If you want all people to save, you don't tax sales of regular items."
No reason not to. Just rebate to the poorest people from income tax. Add luxury taxes for what poor people never buy either. Now wages for the poor have zero tax & consumption also has net zero tax.
Even if you don't agree with him, you (hopefully) recognize that he certainly has not shown only ignorance. Your credibility at this point is pretty much zero.
@TheGiantRobot this "complicated patchwork" is incredibly easy & is in full operation across Canada. For example, a single unemployed person should expect to receive at least $60 per 3 months in GST rebate. GST is at 13% or HST 15% in some provinces (with its own HST rebate). So 60 / 0.013 = $461.54 of purchases before tax in 3 months. Is it enough? Probably not, but changing the number upward is not difficult. This excludes food, medicine, various items which never have tax
@allgoo19 taxing savings kills everything. Savings are already taxed by inflation. If you tax savings you either a) cause a mass riot & everyone is murdered who did it or b) you cause a mass exodus & everyone who can work to get savings will leave the country, then work for savings. Savings are the single most important kind of wealth ever. You can't morally do this: what you propose is vicious evil.
@ytgv3fc7 "Savings are already taxed by inflation."
By what percentage? This must be a joke.
a), b), all in your imagination. And when those happened in the history?
We already have(had) a savings taxation system but called it a diferent name. It's called "Progressive taxation system". It worked pretty well, and US had best economy and the strongest dollar.
@allgoo19 "By what percentage? This must be a joke"
This is no joke: savings are taxed by inflation at a percentage of 10% per year currently.
This is called INFLATION. By printing money & letting only a select group of non-savers use it, everyone else's savings is destroyed by the same % growth in the money supply. That's why the 10% at this moment reflects 10% money supply increase x the money velocity applied by that to goods required for survival (fuel, food)
@allgoo19 stacked set of replies at low-priority level.
Taxing savings kills everything because savings are the only source of life in bad times which must come. Bad times MUST come, this is the way of the EARTH, of nature. Savings are food, gold, water, fuel, tools. Without them survival will end in bad times. Many fools claim it is not so, then they are killed in bad times.
Clearly I am the smartest person you ever will talk to, you best lean that son.
@ytgv3fc7 "Taxing savings kills everything because savings are the only source of life in bad times which must come.."
Simple question to ask.
What if savings are encouraged to the extreme that nobody spends anything, how the economy will be?
For the note, I'm talking about the saving in big numbers like over 90% of income, instead of 25-50% most people would like to put aside for rainy days.
@allgoo19 That's physically impossible. Savings are always spent, it is only a matter of time.
No one can save more than 90% of income, income is not high enough and physically can not be. Survival requires at least 30 to 60% spending of all income. 25-50% is very uncommon. 0 to 3% is typical.
@allgoo19 So few make that kind of money that it needs to be a problem. It is not a problem. Savings are spent, by the person who got them or by another on their behalf, at a time of need, even including inheritance. A person who may have little means could inherit and then spend those savings to continue living, whereas without it there's nothing to spend. If a person is denied savings the obvious result is they shall refuse to work. Maybe work for a meal but not at a job. Why bother?
@allgoo19 they save small enough it is not the 90% savings glut you speak of, which does not exist.
I did know that.
Ownership is not the question, savings is. The ownership % in classes is not part of your question.
A millionaire uses at least 70% of their income NOT on savings. Some can be items to keep, some can be investments. No way is it 30% savings or higher. It's lower.
@allgoo19 by building things. If people build wealth they own it. Savings always comes last, not first. Actual production leads to actual things of value. Savings is only a later portion of that, not an initial condition. Your questions were not about ownership before. If you want to talk about ownership you are no longer talking about savings.
@allgoo19 building pipes, cars, tools, computers, radios, anything, and to sell them for other things of value like silver, gold, maybe even debt/bonds or stocks/ownership in a stake of a factory and so on. That's what people actually do who aren't useless. Just build anything you can for any value demanded by another now or in the future
@allgoo19 I KNOW the difference - building wealth is building TANGIBLES. Tangibles are MONEY. The tangibles BUILT, that microsecond, are BUILT WEALTH. PERIOD.
At that point EXCHANGE for other wealth is possible from others - it is only by the BUILDING first that anything else happens. Without building NONE of it happens. You don't even know what wealth or money IS. Probably think it's "paper". Wall Street has NO MONEY. NONE. It has PAPER. Not money.
@allgoo19 can you comprehend? Non-tangible promises, IOU's, bonds, notes, are NOT MONEY. Never have been. PHYSICAL THINGS YOU CAN CONSUME, steel, copper, coal, oil, gold, silver, that's money. paper is not money
"It may return something equal in value years later. It may return nothing. It may return a positive net change value. It is spent until it is reclaimed."
@allgoo19 no, this can not be said of savings. Savings are tangible & not spent, they are in-hand only. What is "savings" is not spent, everything else is "spent". You can spend on a stock, spend on a car, either could depreciate. If you're lucky & you spent on a stock that appreciates you have to exchange it for something tangible or it's still "spent". Same as if you hold "dollars" (debt notes) - they have varying rates (mostly trending to devaluation) to redeem for tangible, just like stocks
@allgoo19 unfortunately I can only show you that all "well known" people in economics are frauds that can not even define inflation, much less tell you what is a recession or a bubble. They are lunatic liars. I use math so I get the right answers. They don't. They are sock-puppets for the global central banks.
@ytgv3fc7 ""well known" people in economics are frauds..."
From their point of view, you are the fraud.
Their opinions are vigorously challenged by other economists, yours haven't. Have you ever published your opinions in paper for other economists to see? What kind of books have you written?
from the WORLD'S point of view my list of facts is a list of facts, their claims are proven lies every day every year every generation and today are the cause of our collapse so I guess that means I'm right & they're frauds and you are ... ? Books are not written by economists. Books are written by pretenders. Economists RUN economies, no time for book-writing. Hard cold fact. Any joker that's spent their life writing books is 0% economist 99% fraud 1% unknown
@allgoo19 My computer science degree & applying math to the markets are my credentials. The so-called economists you worship collapsed the world economy with fraud - that's the opposite of having credentials.
You can believe what you want - you have chosen suicide. You have chosen poorly.
"How about name a few of those economists you accused of being fraudulent?"
Well, any economist that calls what they do "a science" is a fraud, if by science we mean something which follows the scientific method. Economy is a social science, like sociology, and thus don't. Especially the part about all observation should be repeatable and that you need enough independent observation in relations to the variables you have.
I'm not addressing any particular person but the the idea that economy isn't a "science". Economics is a social science just like sociology and does not follow the scientific method well at all, in particular in replicability. "Real sciences" (like physics and chemistry, Nobel prize winning sciences), do follow the scientific method.
Note ,there isn't a Nobel prize in economics. It's the Swedish Riksbankens big prize and not a part of the will of Alfred Nobel at all.
Nope, sociology can be usefull as can economics, however you should not overstate that (which is often done). And yes I still state that any economist or someone reporting on economy that calls that subject a science (if by that we refer to something using the scientific method) is a fraud. And there have been many people I have encountered that does refer to economy as a "science" in the normal sense of that word.
@Draugh39 "I still state that any economist or someone reporting on economy that calls that subject a science"
Show me where you saw it. I don't take your word for it. If he meant it, he may have some reason. I won't make my judgement on that unless hearing both side.
If you can't show me anything, that means you created it in your imagination.
You created something in your imagination, then make an argument around it.
Economics has almost no part of it detached from nature, so the understanding of ecology, geology & biology ought to go a far distance in understanding the limits of what an economy may do.
allgoo19: "Economics is not a science." So? Are you trying to say it's worthless, or what?
And maths is not a science either, maths is maths and it has more to do with a language than describing reality and it don't use the scientific method. Economics rely on mathematical expressions, sure, but it is a social science not a natural one. And it is utterly crap when it comes to replicability of observations, as is natural because it contains way too many variables in relation to observations.
@Draugh39 Mathematics is indeed like a language, a thing universally applicable, highly adaptive & nothing anyone should be able to lay claim or credit on. It is of nature as much as light or water are. The scientific method, in analyzing & constructing proofs, certainly can be used, however, do keep in mind. Economics can do nothing but what nature permits, however, making it a part of ecology: replication of observations is viable & I use it consistently. There aren't too many variables.
Maths has nothing to do with nature. It is used in order to describe relationships in nature, but it isn't "of nature".
Economics is a social science, ecology is a natural science and economics is not of it. Economics deals with people and the behaviour of people and each person is a variable. That means that you currently have about 7 G variables on this planet with unknown correlations and you do not have enough independent observation for that.
@allgoo19 I did answer your question, I'll do it twice now: "By the way, building things is not the only way to make money. What those Wall street bankers build?"
#1 Wall Street builds nothing
#2 wall street doesn't make money
they trade debt & fraud. Neither debt nor fraud are money.
@allgoo19 Those Wall Street people steal the money of others.
They also do a lot with bonds & debt but none of that is money.
Those are debt notes with high risk of not being paid at the actual value agreed upon, or ever.
Real money has no such problem. The bankers figured it out & now take real assets like houses & cars when they can. Their mistake is cost of maintaining & trading liquidity. Fraudsters aren't that smart.
@allgoo19 a mutual fund is definitely SPENDING. It certainly isn't saving - have you seen the "return rates" before inflation is applied? After inflation is worth. They're all in the red, have been for YEARS. Those things are debt instruments. Bonds are debt instruments. After inflation you always have less than you started with: they are spending. My definition of money is a tangible physical asset of consumption + trade value. Copper, steel, silver, gold, oil. Not paper. Not debt.
@allgoo19 so, wall st, once again: can you comprehend? Non-tangible promises, IOU's, bonds, notes, are NOT MONEY. Never have been. PHYSICAL THINGS YOU CAN CONSUME, steel, copper, coal, oil, gold, silver, that's money. paper is not money. Wall street has no money, they build nothing, they make no money.
@allgoo19 in any case those with billions, few as they are, do not save 90%. They still save around 30% or so. The rest is all spent, which includes investment spending which is out of their hands until it is sold & reclaimed, which often it is not for many years or even decades.
@ytgv3fc7 "The rest is all spent, which includes investment ."
Investment is not a spending.
Saving money in a bank account is sort of like an investment only the return is so small. By your logic, there's no difference between spending and saving.
You know, I'm little disgusted by this conversation. Are you a kindergarden student?
@allgoo19 Investment is spending. It absolutely is.
It's merely a non-consumption spending. It may return something equal in value years later. It may return nothing. It may return a positive net change value. It is spent until it is reclaimed. Saving in a bank account is no kind of investment whatsoever - that is a ponzi scheme. You are failing logic 100%. You should be disgusted at your own ignorance.
You can say the same thing both to investment and savings?
I guess you don't know the difference making wealth and making money. "by building things" is not going to let you build your wealth. What if the guy makes money spent all his money, is he still going to build his wealth?
@ytgv3fc7 "Investment is spending. It absolutely is.
It's merely a non-consumption spending. It may return something equal in value years later. It may return nothing. It may return a positive net change value. It is spent until it is reclaimed."
You can say the same to the money you keep in the bank.
So what's difference between savings and spending, according to you?
She didn't lose, McCain was destined to lose to Obozo! This is all part of GOD's GREAT and GRAND PLAN and SCHEME! God let Obozo win in 2008 in order to screw him up. She is setting him up to fail with having to deal with this whole mess and fall flat on his face. This puts Palin in position to PWN him in 2012 and become our GREATEST POTUS for she is GOD's CHOSEN ONE!
@jag10 punishing students for being poor is evil, that's why. The poorest most of all deserve by virtue of being poor not to be enslaved by debt. That's why. Only evil people can think anything else, the truly sick and evil twisted people.
@jag10 Doesn't look wrong to me, although that can be a question of who is doing the rewarding and if it is voluntary. If people who are poor are not helped then society must crumble. This has been proven constantly in history. If you want to risk it, so be it, but in my country (not yours) I think we best not gamble that way.
Government programs and affirmative action has increased the cost of education.
Most middle class students take out student loans and become debt slaves, while many low income students avoid those shackles. The war on poverty has created a cycle of dependency.
This system promotes class warfare between the middle class and lower class.
This system promotes racial tension, fear and hate.
It is a system that is pushing us against the wall - as Cornell West would say.
@jag10 of course an artificial increase is the cost of removing the giant gradient caused by the massive historical racism in the USA. Without this artificial interference a constant killing civil war of black vs white would be non-stop. It's a choice, one or the other. I think the lesser violent choice of affirmative action has been good. The biggest bubble of all, I'll warn you, is likely bonds. They are boosted by magical means of fraud & many have zero real value, we shall see.
Well said, but I disagree. This country is beyond race - we have a black President and despite the emergence of designed class warfare, race will not be an issue in the future.
That bond bubble just gave me a shiver. This is diabolical. Maybe Alex Jones is right after all.
Nathan Deal is a horrible, corrupt governor, but it could have been worse. His primary opponent in 2010 was Karen Handel.
BecomingPtII 2 weeks ago
What I haven't heard is a clear statement that "Millionaires shouldn't draw Medicare, Social Security, VA nor any other government assistance." It wouldn't be necessary to raise taxes so much if millionaires were cut off.
vechorik 6 months ago
CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES! -- but as it is Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
vechorik 6 months ago
savethemaxeyhome.chipin.com/the-maxey-home
Silentgenius01 7 months ago
the rich need to get richer man, wtf is this world, to much madness!!!!!!!
harrisonconstantinou 7 months ago
We have no income tax in NH for years...so all the rich ppl from Massachusetts have been moving here for many years and raising the cost for regular ppl. The state gets money from property taxes mostly so rent is higher for everyone. Everytime we try to pass a state income tax the rich ppl defeat it. They run the state (like most states).So low public services...but the roads are ok .Its a good place to live if you can afford the rent.
tmmy773 7 months ago
He should stay in Atlanta's Northlake with his Log Cabin-In-Denial buddies..........
Tmetrvlr 8 months ago
Cenk is such a Socialist.
Does he not realize that the Rich buy nicer more expensive cars, nicer expensive houses, nicer kitchens, oh and more expensive lifestyle that can be taxed.
Don't forget rich people are mostly business owners so they have to pay sales taxes on all the equitment it takes to run and operate their business.
Salvysahagun 10 months ago
@Salvysahagun - Rich people buy a lot less often overall than non-rich people do. Rich people don't buy yachts and cars every month like non-rich people have to buy groceries every month. Equipment for business can potentially be deductible expenses.
A86 9 months ago
@A86
But is it?
not always.
Don't rich people buy more expensive/high end food?
If I had money I would get that expensive tropical juice as oppose to the welchs grape juice.
Don't they eat out more?
Its hard for people to understand the rich when they have not been rich themselves.
Luckly my family has been both blessed and cursed. The budget outline is the EXACT SAME!
Salvysahagun 9 months ago
@Salvysahagun - Not always but a lot of the time. There aren't many expenses with a sales tax that non-rich people can use as a deductible. Rich people do by more expensive food (not sure if they eat out more or not, a lot of them can afford personal chefs and nutritionists) but overall they still don't buy expensive stuff as frequently in a lifetime as non-rich people buy cheap(er) stuff.
A86 9 months ago
@Salvysahagun "my family has been both blessed and cursed."
How rich your family had been? $10 Million, $1/2 Billion a year?
When people say "Super rich", they are not talking about $100,000 a year. Did you know that?
allgoo19 8 months ago
WHAT WOULD BUFFET DO?
Buffet is the 2nd richest man in the country!
Buffet is a friend of Gates', the richest man in the country!
Buffet gives Gates' charitable foundation 90% of his fortune!
Buffet wants his taxes raised on the remaining 10% of his fortune!
Buffet advises Obama on tax policy!
Buffet advises Obama to TAX THE RICH, like he would want to be taxed!
Buffet helps Obama balance the budget!
Buffet gets to Heaven as a humanitarian!
Buffet advises God on fitting camels through needles!
dukenthaylor 10 months ago
@dukenthaylor
Buffet also fails to report the Money he paid in Taxes through his corporate tax on his companies when reporting his income tax. Thats almost 18% (income) + 25% (corporate) is 43% tax. 7% above highest marginal.
Salvysahagun 10 months ago
@Draugh39 Math has everything to do with nature. Nothing in nature has no math, nothing in math is alien to nature. A little observation reveals this easily. You can't found counter-evidence, that's certain
"Economics deals with people and the behaviour of people and each person is a
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
"Math has everything to do with nature"
You simply do not understand the difference between mathematics being used in the study of nature or being part of nature. Maths is used to create models which describes nature. Nature is NOT the models. Furthermore you can make scientific theories without maths, just look at the work of Pasteur and Darwin.
"nothing in math is alien to nature"
Really, please tell me where you have observed a 23 dimensional hypercube?
Draugh39 9 months ago
@Draugh39 when you collect any 23 (there's plenty) aspects of nature for which one does not depend on the other you can indeed construct such a hypercube.
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Nope you can't. YOU CAN MAKE A MATHEMATICAL MODEL. The question was have you ever OBSERVED a 23-D Hypercube and that you haven't because you can't see in more than 3D.
You say "23 aspects that does NOT depend on the other"?! If that is the case then the model is bollocks. If you don't have correlation between the 23 dimensions you can't have an object described in this 23-D space, as that REQUIRES correlation between them.
Draugh39 9 months ago
@Draugh39 Your question is nonsense.
You don't need to see in more than 3-D.
Many non-visual parts of the world are also as good as 3-D sight.
And all can be combined.
Are combined.
I don't actually process information in only a 3-D way at any time. It's too simple.
Dimensions are NON-CORRELATED not correlated by the way or you can reduce one down into the other, removing a dimension. Non-correlation is REQUIRED (e.g. (0,0,1) can not represent any multiple of (0,1,0) )
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
And here you show that you don't understand the difference between a model and reality. Science is observation based, until you you have experimental verification it is just "pretty mathematics" as the model has not been tested against reality.
Furthermore an object described in n-dimensional space (such as a hypercube in 23 D) actually shows correlation between the n-axis as each point on the object is a vector product.
Draugh39 9 months ago
@Draugh39 no, you don't understand. I'm observing live. You're not.
You're unable.
There is ZERO correlation for independent dimensions or you have to remove a dimension.
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Nope. If you are constructing a random coordinate system you are correct. However if the coordinate system is selected in order to describe an object (which is what was talked about) there is a correlation as each point on the object are vector products of the basis vectors and thus show the correlation between those. You can't select those base vectors randomly anymore. They are however normally set to be orthogonal, is that what you are referring to?
Draugh39 9 months ago
@Draugh39 Nature has more than 23 orthogonal vectors if you count more than just a measure of distance. That is what I'm talking about. Ratios of forces, ratios of chemical reactions, ratios of multiple size-scales. All independent, and yes, you can form a hypercube to describe it. It's not a model, it's the actual observed reality.
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
You are missing the point. The original statement was:
"[you] "nothing in math is alien to nature"
Really, please tell me where you have observed a 23 dimensional hypercube?"
Maths often describe things that do not occure in nature. 23 D hypercubes have never been observed. Thus maths describe things that does do not occur in nature, just like any other language. A math's model isn't reality and can can be contrary to nature. You need observations to determine its truthvalue.
Draugh39 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
For example: I work with "incommensurately modulated structures" which needs to be described in more dimensions than "3" (quasicrystals are a subgroup of this). However I can't just pick any random orthogonal basis set in order to do describe the crystal structure. The ones I use must describe the periodicity and symmetry of the atomic arrangement. If I select this wrongly it will fail to describe the structure, because it doesn't show the correlation that exists in the object. Ok?
Draugh39 9 months ago
@Draugh39 "If I select this wrongly it will fail to describe the structure, because it doesn't show the correlation that exists in the object. Ok?"
Ok.
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
You still here?
Why did you stop responding to me?
Did you run out of what to say, while you have the time to answer others?
allgoo19 8 months ago
@allgoo19 You're really, really far down the list of being worth replying to.
ytgv3fc7 8 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "You're really, really far down the list of being worth replying to."
You don't like to answer a question you don't have the answer to because you've never thought about it. Just see how many stupid answer you have returned in this video alone.
You want me to remind you some of them?
allgoo19 8 months ago
@allgoo19 You better - so far I've given you the most profound knowledge you've EVER laid your eyes on so I'd like to see you try to twist that around the other way.
ytgv3fc7 8 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "You better "
Your quote: "You can spend on a stock, spend on a car, either could depreciate"
Who else says stock can depreciate? Do you know even know the meaning of "depreciation"?
Tell me both, who says that and definition of "depreciation"
allgoo19 8 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "You better "
No answer to definition of "Depreciation"?
Here's the result of my search:
"decrease in value due to wear and tear, decay, etc."
Is a stock something that wears out?
Who else says "Stock depreciates."?
allgoo19 8 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Continue.
Just so you understand what I mean. There is a difference between a coordinate system that describes nothing and a coordinate system selected in order to describe an object. ok?
Draugh39 9 months ago
@Draugh39 variable"
No. Silly.
Economics deals with tangible resources. From nature. People can't do things which nature does not allow. That's why the mathematics of nature allows smart people to win in markets. People lose only by failing to understand this.
This puts nothing more than 1 to 10 variables per resource & locale and you rarely need to use them all to make a winning play
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
"Economics deals with tangible resources."
That doesn't matter. How those resources are used are still based on the actions of humans and those actionas are NOT the same in all cases. This is easily observed. Are you telling me that the use of resources is the same in a capetalistic and a socialistic country?! (If so cite your sources)
Economics is a social science for that very reason.
Draugh39 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dukenthaylor
"Buffet gets to Heaven as a humanitarian!"
Well actually, as Warren Buffett is an agnostic-atheist, the Bible states that he will go to Hell. On the other hand Hell might be a nicer place than Heaven all things considered....
Draugh39 9 months ago
Comment removed
dukenthaylor 10 months ago
Comment removed
dukenthaylor 10 months ago
All sales taxes are regressive since people spend AFTER income tax dollars when they consume goods. Also, rich people pocket most of their income, so much of what they make isn't subject to sales taxes. Meanwhile, the Middle Class and working poor spend EVERYTHING they make, so the sales tax burden on them is heaviest as a percentage of income.
fantagor 10 months ago
I wish the red states would leave the union already, if they did, the budget would pretty much balance itself, taxes could be raised, & a surplus would be created.
It's not hard solving the US debt problem, it's hard getting through to those idiots who vote for republicans.
MyTemporaryAccount88 10 months ago
that "frictionRX" troll isn't spamming us today? His mommust have taken his internet privileges away...
muetter 10 months ago 7
There should be no taxes (extortion rackets) period.
Houshalter 10 months ago
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, ruined home values, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
"yeah me neither"
smartisnotbad 10 months ago
Cenk is a complete retard or he just blew Gyorgi Schwartz.
Economic growth and stability is the goal in Georgia.
Georgia is trying to keep small businesses alive during this Progressive Armagedon.
Georgia must have a balanced budget unlike Obamaland and can't print Progressive fiat dollars.
According to the Federal reserve bank of Georgia:
"relative marginal tax rates have a statistically significant negative relationship with relative state growth" - it will have a positive long term effect.
jag10 10 months ago
the people who dislike this video are delusional
emy1593 10 months ago 11
@emy1593 or they are rich
Doan84 10 months ago
The whole American tax system sucks. VAT's the fairest way to go. Sweden, France, and many other countries use it, and they actually have LOWER personal tax rates as a result--which surprises most people. In America, our only tax policy is to be to find the softest, politically-vulnerable targets to soak: the youth, student tuition, the evil "rich" who actually keep the country productive. Pretty much the most economically regressive method of taxation.
thereinliestherib 10 months ago
yeah but then those evil rich people will have to pay more for their toys
just dont tax clothes, food, the house you are living in, and used cars
gas taxes pay for roads
then you wont need 401ks and you can invest your money without thinking your getting a deal by not having to pay taxes on money you wont see inflated away
so poor peoples ipods might cost more
gonadcancervictim 10 months ago
america should adopt a fair tax because our economy would grow much faster.
lvll138inrs 10 months ago
@lvll138inrs Wow... FairTax is just a huge sales tax. Did you not watch the video?
zanzalot 10 months ago 2
Cenk : in Europe, we have VAT around 20 % in every country (up to 25 in some), plus income tax (and the poors in Europe pay more taxes than the wealthy in USA). If you want social goods (like free education or health care), everyone has to pay for it. Our european system of taxation may be less progressive than in the USA, but at least everyone here has access to some social goods.
ColonelHarry 10 months ago
I bet Randy Gonzales is quite confused as to why he is so popular, and having strangers coming up to him and telling him shit about politics :)
:P
Joxman2k 10 months ago
Most of your taxes don’t even go to the government they go to the Federal Reserve they create the money out of thin air then loan it to your government at interest that the IRS rip form you through those very taxes, they aren’t just taxing there gain there taxing there inflation the higher they make the inflation the more of your money they take. Your being robbed
darkblood626 10 months ago
It's 1939 all over again!
coloring1 10 months ago
All the budget cuts, all the culture wars, all the antiabortion protests and all the wars are all about one thing- making the rich richer. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar.
crackmonster99 10 months ago 4
Oh wont someone please think of the rich!
CHAOSoriginal 10 months ago
I am curious if Cenk realizes that most sales taxes (although this could be different) are not on needs. Unprocessed food, and basics like electricity do not have a sales tax. It is on the extras in life. So if the poor can afford a new TV, then I am not really concerned that they have to pay a sales tax.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
Is just me, or does this sound like the situation in France just before the revolution.
robertrulebirtannia 10 months ago
@robertrulebirtannia and that is what exactly is needed here. America is like the Titanic, sinking fast and manned by idiots, carrying wealthy snobs and immigrants. No happy endings.
mrselfdestruct23 10 months ago
When I listen to the list of people getting their funds cut it makes me sick! How can you take away from the poor, old, sick, etc.....?
GENERALJOHNNYREBEL 10 months ago
@as2711
what war??
the rich are killing the poor?
stop readin karl marx and get a fucking job
xardas611 10 months ago
Well come on people. When the GOP promised lower taxes to get the votes last year who did you think they were talking about? The poor, Ha. The lower middle class, Ha. The middle class, double Ha. Nooo the tax cuts have always been for the rich cronies that bought and paid for them. Is anyone really surprised by this.
Richardisdorky 10 months ago
5 Stars for the TYT's efforts with these new videos.
faithisfiction 10 months ago
I don't get why people aren't railing against taxes themselves, which is the theft that allows all this madness to go on and on.
It's like arguing about how the mugger should spend his money after he's robbed you.
Iseeyoursoul 10 months ago
@Iseeyoursoul
Because us intelligent people realize taxes are needed.
mecher3k 10 months ago
@mecher3k
Yes theft is needed. You're intelligent.
Iseeyoursoul 10 months ago
@Iseeyoursoul
Retard.
mecher3k 10 months ago
They're trying to make everyone "conservative" by making them live on 1 gallon of milk and a loaf of bread a week?
OtakuRebel 10 months ago
Keep getting the word out, Cenk!
phinny5608 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All gov't services must be stopped and all income taxes must be cut.
All wars and all subsidies and all bail outs and all departments and all regulations... gov't must shrivel and shrink into 0.1% of what it is today.
There must be no income taxes, only sales taxes if gov't needs any funding. Only vice taxes and excise - alcohol, gambling, drugs - that's what gov't must live off of.
romanmir01 10 months ago
i already told randy gonzales
dorkydevil 10 months ago
The repubs obviously hate their country and want it to fail.
Lynx787 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We need a flat tax rate for the entire nation. All citizens whether rich or poor could pay something like 8% of income. This would lift the burden on the poor and it would also stop the conservatives from bitching about liberals trying to punish success. This would work if we stopped giving aid to countries who don't need it.
Fantome1989 10 months ago
yea, nursing homes, we got 'em!
logoth80 10 months ago
Dayum the rich are getting PAID.
Spherical3 10 months ago
there was a vote just last tuesday where i live to raise sales tax by 1 percent. it failed by a landslide.
thedelta88 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot Saving does NOT hinder the economy. Savings promotes survival & has been in extreme deficit in North America for a long time. A healthy amount of saving is NO LESS than 30% of income. Anything less is foolish, 0% is total suicide.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
It does. Economic trade happens when there's trade. When they talk about a slowdown in the economy they are talking about a slow down of trade. This is why it's so devastating to move most of our wealth into the hands of only a few - they don't need to spend it, so it just sits.
If you want the lower classes to save, you must not be for raising sales taxes. It's hard enough for them to save as it is. It's not suicide, it's murder.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot trade happens when there's trade? Your words, not mine. Circular argument.
Slowdown of the economy is NOT trade: it's a slow-down of PRODUCTION, or using a less accurate metric, consumption. Devastation is having NO wealth - it WILL be spent as soon as it can be but there's nothing of value to spend it on except HARD ASSETS. Food & fuel are low-risk assets to hold, real-estate is a high-risk asset, companies are often high risk too. Too much fraud today.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
It's not a circular argument, I'm pointing out trade = trade, it couldn't be simpler.
Slow down of the economy is certainly not slow down of production when they are talking about the U.S. economy. They are always referring to transactions - again, trade.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot "It's not a circular argument, I'm pointing out trade = trade, it couldn't be simpler."
That is the complete and total definition of a circular argument.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Oh really?
For that to be a circular argument, "trade = trade" would have to be a fallacious argument. Are you actually disputing that trade = trade?
With the level of ignorance, (erroneous) semantic nitpicking, and repeated attempts to do so even when you are corrected, I'm not inclined to believe anything you report as being accurate.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot Fallacious arguments also include those which offer no information: contradiction is not required. So your argument is indeed fallacious.
You did not correct me for you were wrong. You did not correct yourself either so you're wasting your time AND still wrong. Production alone is the metric of the economy, everything else you wrote is incorrect. A producing economy can CONSUME without trading. This is HEALTHY. Trading without producing is DANGEROUSLY STUPID.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
OMG. You couldn't really be more full of shit, could you? I bet it's hell in there, and I'm glad. You love bullshit, you deserve it. And here's a funny little thought for you - when you die, you go to what you love. Have fun.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGiantRobot
If you want to see why he is really here, and what he is really trying to do, check this out:
watch?v=tGB8Uuffi4M&feature=feedlik
Rundstedt1 10 months ago
@Rundstedt1
Great clip. He might be part of this. What I know from looking at his channel is he's trying to get people to buy gold and silver.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot I am not trying to get people to buy gold & silver. I am happy to show the math of why doing so is beneficial. You can do anything you want. If you want to hold paper & pretend it's money, that's fine by me. It just means later on you'll be broke & I won't. Please enjoy your poverty. The purpose of the math videos is to taunt idiots who can't / won't buy silver + gold for being dumb, and to teach smart people how to read the fraud in all markets
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@Rundstedt1 are you foolishly referring to me with a Tea Party video? Tea Party people are a) stupid + b) Republican + c) American. I'm CANADIAN & belong to no political party.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
It doesn't matter, there are lunatics in Canada too obviously, and you have been pushing the exact same garbage as they do. You have been sounding like a Canuck Glenn Beck.
Rundstedt1 10 months ago
@Rundstedt1 I'm absolutely against Glenn Beck & anyone like him. I have nothing to do with anything "right wing"
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot I'm only the most incredible genius you have ever been graced to talk to ever, you should be grateful, little one. Production & only production is a proper metric for the economy. Everything else is a fraud. You either obey the fraud out of ignorance or complicity. My true and powerful knowledge allows me to avoid being a victim of this nonsense fraud at all times.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Wow, the most incredible genius I've ever been graced to talk to? Now I'm starting to hate you a little less and feel sorry for you a little more.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot Feel sorry for your own ignorance. Look at what the silver prices just did the last 2 weeks and look at my videos showing this weeks in advance. It's me that's feeling sorry for your ignorance - my genius has proven itself in cold hard facts.
ytgv3fc7 9 months ago
@TheGiantRobot slowdown of the economy is always production, any other metric is either flawed or fraud.
In the case of referring to transactions this is deeply flawed. Once incorrect data is included from BLS models and other things then it becomes fraud. Production is the only proper metric of economic activity, never trade.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot I want ALL people to save, not just the lower classes, and I am for abolishing estate taxes of every kind, and using sales tax rebates for the lower income people. We live in this system in Canada, we have GST rebate cheques. The rich get none. This is the right way to do things, proven repeatedly by example.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
If you want all people to save, you don't tax sales of regular items. Poor people can't save what they don't have. It's quite basic. Creating a complicated patchwork to repair a fundamentally upside down system is wasteful, easy for people of means to get around, and probably done for one reason only - it's making someone rich.
I won't go on, because allgoo19 has said it all.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot "I won't go on, because allgoo19 has said it all."
That person has shown only ignorance, if you agree with his/her points then you too are quite ignorant.
"If you want all people to save, you don't tax sales of regular items."
No reason not to. Just rebate to the poorest people from income tax. Add luxury taxes for what poor people never buy either. Now wages for the poor have zero tax & consumption also has net zero tax.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Even if you don't agree with him, you (hopefully) recognize that he certainly has not shown only ignorance. Your credibility at this point is pretty much zero.
TheGiantRobot 10 months ago
@TheGiantRobot this "complicated patchwork" is incredibly easy & is in full operation across Canada. For example, a single unemployed person should expect to receive at least $60 per 3 months in GST rebate. GST is at 13% or HST 15% in some provinces (with its own HST rebate). So 60 / 0.013 = $461.54 of purchases before tax in 3 months. Is it enough? Probably not, but changing the number upward is not difficult. This excludes food, medicine, various items which never have tax
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@allgoo19 taxing savings kills everything. Savings are already taxed by inflation. If you tax savings you either a) cause a mass riot & everyone is murdered who did it or b) you cause a mass exodus & everyone who can work to get savings will leave the country, then work for savings. Savings are the single most important kind of wealth ever. You can't morally do this: what you propose is vicious evil.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "Savings are already taxed by inflation."
By what percentage? This must be a joke.
a), b), all in your imagination. And when those happened in the history?
We already have(had) a savings taxation system but called it a diferent name. It's called "Progressive taxation system". It worked pretty well, and US had best economy and the strongest dollar.
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 "By what percentage? This must be a joke"
This is no joke: savings are taxed by inflation at a percentage of 10% per year currently.
This is called INFLATION. By printing money & letting only a select group of non-savers use it, everyone else's savings is destroyed by the same % growth in the money supply. That's why the 10% at this moment reflects 10% money supply increase x the money velocity applied by that to goods required for survival (fuel, food)
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "Taxing savings kills everything."
No reply?
What was the reason of your comment? Proving how stupid you are?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 stacked set of replies at low-priority level.
Taxing savings kills everything because savings are the only source of life in bad times which must come. Bad times MUST come, this is the way of the EARTH, of nature. Savings are food, gold, water, fuel, tools. Without them survival will end in bad times. Many fools claim it is not so, then they are killed in bad times.
Clearly I am the smartest person you ever will talk to, you best lean that son.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "Taxing savings kills everything because savings are the only source of life in bad times which must come.."
Simple question to ask.
What if savings are encouraged to the extreme that nobody spends anything, how the economy will be?
For the note, I'm talking about the saving in big numbers like over 90% of income, instead of 25-50% most people would like to put aside for rainy days.
And your answer?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 That's physically impossible. Savings are always spent, it is only a matter of time.
No one can save more than 90% of income, income is not high enough and physically can not be. Survival requires at least 30 to 60% spending of all income. 25-50% is very uncommon. 0 to 3% is typical.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "Savings are always spent.."
Some people make money far more than they can spend.
How much do you think people with $Billion a year income spend? 3/4 of a $Billion?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 So few make that kind of money that it needs to be a problem. It is not a problem. Savings are spent, by the person who got them or by another on their behalf, at a time of need, even including inheritance. A person who may have little means could inherit and then spend those savings to continue living, whereas without it there's nothing to spend. If a person is denied savings the obvious result is they shall refuse to work. Maybe work for a meal but not at a job. Why bother?
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "So few make that kind of money that .."
Those few owns a big part of wealth.
You didn't really know this?
Google, "Wealth divide"
Highest 10% owns 70% of wealth.
Highest 1% owns35% of wealth.
Lowest 50%(it's you) owns 2.5% of wealth. (2007 survey) <--This is the kind of people you are talking about.
How much do you think a Millionaire spends, half of his income?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 they save small enough it is not the 90% savings glut you speak of, which does not exist.
I did know that.
Ownership is not the question, savings is. The ownership % in classes is not part of your question.
A millionaire uses at least 70% of their income NOT on savings. Some can be items to keep, some can be investments. No way is it 30% savings or higher. It's lower.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "Ownership is not the question, savings is."
How do they own a wealth if they don't save it first?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 by building things. If people build wealth they own it. Savings always comes last, not first. Actual production leads to actual things of value. Savings is only a later portion of that, not an initial condition. Your questions were not about ownership before. If you want to talk about ownership you are no longer talking about savings.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "by building things."
Building what?
And What for?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 building pipes, cars, tools, computers, radios, anything, and to sell them for other things of value like silver, gold, maybe even debt/bonds or stocks/ownership in a stake of a factory and so on. That's what people actually do who aren't useless. Just build anything you can for any value demanded by another now or in the future
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "building pipes, cars, tools, computers, radios, "
You don't know the difference between making money and building wealth.
What you are saying is "how to make money". He can spend all money he makes and build no wealth.
By the way, building things is not the only way to make money.
What those Wall street bankers build?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 I KNOW the difference - building wealth is building TANGIBLES. Tangibles are MONEY. The tangibles BUILT, that microsecond, are BUILT WEALTH. PERIOD.
At that point EXCHANGE for other wealth is possible from others - it is only by the BUILDING first that anything else happens. Without building NONE of it happens. You don't even know what wealth or money IS. Probably think it's "paper". Wall Street has NO MONEY. NONE. It has PAPER. Not money.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@allgoo19 can you comprehend? Non-tangible promises, IOU's, bonds, notes, are NOT MONEY. Never have been. PHYSICAL THINGS YOU CAN CONSUME, steel, copper, coal, oil, gold, silver, that's money. paper is not money
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "can you comprehend? Non-tangible..."
What happened to my question to your comment?
This is what you said about investment,
"It may return something equal in value years later. It may return nothing. It may return a positive net change value. It is spent until it is reclaimed."
Can't this be said about savings too?
Yes or no?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 no, this can not be said of savings. Savings are tangible & not spent, they are in-hand only. What is "savings" is not spent, everything else is "spent". You can spend on a stock, spend on a car, either could depreciate. If you're lucky & you spent on a stock that appreciates you have to exchange it for something tangible or it's still "spent". Same as if you hold "dollars" (debt notes) - they have varying rates (mostly trending to devaluation) to redeem for tangible, just like stocks
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "You can spend on a stock, spend on a car, either could depreciate"
I found your logic strange.
Can you show me a well known person in economics agree with your idea?
allgoo19 10 months ago 2
@allgoo19 unfortunately I can only show you that all "well known" people in economics are frauds that can not even define inflation, much less tell you what is a recession or a bubble. They are lunatic liars. I use math so I get the right answers. They don't. They are sock-puppets for the global central banks.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 ""well known" people in economics are frauds..."
From their point of view, you are the fraud.
Their opinions are vigorously challenged by other economists, yours haven't. Have you ever published your opinions in paper for other economists to see? What kind of books have you written?
Show me, I'll take a look at it.
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 /watch?v=tLdpBP1mjDo
from the WORLD'S point of view my list of facts is a list of facts, their claims are proven lies every day every year every generation and today are the cause of our collapse so I guess that means I'm right & they're frauds and you are ... ? Books are not written by economists. Books are written by pretenders. Economists RUN economies, no time for book-writing. Hard cold fact. Any joker that's spent their life writing books is 0% economist 99% fraud 1% unknown
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "/watch?v=tLdpBP1mjDo"
I don't need to watch video you want me to see. If yo understand what videos says, you can tell me using your own word.
Basically, you are saying you have no credential? You are no different from homeless man on the street with no education.
Do I have to believe what homeless man says about economics whose opinion goes against main stream economists?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 My computer science degree & applying math to the markets are my credentials. The so-called economists you worship collapsed the world economy with fraud - that's the opposite of having credentials.
You can believe what you want - you have chosen suicide. You have chosen poorly.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "My computer science degree & applying math.."
Yeah, right. You can say anything you want in youtube.
How about name a few of those economists you accused of being fraudulent?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19
"How about name a few of those economists you accused of being fraudulent?"
Well, any economist that calls what they do "a science" is a fraud, if by science we mean something which follows the scientific method. Economy is a social science, like sociology, and thus don't. Especially the part about all observation should be repeatable and that you need enough independent observation in relations to the variables you have.
Draugh39 10 months ago
@Draugh39 :"Well, any economist that calls what they do "a science."
The question was meant for ytgv3fc.
I you want, I'll get back to you later.
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19
"I you want, I'll get back to you later."
Sure. But are you honestly contending what I wrote?
Draugh39 10 months ago
@Draugh39 "any economist that calls what they do "a science" ."
ytgv3fc seems to be gone now.
Tell me, name a few of those economists you are talking about, past or present.
And tell me which of my comments saying anything about economics, science you are talking about here?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19
I'm not addressing any particular person but the the idea that economy isn't a "science". Economics is a social science just like sociology and does not follow the scientific method well at all, in particular in replicability. "Real sciences" (like physics and chemistry, Nobel prize winning sciences), do follow the scientific method.
Note ,there isn't a Nobel prize in economics. It's the Swedish Riksbankens big prize and not a part of the will of Alfred Nobel at all.
Draugh39 10 months ago
@Draugh39 "I'm not addressing any particular person .."
So, you are making your point on something doesn't even exist?
This was your own comment. "Well, any economist that calls what they do "a science" is a fraud," which nobody said, at least in this thread.
And what about your point? "Economics is not a science." So? Are you trying to say it's worthless, or what?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19
Nope, sociology can be usefull as can economics, however you should not overstate that (which is often done). And yes I still state that any economist or someone reporting on economy that calls that subject a science (if by that we refer to something using the scientific method) is a fraud. And there have been many people I have encountered that does refer to economy as a "science" in the normal sense of that word.
Draugh39 10 months ago
@Draugh39 "I still state that any economist or someone reporting on economy that calls that subject a science"
Show me where you saw it. I don't take your word for it. If he meant it, he may have some reason. I won't make my judgement on that unless hearing both side.
If you can't show me anything, that means you created it in your imagination.
You created something in your imagination, then make an argument around it.
Now, how me.
allgoo19 10 months ago
@Draugh39 "I have encountered that does refer to economy as a "science" in the normal sense of that word."
No reply and you still can't remember one instance of that.
Keep sleep walking and arguing with your imaginary opponents.
And remember to see your head doctor once in a while. ^_^
allgoo19 10 months ago
@Draugh39 there isn't a Nobel math prize either.
Economics has almost no part of it detached from nature, so the understanding of ecology, geology & biology ought to go a far distance in understanding the limits of what an economy may do.
allgoo19: "Economics is not a science." So? Are you trying to say it's worthless, or what?
me: HELLZ YES. Mostly fraud & to date, useless.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
And maths is not a science either, maths is maths and it has more to do with a language than describing reality and it don't use the scientific method. Economics rely on mathematical expressions, sure, but it is a social science not a natural one. And it is utterly crap when it comes to replicability of observations, as is natural because it contains way too many variables in relation to observations.
Draugh39 10 months ago
@Draugh39 Mathematics is indeed like a language, a thing universally applicable, highly adaptive & nothing anyone should be able to lay claim or credit on. It is of nature as much as light or water are. The scientific method, in analyzing & constructing proofs, certainly can be used, however, do keep in mind. Economics can do nothing but what nature permits, however, making it a part of ecology: replication of observations is viable & I use it consistently. There aren't too many variables.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Maths has nothing to do with nature. It is used in order to describe relationships in nature, but it isn't "of nature".
Economics is a social science, ecology is a natural science and economics is not of it. Economics deals with people and the behaviour of people and each person is a variable. That means that you currently have about 7 G variables on this planet with unknown correlations and you do not have enough independent observation for that.
Draugh39 9 months ago
@allgoo19 NOT gone. Just busy. I learned how to do something in FOREX to get me an easy $100 to $200 a day. Time well spent.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@allgoo19 fraud:
Keynes
fraud: Adam Smith
fraud: Karl Marx
fraud: EVERY last one of the nouveaux economists ever appearing on CNN, CNBC, Fox Businessnews, BBC, CBC
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytgv3fc7 "Keynes
fraud: Adam Smith
fraud: Karl Marx
fraud: EVERY last one of the nouveaux economists ever appearing on CNN, CNBC, Fox Businessnews, BBC, CBC"
That's very convincing argument.
How about proving ytgv3fc is not fraud? All names you mentioned at least have some people agree with them. Who agree with you?
What's your definition of "fraud" anyway?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 almost forgot - Krugman - FRAUD.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@allgoo19 I did answer your question, I'll do it twice now: "By the way, building things is not the only way to make money. What those Wall street bankers build?"
#1 Wall Street builds nothing
#2 wall street doesn't make money
they trade debt & fraud. Neither debt nor fraud are money.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "#1 Wall Street builds nothing
#2 wall street doesn't make money"
How those bankers make their livings if they don't make money?
What's your definition of "Money"?
Is has to be a paper to be called "Money"?
Is bond saving or spending?
Is mutual fund saving or spending according to you?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 Those Wall Street people steal the money of others.
They also do a lot with bonds & debt but none of that is money.
Those are debt notes with high risk of not being paid at the actual value agreed upon, or ever.
Real money has no such problem. The bankers figured it out & now take real assets like houses & cars when they can. Their mistake is cost of maintaining & trading liquidity. Fraudsters aren't that smart.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@allgoo19 a mutual fund is definitely SPENDING. It certainly isn't saving - have you seen the "return rates" before inflation is applied? After inflation is worth. They're all in the red, have been for YEARS. Those things are debt instruments. Bonds are debt instruments. After inflation you always have less than you started with: they are spending. My definition of money is a tangible physical asset of consumption + trade value. Copper, steel, silver, gold, oil. Not paper. Not debt.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allgoo19 so, wall st, once again: can you comprehend? Non-tangible promises, IOU's, bonds, notes, are NOT MONEY. Never have been. PHYSICAL THINGS YOU CAN CONSUME, steel, copper, coal, oil, gold, silver, that's money. paper is not money. Wall street has no money, they build nothing, they make no money.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@allgoo19 in any case those with billions, few as they are, do not save 90%. They still save around 30% or so. The rest is all spent, which includes investment spending which is out of their hands until it is sold & reclaimed, which often it is not for many years or even decades.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 "The rest is all spent, which includes investment ."
Investment is not a spending.
Saving money in a bank account is sort of like an investment only the return is so small. By your logic, there's no difference between spending and saving.
You know, I'm little disgusted by this conversation. Are you a kindergarden student?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@allgoo19 Investment is spending. It absolutely is.
It's merely a non-consumption spending. It may return something equal in value years later. It may return nothing. It may return a positive net change value. It is spent until it is reclaimed. Saving in a bank account is no kind of investment whatsoever - that is a ponzi scheme. You are failing logic 100%. You should be disgusted at your own ignorance.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytgv3fc7 "It is spent until it is reclaimed."
You can say the same thing both to investment and savings?
I guess you don't know the difference making wealth and making money. "by building things" is not going to let you build your wealth. What if the guy makes money spent all his money, is he still going to build his wealth?
allgoo19 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytgv3fc7 "Investment is spending. It absolutely is.
It's merely a non-consumption spending. It may return something equal in value years later. It may return nothing. It may return a positive net change value. It is spent until it is reclaimed."
You can say the same to the money you keep in the bank.
So what's difference between savings and spending, according to you?
allgoo19 10 months ago
@The8347135
She didn't lose, McCain was destined to lose to Obozo! This is all part of GOD's GREAT and GRAND PLAN and SCHEME! God let Obozo win in 2008 in order to screw him up. She is setting him up to fail with having to deal with this whole mess and fall flat on his face. This puts Palin in position to PWN him in 2012 and become our GREATEST POTUS for she is GOD's CHOSEN ONE!
ecwaufisxtreme 10 months ago
@jag10 punishing students for being poor is evil, that's why. The poorest most of all deserve by virtue of being poor not to be enslaved by debt. That's why. Only evil people can think anything else, the truly sick and evil twisted people.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Students are rewarded by being poor or being a minority in this country.
That is wrong in a land where all men were created equal.
jag10 10 months ago
@jag10 Doesn't look wrong to me, although that can be a question of who is doing the rewarding and if it is voluntary. If people who are poor are not helped then society must crumble. This has been proven constantly in history. If you want to risk it, so be it, but in my country (not yours) I think we best not gamble that way.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Government programs and affirmative action has increased the cost of education.
Most middle class students take out student loans and become debt slaves, while many low income students avoid those shackles. The war on poverty has created a cycle of dependency.
This system promotes class warfare between the middle class and lower class.
This system promotes racial tension, fear and hate.
It is a system that is pushing us against the wall - as Cornell West would say.
jag10 10 months ago
@jag10 that cost increase is a good thing. It means that inequality was removed and everything good has a cost.
Most LOWER income students would take on debt loans without help and this is the worst possible situation.
This is a system rebounding from being "at the wall" before, not "at the wall" right now.
Except for bankruptcy filings not being allowed for education loans. That is very evil.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
That cost increase artificially increases the cost of education - the middle class gets hit twice.
Yes, but they also qualify (if minority) for additional scholarship.
Student debt slavery aint no joke - and is believed to be the biggest bubble of all.
jag10 10 months ago
@jag10 of course an artificial increase is the cost of removing the giant gradient caused by the massive historical racism in the USA. Without this artificial interference a constant killing civil war of black vs white would be non-stop. It's a choice, one or the other. I think the lesser violent choice of affirmative action has been good. The biggest bubble of all, I'll warn you, is likely bonds. They are boosted by magical means of fraud & many have zero real value, we shall see.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
Well said, but I disagree. This country is beyond race - we have a black President and despite the emergence of designed class warfare, race will not be an issue in the future.
That bond bubble just gave me a shiver. This is diabolical. Maybe Alex Jones is right after all.
jag10 10 months ago