Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
I think we need new definitions of economic/social classes to have meaningful discussions that use the terms.
Calling some group at the extreme 2% or 5% “middle” just does not make sense.
Likewise, it does not make sense to me to use the same “middle” label to describe a group starting off around %40-%55 and going up to 98% of the income distribution.
I can see a point that the terms should better be used to describe wealth and not income, but in the context of federal tax policy, almost all are based on income.
Other people’s wealth is like a wild animal. You destroy it by trying to capture it and control it.
snort.
So true. I remember just the other day when someone gave me $50 and then all of a sudden it curled up and died because I couldn’t find a properly fancy habitat for it to live in.
“Redistribution from those who produce the most to those who produce the least destroys production.â€
You’re right – wall street would stop coming up with ways to fool people into giving them money for sitting at their desks and making phone calls if they had to pay higher taxes…
“Redistribution from those who produce the most to those who produce the least destroys production.”
you’re using the word “produce” pretty liberally.
We’ll use “earn” then. If you’re trying to make a social statement on whether or not investment bankers are producers, go over to curbed or somwhere else with all the nutjobs.
If some guy brings in $1b of business, he should make $100MM or more on that.
I think we need new definitions of economic/social classes to have meaningful discussions that use the terms.
Calling some group at the extreme 2% or 5% “middle” just does not make sense.
Likewise, it does not make sense to me to use the same “middle” label to describe a group starting off around %40-%55 and going up to 98% of the income distribution.
I can see a point that the terms should better be used to describe wealth and not income, but in the context of federal tax policy, almost all are based on income.
Other people’s wealth is like a wild animal. You destroy it by trying to capture it and control it.
snort.
So true. I remember just the other day when someone gave me $50 and then all of a sudden it curled up and died because I couldn’t find a properly fancy habitat for it to live in.
“Redistribution from those who produce the most to those who produce the least destroys production.â€
You’re right – wall street would stop coming up with ways to fool people into giving them money for sitting at their desks and making phone calls if they had to pay higher taxes…
By dirty_hipster on April 25, 2011 2:21 PM
“Redistribution from those who produce the most to those who produce the least destroys production.”
you’re using the word “produce” pretty liberally.
We’ll use “earn” then. If you’re trying to make a social statement on whether or not investment bankers are producers, go over to curbed or somwhere else with all the nutjobs.
If some guy brings in $1b of business, he should make $100MM or more on that.
“For one that is not illegal but probably unethical, search for “NYTClean””
OMG. Thanks, Scott! This rules!
(not sure it will work on my blackberry though 🙁
“Redistribution from those who produce the most to those who produce the least destroys production.”
you’re using the word “produce” pretty liberally.
I agree, CGar, any definitions that are the work of the government are out of date at best, laughable and illogical.
Other people’s wealth is like a wild animal. You destroy it by trying to capture it and control it.
sorry dibs – but your idea about what “middle class” is in this country is pretty absurd.
NYC? maybe that holds water.