[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I don't understand why someone making $250k a year is now labeled as "rich." It is totally dependent on the area in which they live. In some places you can't even buy a small home on that salary, and to label those people as "rich" is ridiculous.

^ It's okay, your point of view is just the NORMAL, rational, common sense point of view. It's abnormal for people to spend all their time envious of what other people have, and worse, seeking political criminals to 'punish' the targets of their envy on thier behalf. All over the world, this same mindset carried through to its worst excesses has created nothing but third world shitholes.

The normal, RATIONAL, common sense point of view is: mind your own business not everyone's else's, what someone else has is their own business, and regardless how they *legally* got it, or what they do for a living, anything they have or have produced STILL wouldn't be yours or naturally benefit you in any way if those others DIDN'T have it. That includes their money, property, investments, etc. etc.


"B-BUT THE MILITARY IS SOCIALIST! !! BLAAAARRGGHH!!!"

Oh yeah, and goofy, desperation-driven ' non-arguments' don't actually change any of this.

[screener]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I don't understand why someone making $250k a year is now labeled as "rich." It is totally dependent on the area in which they live. In some places you can't even buy a small home on that salary, and to label those people as "rich" is ridiculous.

Well, like those on the right would say, live within your means and move if what you make doesn't cover your costs.

Raising the rates a couple of points is still well below the rates under Clinton, when the economy was booming and even Bush senior, when his "read my lips" speech ended up raising taxes because Reagan's lowering them created a huge deficit which he said was a great disappointment.

Trickle down was a theory that failed.

[ebuddy]

"Trickle down" has taken on new meaning of late; paying the Federal Reserve, paying Wall St, paying the States, and paying gigantic corporations huge sums of money to keep them alive a couple more years. Make no mistake, stimulus is trickle-down of the highest order and while it relies on sound philosophy historically, the method of delivery is the critical blunder of this Administration.

If only we had another .com bubble to bolster the argument that a higher tax rate somehow facilitates an economic boom.

When people making a gross income of $250k or more "live within their means" and/or "move", they're derided by those stuck in the entry-level mentality for hiring less or outsourcing operations. Either we're a more competitive environment for employers or we're less. You can't have it both ways.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Trickle down" has taken on new meaning of late; paying the Federal Reserve, paying Wall St, paying the States, and paying gigantic corporations huge sums of money to keep them alive a couple more years. Make no mistake, stimulus is trickle-down of the highest order and while it relies on sound philosophy historically, the method of delivery is the critical blunder of this Administration.

If only we had another .com bubble to bolster the argument that a higher tax rate somehow facilitates an economic boom.

When people making a gross income of $250k or more "live within their means" and/or "move", they're derided by those stuck in the entry-level mentality for hiring less or outsourcing operations. Either we're a more competitive environment for employers or we're less. You can't have it both ways.

This entire argument is completely complicated and possibly invalidated by the counter argument that no matter what the tax rate these companies are not going to hire American workers anyway. I don't know if that is true in general, but it is one problem I have with making your argument. This possibility at least has to be accounted for.

Foreign workers use to have the stigma of being cheap knockoffs of American workers, but in some industries such as software development/programming certain foreign workers are also the elite working force, quite literally the lifeblood of the company.

[besson3c]

In other words, some companies look for warm bodies to fill roles cheaply, some look for elite minds. What is the ratio between the two? Where do companies look for elite minds? If we do not dominate this category, at what point does it make more sense to focus on ways to make our talent considered elite again?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In other words, some companies look for warm bodies to fill roles cheaply, some look for elite minds. What is the ratio between the two? Where do companies look for elite minds? If we do not dominate this category, at what point does it make more sense to focus on ways to make our talent considered elite again?

I'm not sure I understand the question in light of economic policy that is either less appealing for business or more appealing. If stimulus is creating jobs, what sort of jobs do you suppose it's creating that it should be accounted for in the counter-argument you weren't sure was true in your first post and how does that relate to elite minds?

If the US has a problem developing a pool of elite minds, why not point to the extremely expensive system charged with developing them? Perhaps it is time to consider ways of slowing the increasing costs of tuition currently growing at 4 X's the rate of inflation with policies that encourage more shopping and less government easy-money. This might make the prospect of attaining the necessary education a little more appealing and lower expectations upon graduation. If I walked into your branch for an interview and expected a wage 10-20% higher to pay back over $100k in student loans, you as the employer might be inclined to go for less elite.