BajaNomad - The 10 richest Mexicans in 2014

The 10 richest Mexicans in 2014

Pages: 1 2

DENNIS - 5-1-2014 at 07:16 AM

The top 10 are:
1.Carlos Slim, 72 billion dollars
2.Germán Larrea, mining, 14.7 billion dollars.
3.Alberto Bailleres, mining, 12.4 billion dollars.
4.Ricardo Salinas Pliego, Grupo Salinas (TV Azteca, Elektra, Banco Azteca) 8.3 billion dollars.
5.Eva Gonda de Rivera, Coca Cola-Femsa shareholder, 6.4 billion dollars.
6.María Asunción Arumburuzabala, former president of Grupo Modelo, 5.2 billion dollars.
7.Antonio del Valle Ruiz, Mexichem, Pochteca y Banco Ve por Más, 5.0 billion dollars.
8.Jerónimo Arango, whose family founded Aurrerá, 4.2 billion dollars.
9.Emilio Azcárraga Jean, Televisa, 2.6 billion dollars.
10.David Peñaloza Sandoval, construction firm Triturados Basálticos (Tribasa), 2.1 billion dollars.

http://geo-mexico.com/?p=11323

bajalearner - 5-1-2014 at 07:32 AM

Enormous sums of wealth. The gap between the 1st and 2nd guy is huge.
Makes me want to go dig for minerals while selling coca cola, building a house and broadcasting on tv all at the same time. :light:

Barry A. - 5-1-2014 at 07:37 AM

I hear that Putin has them ALL beat, now.

barry

monoloco - 5-1-2014 at 07:47 AM

Carlos Slim is worth more than the next nine combined.

bajalearner - 5-1-2014 at 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
I hear that Putin has them ALL beat, now.

barry

Seriously?

DENNIS - 5-1-2014 at 08:00 AM

OK.........compare 2014 to 2010.....especially that of Carlos Slim:

The Forbes magazine list of the world’s richest individuals in 2010 consists of 1011 individuals, each with a wealth of one billion dollars or more. Nine Mexicans (all men this year) made the list. The nine richest Mexicans are:

World rank / Name / Estimated wealth according to Forbes / Main business interests

#1 Carlos Slim Helú, 53.5 billion dollars, making him the richest man in the world. Fixed line telephone provider Telmex, cell phone provider América Móvil, Grupo Carso, Inbursa

#63 Ricardo Salinas Pliego, 10.1 billion dollars. Television company Televisón Azteca, domestic appliance store Elektra, bank Banco Azteca,
and cell phone company Iusacell

#72 Germán Larrea, 9.7 billion dollars. Grupo México – mining for copper and other minerals

#82 Alberto Bailleres, 8.3 billion dollars. Mining giant Peñoles, department store El Palacio de Hierro and Grupo Profuturo

#212 Jerónimo Arango, 4 billion dollars. Founder of Aurrerá supermarket chain and Grupo Cifra which controlled VIPS and El Portón restaurant chains, Suburbia department stores and tourist developments in Baja California Peninsula and Acapulco

#655 Emilio Azcárraga, 1.5 billion dollars. Television and media conglomerate Televisa,and Nextel cell phones

#828 Roberto Hernández, 1.2 billion dollars. Banker, one of main shareholders of Citigroup, and tourist developments in the Yucatán Peninsula

#937 (equal) Alfredo Harp Helú, 1 billion dollars. Shareholder in Citibank, telecommunications firm Avantel

#937 (equal) Joaquín Guzmán Loera (aka “El Chapo”), 1 billion dollars. Mexico’s most wanted man, head of the Sinaloa drugs cartel, the main supplier of cocaine to the US market

The combined total wealth of these 9 individuals is a staggering 90.3 billion dollars, equivalent to almost 6% of Mexico’s GDP.

willardguy - 5-1-2014 at 08:22 AM

look at all that money being made in mining. carlos isn't buying up all that land to build cell towers!

chuckie - 5-1-2014 at 08:55 AM

Dennis left me off the list.....Chuckie: eighteen dollars and forty seven cents.....

bajalearner - 5-1-2014 at 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
Dennis left me off the list.....Chuckie: eighteen dollars and forty seven cents.....

232.72 pesos sounds a little better. Mining?

Bobvaso - 5-1-2014 at 09:04 AM

"You load 16 tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St Peter dont you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store." Too true.

BajaBlanca - 5-1-2014 at 09:08 AM

So much money. Does Slim do anything for Mexico that anyone knows of? Schools? Hospitals?

Udo - 5-1-2014 at 09:10 AM

Or just declare bankruptcy! :bounce:

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobvaso
"You load 16 tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. St Peter dont you call me 'cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store." Too true.

Bad Vlad's Gold

MrBillM - 5-1-2014 at 09:10 AM

Estimates run up to $170 Billion, but verification is said to be difficult and complicated by the blurred line between what he owns and what he has control of owned by the government.

In any case, he's doing OK.

No doubt, B.O. is jealous.

chuckie - 5-1-2014 at 09:22 AM

Carlos Slim is a real philanthropist, second only to Bill Gates, I believe......Google his foundations and be amazed at how much he does for Mexico particularly in the Education area....I really admire this man....

DENNIS - 5-1-2014 at 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chuckie
Carlos Slim is a real philanthropist, second only to Bill Gates, I believe......Google his foundations and be amazed at how much he does for Mexico particularly in the Education area....I really admire this man....

I'm not so sure about that, Chuckie. He has developed a reputation for stingeyness and probably only has foundations for tax purposes.
He does however hire a lot of people.

YES! SLIM DOES SOMETHING WITH HIS MONEY!

DavidE - 5-1-2014 at 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
So much money. Does Slim do anything for Mexico that anyone knows of? Schools? Hospitals?

He is purchasing USA pay as you go cell phone companies, then changing the original cell plans so a person is FORCED to purchase the most expensive recharge cards in order to receive a couple of months service time.

The man is a walking talking MACHO ripoff artist.

He has been quoted many times VERBATIM

"I want to become the richest person in the world and I know how to do it"

He has the very best system of PRI government supporters in Mexico City, that money can BUY

Carlos SlimE

willardguy - 5-1-2014 at 09:40 AM

ask any mexican on the street........

durrelllrobert - 5-1-2014 at 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

I'm not so sure about that, Chuckie. He has developed a reputation for stingeyness and probably only has foundations for tax purposes.
He does however hire a lot of people.

Mexico's Carlos Slim Says He'd Rather Create Jobs Than Donate ...
www.bloomberg.com/…010-09-29/carlos-slim-prefers.

Billionaire Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world according to Forbes magazine, said he’d rather spend money on projects that create jobs than give away his cash as part of a fight against poverty.

“The only way to fight poverty is with employment,” Slim said at a conference in Sydney today. “Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything.”

Slim’s comments come as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are in China to persuade fellow billionaires to give at least half their wealth to charity. Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and Microsoft Corp. cofounder Gates have signed up more than 30 philanthropists, including Larry Ellison and Paul Allen, to their Giving Pledge initiative.

“To give 50 percent, 40 percent, that does nothing,” Slim said. “There is a saying that we should leave a better country to our children. But it’s more important to leave better children to our country.”

sancho - 5-1-2014 at 10:48 AM

I remember a phrase in Mex, back in the day, something
with a #, like 40, which referred to 40 Mex Families which
held approx 85% of the Country of Mex's wealth. I'm sure the US
has # similiar, maybe not the same imbalance

DENNIS - 5-1-2014 at 10:49 AM

One big difference in the two list is that Chapo Guzman didn't make the latest.

Shame on Forbes for including him on the 2010 list.

DENNIS - 5-1-2014 at 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sancho
I remember a phrase in Mex, back in the day, something
with a #, like 40, which referred to 40 Mex Families which
held approx 85% of the Country of Mex's wealth. I'm sure the US
has # similiar, maybe not the same imbalance

It used to be called Grupo Monterrey....now Grupo Alfa:

"The Monterrey Group empire derived from the founding in Monterrey of Cerveceria Cuauhtemoc, a brewery, in 1890 by Isaac Garza Garza, his brother-in-law, Francisco Sada Muguerza, and two others. In 1936 the family holdings, already vast, were divided into two separate industrial groups. One of these, Valores Industriales S.A. (Visa), established Hojalata y Laminas S.A. (Hylsa) to make steel sheet for the bottle caps of its beverages during World War II, when the United States cut steel supplies to Mexico to meet its own needs. Hylsa became the largest privately run steel mill in Mexico, a fully integrated complex with activities ranging from mining and processing iron ore to finished products. In 1957 it patented HyL, a system of direct reduction known as fire sponging.[2]

One of the two heads Eugenio Garza Sada,of the Monterrey Group, was murdered in 1973 in what was described as an abortive kidnapping by left-wing terrorists, but before this happened, he and his brother Roberto Garza Sada divided the company into two parts. Bernardo Garza Sada, Roberto's son, became chairman of Grupo Industrial Alfa, S.A., which inherited Hylsa and many other industrial enterprises, including Empaques de Carton Titan, a packaging company founded in 1926; Nylon de Mexico (synthetic fibers), founded in 1952; and Polioles (chemicals), founded in 1962. "There is no falling out", one source explained to the New York Times. "But there was a real problem as to who would be next 'supreme,' so they juggled the shares within the family and divided the group."[2]

Under Bernardo Garza Sada's leadership Alfa diversified from its base into petrochemicals, synthetic fibers, capital machinery, farm equipment, television sets, and tourism. It also took a quarter share in Grupo Televisa, which virtually monopolized Mexican television broadcasting. Its assets grew from $315 million to $1.5 billion between 1974 and 1978, its sales from $194 million to $836 million, and its income from $21 million to $83 million. In 1978 Alfa was the only Mexican company in the Fortune 500 list of the biggest companies outside the United States, except for state-owned Petroleos de Mexico (Pemex). Himself a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Garza Sada staffed top management with graduates of MIT, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. One observer said they "always picked the kid with the Harvard MBA over the guy who really knew the business. The Alfa man had to look good on paper."[2]

Although Alfa formed joint ventures with Hercules and American Petrofina to produce polyester, Du Pont to produce other synthetic fibers, Ford to turn out aluminum cylinder heads, and Hitachi to make electric motors, it insisted on control. "We manage these ventures, always", Garza Sada told Forbes in 1979. "We demand that!" Alfa received $2.4 billion in loans from more than 130 foreign creditors and was planning to invest $3.5 billion by the end of 1984, almost three-fifths of it in money to be borrowed, mostly from sources outside Mexico. It was not only the leading private firm in Mexico but in all of Latin America. By 1980 it had 157 subsidiaries in 39 branches of the economy.

In retrospect, following Alfa's near-bankruptcy in 1982, Alfa's success bred arrogance. Many of the lower-management people had no practical experience, while the experienced upper management took charge of firms about which they knew very little. The company unwisely abandoned its prudent traditional policy of only integrating firms that had similar or complementary products. One observer said that Alfa "bought businesses like someone would buy candies for their children." A foreign bank representative recalled, "They were on the same kind of roll that the Mexican government was on then. Oil prices would know no limit. Grupo Alfa profits would know no limit."

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALFA_(Mexico)

msteve1014 - 5-1-2014 at 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaBlanca
So much money. Does Slim do anything for Mexico that anyone knows of? Schools? Hospitals?

I can also remember him as being quoted for saying " the difference between me and Bill Gates is that I do not give away money after making it".

Nice. My hero.

NOBODY

MrBillM - 5-1-2014 at 11:31 AM

Is Forced to buy Cell Phone services from Slim.

And, a Cell Phone is NOT a Life Essential.

who

willardguy - 5-1-2014 at 11:38 AM

said they did?

David K - 5-1-2014 at 11:47 AM

Rich people also don't just sit on their money, and count it like Donald Duck's uncle. They buy things, create jobs, grow the economy. I wish there were more rich people.

The economy is not static... there is no 'pie', with limited slices to take from. When someone gets rich, it does not take away from those who are not rich or prevent anyone else from success or wealth.

elgatoloco - 5-1-2014 at 12:49 PM

Viva trickle down!

grizzlyfsh95 - 5-1-2014 at 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Rich people also don't just sit on their money, and count it like Donald Duck's uncle. They buy things, create jobs, grow the economy. I wish there were more rich people.

The economy is not static... there is no 'pie', with limited slices to take from. When someone gets rich, it does not take away from those who are not rich or prevent anyone else from success or wealth.

yea...what he said

DENNIS - 5-1-2014 at 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lencho
I suspect had Telmex continued as before Slim, we'd not have *nearly* as good communications in Mexico. He's gotten rich in part because he turned an ailing government monopoly, into a very effective private monopoly (People don't flock to buy products that don't work.)

Not to mention being there when Salinas privatized the industry, for which I imagine he's still indebted to Carlos.

EnsenadaDr - 5-1-2014 at 02:16 PM

I'm more interested in the 10 richest men in Punta Banda myself!!

monoloco - 5-1-2014 at 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompano
Just saying...what does Carlos Slim pay in taxes?

On being super rich, in the USA, the top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010.

I wonder if the same holds for Mexico?

That same 10% controls 90% of the wealth so paying 70% of the taxes isn't such a bad deal for them.

willardguy - 5-1-2014 at 05:06 PM

what did he do to the tortilla?

DavidE - 5-2-2014 at 12:12 PM

On being super rich, in the USA, the top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010.

Oh I would looooooove to see where that stat comes from...

willardguy - 5-2-2014 at 12:24 PM

same site that tells you to cough during a heart attack? :lol:

David K - 5-2-2014 at 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE
On being super rich, in the USA, the top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010.

Oh I would looooooove to see where that stat comes from...

HALF the people pay 0 income tax because they make below the min. and yet get all the services of being an American citizen. So, their share must be paid by those who make more the min. in our crazy tax system.

Of course, the really crazy answer is "tax corporations and big business more!" :lol:

Like business doesn't pass along tax increases to their customers (the rest of us) in the form of higher prices!

When you tax something you make it harder to buy or more expensive... What did this government recently do? They taxed our HEALTH CARE!

The only fair way to pay for needed government is one rate flat tax that everyone can afford and nobody will need to hide from paying.

rts551 - 5-2-2014 at 06:00 PM

Quote:

come on you are a supply and demand guy....there is only so much demand....you should have learned that when you studied (oops) competition. As for paying 0 income tax but using benefits, Its been so long since I haven't paid I wouldn't know how it feels...maybe you can enlighten us.

DavidE - 5-3-2014 at 08:54 AM

Oh, I want TOP YIELD from my commodities investment!

OK, everyone else agrees to raise prices of this basic necessary for life commodity, so let's do it! 300% increase!

What if there's a backlash?

A what? You must be joking!

DEMAND AND SUPPLY. We demand THIS price or no SUPPLY

I'm only a stupid MBA. What do you take me for?

MitchMan - 5-3-2014 at 09:36 AM

Quote:

For those of you who believe in trickle down economics and supply side economics that do not know the above as fact, if that statement above can be substantiated, would you then incorporate that as fact and adjust your "macroeconomic" judgment accordingly? Or, would you persist in your original point of view in spite of the facts?

[Edited on 5-3-2014 by MitchMan]

durrelllrobert - 5-3-2014 at 09:46 AM

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners are the main target of tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2010, though they earned only 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

[Edited on 5-3-2014 by durrelllrobert]

DENNIS - 5-3-2014 at 09:51 AM

Quote:

would you persist in your original point of view in spite of the facts?

Ahhh...who would do such a thing on this board? :lol:

rts551 - 5-3-2014 at 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners are the main target of tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2010, though they earned only 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

SO?

"While the tax burden on this country's largest wage-earners has continued to grow since the Bush tax cuts were passed, the impact has been substantially muted.

The income gains made by the wealthiest Americans far outpaced that for the remaining workers, according to an analysis conducted for the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In fact, two-thirds of the nation's total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of households, the 2009 analysis of IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez showed."

and

"In the U.S., the share of total gross income (excluding capital gains) going to the top 1 percent of earners has more than doubled since 1981, standing at nearly 20 percent in 2012. Other countries have seen similar rises, but none as dramatic as the one in the U.S. And the super-rich - the top 0.1 percent - have quadrupled their share of the pie, from 2 percent in 1980 to more than 8 percent in 2010."

I wouldn't mind being a 1 percenter and paying taxes!

[Edited on 5-3-2014 by durrelllrobert]

rts551 - 5-3-2014 at 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
'Logic' according to liberals:

You have two children, and one studies very hard and really works to get a good grade. The other wants to play and have fun and not try as hard to do well in school.

The first one brings home an A and the second one brings home a D.

You punish the first one by taking away his bike (he earned by doing yard work for neighbors). You reward the second by giving him his brother's bike... (which he eventually trashes).

The first one is taught that to work hard and do well means you have to lose the rewards of your efforts to your brother... who just learned that if he does less he gets to keep more!! ??

Horse crap from an unemployed rightest.

MitchMan - 5-3-2014 at 05:07 PM

David K, your little fairy tale-like false equivalent simplistic story is a failed example of microeconomics. I suggest you actually read a text book on macroeconomics and microeconomics and develop a more sophisticated illustration of micro and macroeconomics so that you can posit a more sustainable and valid example of something based on a truly solid foundation.

I know these silly childlike illustrations work for some people (and I think we all know who they are), just not the knowledgeable people.

A Key to Understanding Economics

MrBillM - 5-3-2014 at 09:06 PM

Is that you can take your choice of theories and find a thousand Economists who agree.

Barry A. - 5-4-2014 at 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
David K, your little fairy tale-like false equivalent simplistic story is a failed example of microeconomics. I suggest you actually read a text book on macroeconomics and microeconomics and develop a more sophisticated illustration of micro and macroeconomics so that you can posit a more sustainable and valid example of something based on a truly solid foundation.

I know these silly childlike illustrations work for some people (and I think we all know who they are), just not the knowledgeable people.

I went on line, and asked the question on "who pays the income taxes"--------this is the first thing (out of dozens)that I clicked on that came up in answering above questions.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmo...

Velly interesting!!! David K has it right.

Barry

MitchMan - 5-4-2014 at 07:25 PM

No one is disputing the fact that the top pay a higher proportion of the total income tax than any lower % strata. That objective fact is not and has not been in dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. The same goes for the fact that the current US tax rates are also progressive. That is not in dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. Those two facts have not been at issue here. I challenge Barry or anyone else to cite posts to this thread that directly dispute those facts.

Barry and others are missing the point and the issue here. The issue is whether the top earners should be paying even more income tax thru even more progressive tax rates. That is the issue.

You know, before you can come to any relevant and sound conclusions, you should at least be correct as to what the issue is. The fact that the income tax rates are progressive has been an established fact for most of the decades that we have had a federal income tax. Barry, you should have known that long before today and I am quite surprised that you have taken David K's unsophisticated juvenile made up allegory as fact.

I have read and studied economics by both so called liberal and conservative economists and I have never come across any nonsense that even looks remotely like the child-like interpretation that David K has written. Looks to me like David K got his economic education from "Economics by Dick and Jane". I shudder to think that you see him as some kind of mentor on the subject...Barry, I give you more credit than that.

[Edited on 5-5-2014 by MitchMan]

LancairDriver - 5-4-2014 at 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
No one is disputing the fact that the top pay a higher proportion of the total income tax than any lower % strata. That objective fact is not and has not been in dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. The same goes for the fact that the current US tax rates are also progressive. That is not in dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. Those two facts have not been at issue here. I challenge Barry or anyone else to cite posts to this thread that directly dispute those facts.

Barry and others are missing the point and the issue here. The issue is whether the top earners should be paying even more income tax thru even more progressive tax rates. That is the issue.

You know, before you can come to any relevant and sound conclusions, you should at least be correct as to what the issue is. The fact that the income tax rates are progressive has been an established fact for most of the decades that we have had a federal income tax. Barry, you should have known that long before today and I am quite surprised that you have taken David K's unsophisticated juvenile made up allegory as fact.

I have read and studied economics by both so called liberal and conservative economists and I have never come across any nonsense that even looks remotely like the child-like interpretation that David K has written. Looks to me like David K got his economic education from "Economics by Dick and Jane". I shudder to think that you see him as some kind of mentor on the subject...Barry, I give you more credit than that.

[Edited on 5-5-2014 by MitchMan]

You need to thank DK for explaining the system on a level you can understand.

Barry A. - 5-4-2014 at 10:04 PM

You know, Landcaredriver, you are on to something. :light:

Of course we understand the "progressive tax" system, and we don't like it. I have been a "FLAT TAXER" (ala Steve Forbes, etc.) all my adult life as the only true fair way to finance Government, and I suspect David K has been also. The progressive tax is simply a way to get more funds into Govt. hands from the wealthy so that they can blow it on programs that mostly I, and many other's, don't approve of, and corrupt the poor.

It's really easy to understand, but many of you WANT it to be complex for reasons we all understand------to bamboozle the folks into contributing MORE MONEY!!! i.e. a scam!!!

Barry

LancairDriver - 5-4-2014 at 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
You know, Landcaredriver, you are on to something. :light:

You got it Barry. We are on the same page. It's hard to understand that after all the years of wealth "re-distribution" the so called "progressives" think the problem is that even more wealth needs confiscating. More "takers" are joining the system every day, and will soon overwhelm the "givers".

JoeJustJoe - 5-5-2014 at 10:31 AM

What's amazing is that we have many poor right-wingers many of them on fixed incomes of social security, and only living in Mexico to make their dollar stretch, because the costs are too high in the USA.

Many of these people that I'm talking about, are willing to cut back the social programs, and the safety net of social security, just so ultra rich people could pay less taxes in America.

I'm sorry, but it's not the ultra rich in America that are suffering. It's the poor and the middle class that is suffering. Let the ultra rich, carry their own water pails, and fight for their own taxes cuts, and favorable programs that help the rich only.

I'll never understand how poor Americans on fixed income, that pay little income taxes themselves, fight for the super rich, and polices that help rich corporations, who ofter pay no income taxes.

Barry A. - 5-5-2014 at 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
What's amazing is that we have many poor right-wingers many of them on fixed incomes of social security, and only living in Mexico to make their dollar stretch, because the costs are too high in the USA.

Many of these people that I'm talking about, are willing to cut back the social programs, and the safety net of social security, just so ultra rich people could pay less taxes in America.

I'm sorry, but it's not the ultra rich in America that are suffering. It's the poor and the middle class that is suffering. Let the ultra rich, carry their own water pails, and fight for their own taxes cuts, and favorable programs that help the rich only.

I'll never understand how poor Americans on fixed income, that pay little income taxes themselves, fight for the super rich, and polices that help rich corporations, who ofter pay no income taxes.

It's called fairness, JoJo----i.e. doing what's right and sustainable, and knowing where true prosperity and progress comes from.

It's not rocket-science. -----and just good business.

Barry

JoeJustJoe - 5-5-2014 at 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

It's called fairness, JoJo----i.e. doing what's right and sustainable, and knowing where true prosperity and progress comes from.

It's not rocket-science. -----and just good business.

Barry

OK Barry, I got it.

Corporate welfare is good, but welfare for poor Americans is bad, especially if the poor has dark skin.

If Walmart wants to come into my city, the local politicians should pull out all stops for Walmart, give them free land, subsidies, and offer them tax abatement . In return Walmart is offer many part time jobs at or barely above minimum wage, and for benefits Walmart will tell it's workers to apply for welfare to help makes ends meet.

Yeah Barry that's fair. BTW I have no problem with companies like Walmart trying to made things better for themselves, or rich fat cuts fighting for taxes cuts that will save them thousands of dollars, while giving the middle class a couple of bucks, that's if they don't already owe back taxes.

But Barry why are often dirt poor ultra conservatives fighting for the same things as the Koch Brothers? Is what's good for the Koch Brothers good for everybody in America?

Barry A. - 5-5-2014 at 11:34 AM

JoJo----------your reply above smacks of a typical lefty dodge--------what does your reply have to do with "income taxes"??? (apples and oranges)

I do NOT support "subsidies" in general--------

What individual cities do with pending applications from WalMart is up to them locally----------

You are making unrelated suppositions that are totally off-base, and not related to the subject at hand------a mistake you often seem to make.

The "Koch Brother's", like George Soros and others, support a system and belief in how Govt. should operate that they personally mostly agree with---------and they have the ability and resources to make a difference. That is the American Way, and yes I support that as long as everybody pays attention (as they should) to where that "support" is coming from and the possible ramifications, and vote accordingly.

A Republic does not work well if all individuals don't make the effort to pay attention, stay informed, and vote.

Barry

[Edited on 5-5-2014 by Barry A.]

MitchMan - 5-5-2014 at 03:09 PM

Quote:

Barry A.
Of course we understand the "progressive tax" system

Barry, you’re not making sense. If you already understand the progressive tax system, why would you look it up? Just another lack of logic for the so-called “Conservatives” (hereinafter referred to as “Cons”… because that is what they do and who they are…Cons) Also, you really didn’t have to admit that complexity is something that Cons have trouble with, every body already knows that. You just have to look at the pantheon of Con clown contenders for President in the 2012 elections, e.g. Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, and especially Herman Caine and Rick Perry. Come on, 2012 Sarah Palin for Vice President? laughable. John McCain should be deported for that one.

Really, Barry, if it weren’t for tired old and discredited Con talking points that you Cons mouth like hand puppets, I don’t see anything new in what you have reiterated in your last two posts. Most all economists, many are Cons, know that a flat tax would be ruinous to this country. All economists know that it would create an even greater disparity of income and wealth than what we now have. Don’t you read the papers?

Those certain and relatively few wealthy Con players that have influenced the rest of the middle class and lower class lemming Cons into following their selfish and disastrous self-serving Flat Tax Crapp together with Con politicians that are only interested in keeping their political posts are trying to run this country into the ground as if the 1987 stock market crash, the Dot Com debacle and the 2007/8 collapse of the financial structure wasn’t enough.

If Cons (other than the selfish moneyed interests running the whole show for the rest of the simple Con crowd) were smart enough to do the simple math (which they obviously are not) and simply pull their heads out of their butts and turn off the rampant disinformation and simpleton talking points supplied by Fox, Hannity, and Limbaugh to instead look at the evidence all around all of us today, they would know that there is a deadly current and worsening lopsided inequitable disparity of wealth and income at the top as a result of Con economic philosophy, trickle down, massive reduction in tax rate progressivity, and supply side economics coupled with insufficient regulation, not to mention an unfunded drug plan and two unfunded long lasting wars led by Neocons in the Bush administration (first time ever that no income taxes were raised to pay for those wars... I guess Bush and Chaney were too stupid do the math and cause more than half of the national debt).

The only Cons that seem to know the math and truly understand how the flat tax would further enrich them specifically by massive windfall are those very wealthy interests that have successfully snookered and repeatedly hoodwinked the rest of the other Cons into carrying their torch for them and into repeating like parrots their pre-manufactured talking points…like dumb little lambs to the slaughter, like lemmings over a cliff. The problem is that the lemming Cons are taking everybody else and this country over the cliff with them.

Quote:

Barry A.
A Republic does not work well if all individuals don't make the effort to pay attention, stay informed, and vote

I'll give you Cons one thing, you do vote, but you obviously do not pay attention and you do not stay informed.

[Edited on 5-5-2014 by MitchMan]

Poor Conservatives...............

MrBillM - 5-5-2014 at 03:27 PM

Should be looked upon as the Epitome of Principled thought.

It has long been held axiomatic that the toughest principles to support are those from which you derive no personal advantage.

I hear that from the LEFT in various wordings constantly so it MUST be true.

Barry A. - 5-5-2014 at 04:20 PM

MitchMan--------your reply to me above is so convoluted that I won't reply to your points, mostly because I don't really know what your are talking about so don't even know where to start.

I have never looked up "progressive income tax"------where did you come up that one?

As we have discovered many times in the past, you and I are so far apart politically that even responding to each other's political and economic points I believe is not useful.

I do agree with MrBill's point above, however.

Barry

MitchMan - 5-5-2014 at 05:16 PM

Barry, what happened to your reading skills?

Why would you need to look up "Who pays the income taxes" if you understand the progressive tax system? Everybody already knows that the progressive tax system is the mathematical reason why, in large part, that the top taxpayers pay disproportionate income tax. Simple math, man.

So either you don't understand the math connection or you don't understand the progressive tax system. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would know the math. It appears that you may not know either or even the 'math connection' of prog tax rates to the wealthy taxpayers paying disproportionate income tax. I mean, you did look up something, so I assume you did that because you didn't know ...something(?)

If things appear convoluted to you, try 'careful reading', that will help you understand things better. Works for me.

In the past, Barry, you feigned a variety of excuses to get out researching facts, avoiding legitimate challenges to back up what you say in writing, to avoid logically refuting something you disagree with. You have even openly admitted ignorance on the subject to which you have posited your own conclusions. I guess accusing my writing as being convoluted is just another dodge by you. I challenge you to show me what I wrote that is convoluted and not, therefore, coherent.

Can't wait to see the next excuse.

[Edited on 5-6-2014 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 5-5-2014 at 05:41 PM

Wealth, other than home equity, is excess past and current income that was not needed for consumption. The top 10% have well over 85% of the nation’s wealth today. They got that wealth by way of acquiring unneeded, unconsumed excess income FROM the economy. It makes mathematical and logical sense that the economy should tax that unneeded excess income. FTMS: “Follow the money, Stupid”. Tax the income that is unused, unneeded and not consumed. Don’t take it all, just tax a larger proportion of it. They will still retain more than they need, more than they can consume.

Top 10% have 77% of the nation’s total net worth
Top 10% have 85% of financial wealth (income producing wealth)
Top 10% have well over 90% of the voting stock (they have control of financial America).
Top 10% have 95% of all income gains since 2007 while the bottom 90% completely stagnated.

Net worth is nothing more than past income that has been accumulated. It is income itself, i.e., currently accumulated unconsumed past income. Obviously, the tax rates are not nearly progressive enough since the top income taxpayers are accumulating/amassing income (wealth) at unprecedented rates. I repeat: “Top 10% have 95% of all income gains since 2007.”

Median income for the middle class has shrunk since 1981 so severely that the USA no longer has the richest middle class, but is well behind many other western countries while the top wealthy people in the USA are doing much better than ever before…breaking records in fact.

That is a lopsided economy where working America is getting cheated out of what they produce with their own hands and minds and it is disproportionately going into the pockets of the few.

An economy is where people all get together and produce stuff that they in the economy need and want to consume. A balanced economy is where the compensation is balanced so that the very people that produce the goods and services can then go out and buy the very goods an services that they themselves have produced in the aggregate. That is not happening; what we have is a massive imbalance and it is plainly evidenced by the lopsided excess of income and wealth that has gone to the top and the hardship that is being experienced by the middle class and the poor…and it is getting worse. If you don't believe me, you need to read more, or, just ask the Pope.

In the absence of an economic system of balanced equitable income/compensation, the only current logical and equitable solution is to tax the money where it lies and where it went…at the top. They are the ones who have excessively benefited from the economy and they now have more purchasing power than they themselves need and more purchasing power than they themselves can consume.

You have to look at the big picture…it’s called “macroeconomics”.

[Edited on 5-6-2014 by MitchMan]

LancairDriver - 5-5-2014 at 06:18 PM

Quote from Mitch:
In the absence of an economic system of balanced equitable income/compensation, the only current logical and equitable solution is to tax the money where it lies and where it went…at the top. They are the ones who have excessively benefited from the economy and they now have more purchasing power than they themselves need and more purchasing power than they themselves can consume.

You have to look at the big picture…it’s called “macroeconomics”.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have just described the perfect formula for completing the already advanced destruction of the US economy brought on by the Government removing the incentive to work with all the the free stuff. Those who create the jobs and take the necessary risks to build the economy and invest in it, deserve to be compensated, not penalized. That is what built this nation. Hopefully the 1% will continue to blow their excess money on Yachts, Airplanes, Mansions, Businesses, and any number of job creating taxable pursuits.Those who make a living building and servicing and operating these items don't look at these expensive assets and curse the owners in spite of having a government that encourages just that. The smart ambitious ones look at them and think with hard work and a few smarts, I will get there one day if I want. At least that has been the case for over 200 years so far.

As Winston Churchill (who is arguably more credible than anyone who has commented here on this subject) was quoted as saying, "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"
Hows that for a simple real world economics lesson you may be able to understand.

wessongroup - 5-5-2014 at 07:26 PM

Say, would all this apply to Mexico too ... just asking :biggrin:

monoloco - 5-5-2014 at 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

The "Koch Brother's", like George Soros and others, support a system and belief in how Govt. should operate that they personally mostly agree with---------and they have the ability and resources to make a difference. That is the American Way, and yes I support that as long as everybody pays attention (as they should) to where that "support" is coming from and the possible ramifications, and vote accordingly.

A Republic does not work well if all individuals don't make the effort to pay attention, stay informed, and vote.

Barry

[Edited on 5-5-2014 by Barry A.]

How is the average person supposed to, "pay attention, stay informed", when the big money donors effectively obfuscate their contributions with 501c organizations and other ruses, where they can spend unlimited money to influence the political system. The fact is, that we are only allowed to vote for candidates that have already been vetted by these big money players. This fact makes it hard to argue that the 1% is under-represented or somehow paying more than their fair share, cry me a river. The reason that we are in the economic excrement hole we are currently in, is because these vultures have been controlling congress and driving legislation to benefit themselves for way to long.

[Edited on 5-6-2014 by monoloco]

MitchMan - 5-5-2014 at 10:12 PM

Give em hell, Monoloco...easy, isn't it?

MiniDriver, you couldn't be more wrong. It's going to be easy to completely discredit just about everything you just wrote. When you come from an obviously flawed position as you do, you leave yourself wide open. Get ready, it's coming your way.

MitchMan - 5-5-2014 at 10:17 PM

Quote:

Rght on, Joe. It's like these guys close their eyes to the abundant facts all around them, create their own parallel universe, and repeat like green parrots what they hear on Fox news...word for word...not an original thought among them. I'd suggest to them a reading list, but they would probably just eat the books.

mtgoat666 - 5-5-2014 at 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

Quote:

Half of the population has below average intelligence.

I have observed that many people do really stupid things.

Very few people bother to think.

TMW - 5-6-2014 at 08:29 AM

I suggest everyone get a copy of "Getting Rich in America" by Brian Tracy. It's an audio CD series. Then you'll understand how to get rich when you have nothing to start with. Self-gradification is one of the biggest reasons people never get rich.

Below-Average

MrBillM - 5-6-2014 at 09:04 AM

While it is Axiomatic that Half are ALWAYS below the median, such is not the case with average.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the two terms have been incorrectly conflated to such a degree that the misuse has gained widespread (and official) acceptance.

tripledigitken - 5-6-2014 at 09:10 AM

Mean, median and mode........

All different

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

(Disclaimer: Please try and ignore my spelling errors)

I disagree with the thrust of your entire last sentence. Tho there will always be "vultures" within all classes of people, most are not.

I have never heard anybody say that the "1%" are "under represented"-----where did THAT come from?

-----and the wealthy ARE certainly paying "more than their fair share", IMO, which is why I favor the FLAT TAX as many well known economists have recommended for years (I don't believe that MitchMan is a well known economist, but I admire his research efforts even tho he cherry-picks and spouts only that which supports his theories---a common problem).

As it stands now, 501C's are legal, and they are legal for a reason. All political parties have them, (I think?) and that does not bother me. Even George Soros efforts do not bother me, tho they are misdirected, IMO.

It is legal to vote for anybody you want, so your comment is a mis-charaterazaton of the electorate I believe, but I do know what you mean. So far, I have been fairly happy with the folks running in general, and have no problems voting. I am certainly ready to vote for somebody with experience in successfully running something significant, like Mitt Romney or Ross Perot, both of whom I voted for.

In my opinion, the reason that the economy is recovering so slowly is complicated, but some of the President's policies are not helping and are probably hindering, as well as his apparent lack of interest in what makes past recoveries work. There is lots of blame to go around, however, and some of it is mostly out of our control and is the result of changing situations. Your reference to "economic excrement hole" is soooo over the top that I cannot even begin to reply----------even in my town of Redding, CA (pop 100K) where the current unemployment stands at 17%, we appear to be doing fine, and that is because 83% of the working-age population IS working, and working hard. It is almost impossible to get into most of our restaurants on Fri & Sat. nights because of the crowds. Things seem pretty normal in general at most stores. My business friends tell me that they cannot find qualified people to fill their vacant positions, and it is a real problem. The qualities lacking are education, experience, and can-do attitudes & unrealistic expectations. I'm told the four most disqualifying situations are applicants past record of drug abuse, bad employment history, and really poor attitude and work ethic based on history. Much of that I think is the result of Liberal policies over many years fostering 'victim' slip-shod personal responsibility and a give-me-more attitude as a direct result of nanny-state legislation and retoric.

IMO, if we are headed down-hill, which you obviously think we are, it is a direct result of Democrat majorities imposing mis-guided legislation on all of us, and a failure of the main-stream media to hold the responsible politicians and bureaucrats accountable for their mistakes. I am certainly glad that at least a few Media outlets (such as FoxNews) has heard me and listened, and are waking up to what is happening all around us, and more importantly reporting same. I am not a Tea Partier, but I support much of the thrust of their efforts, and understand their frustration.

We need many more Trey Gowdy's, IMO!!!!

As for my personal understanding of Economics, that MitchMan is constantly hammering me about, I pay well-known people that I respect and that I believe are highly qualified to keep me up-to-speed on these matters, and so far that has worked well for me. I do NOT normally listen to Sam Hannity, Russ Limbaugh, or other rabble-rousers as they repeat themselves over and over again and it's gets really boring, even tho I agree with much of what they say, or have said. They are mostly a waste of time, IMO.

The posts by MitchMan, the Goat, and other eliteists above only hurt their credibility by there foul and highly distasteful comments about some others, and are trolls in my opinion who appear to thrive on insults-------which is a shame as they probably are smart and knowledgable people in the main, but also highly intolerant of others who disagree with them.

We live in a world of many people with many different levels of education, intelligence, and backgrounds, and nothing will be solved, I don't believe, if we don't always keep this in mind, and act and talk civilly to each other, and above all LISTEN and act responsibly despite how frustrating that can sometimes be.

That's my rant for the morning!!! (-:

Barry

LancairDriver - 5-6-2014 at 10:48 AM

Very well stated Barry. You definitely have the high road here.

rts551 - 5-6-2014 at 11:27 AM

I am sorry Barry but this statement

"The posts by MitchMan, the Goat, and other eliteists above only hurt their credibility by there foul and highly distasteful comments about some others, and are trolls in my opinion who appear to thrive on insults-------which is a shame as they probably are smart and knowledgable people in the main, but also highly intolerant of others who disagree with them. "

in and of itself shows intolerance and could be interpreted as insulting.

Intolerant and Insulting

MrBillM - 5-6-2014 at 12:46 PM

NOBODY should care whether or not the Left finds them Intolerant and Insulting.

They find EVERYONE who disagrees with their Dogma Intolerant and Insulting.

Opinions contrary to theirs are ALWAYS considered such and they rabidly attack.

F-em.

JoeJustJoe - 5-6-2014 at 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TW
I suggest everyone get a copy of "Getting Rich in America" by Brian Tracy. It's an audio CD series. Then you'll understand how to get rich when you have nothing to start with. Self-gradification is one of the biggest reasons people never get rich.

Oh wow, you can't go wrong reading a book or listening to a tape from Brian Tracy, but if I'm going to listen to a self-help snake oil self-improvement guru. I'm going to listen to Tony Robbins, or Deepak Chopra. Brian Tracy, is too political, and he has a right-wing slant.

Then I guess you follow it up with a daily dose of the, Fair and Balanced, "Fox News," and you'll be all set in an alternate reality, where you believe, it's better for America, if you follow a reverse Robin Hood, strategy, of taking from the poor, and giving it to the rich.

wessongroup - 5-6-2014 at 01:31 PM

And, speaking of the 10 Richest Mexicans .... :lol:

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
And, speaking of the 10 Richest Mexicans .... :lol:

It's all connected, Wiley

Rich Mexicanos / rich Norte- Americanos, it's all connected. The left wants them all "to pay" big-time for the audacity of them becoming "1 %'ers". :rolleyes:

Barry

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

Quote:

Generally speaking, the "rich" DON'T "take from the poor"! That theory is a lefty-myth spouted over and over again by the radical Dems!!! The rich mostly produce products and services that American's, and many others, seem to want and most buy! And consequently they grow RICH. Nobody, least of all "the rich", compel others to buy this stuff, normally. Compelling (or demanding) people to do things, or buy things, or pay more taxes is a practice of the left-leaning Democrats, not the Republicans. Remember, the (warm and fuzzy, tolerant) Left ALWAYS knows best what other people should do, and by Gawd they better DO IT! :rolleyes:

Barry

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
I am sorry Barry but this statement

"The posts by MitchMan, the Goat, and other eliteists above only hurt their credibility by there foul and highly distasteful comments about some others, and are trolls in my opinion who appear to thrive on insults-------which is a shame as they probably are smart and knowledgable people in the main, but also highly intolerant of others who disagree with them. "

in and of itself shows intolerance and could be interpreted as insulting.

I suppose you are right-----------often the TRUTH does hurt!!!

Barry

willardguy - 5-6-2014 at 02:32 PM

just when you start to think it CAN"T get any more idiotic,...along....comes....davidK!.

why don't you nutbags take it elsewhere!

mtgoat666 - 5-6-2014 at 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
That theory is a lefty-myth spouted over and over again by the radical Dems!!! The rich mostly produce products and services that American's, and many others, seem to want and most buy! And consequently they grow RICH.

barry,
actually, the laborers produce products and services. many rich just invest inherited capital that they never worked a day for, and eat caviar and drink champagne on the beach in cabo, while the working man toils in a factory or cubicle, day dreaming of a week-long trip to a mediocre timeshare in cabo (see how i kept this thread baja-related?)

:lol:

David K - 5-6-2014 at 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by willardguy
just when you start to think it CAN"T get any more idiotic,...along....comes....davidK!.

why don't you nutbags take it elsewhere!

How so? I was countering the obvious nutty philosophy of failure so heavily embraced by the left. Rewarding failure is not going to benefit anyone in the long run. Eventually people will just give up if they are punished for their success. Look for a shortage of doctors in our future!

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Depends on how you look at it----------sorta a 'chicken or the egg' scenario. Without capitol invested by people who have it there would be no factory, etc. for other's to work in, and earn wages, etc..... The truth is that BOTH are necessary and very important. Most wise entreprenuers (and most ARE wise) don't want to exploit their workers as it will hurt their product, and their bottom-line long term, generally speaking. Warren Buffett talks about his all the time. Most investors are NOT sitting around on a beach in Cabo or BOLA sipping tequila and eating fish-eggs, they are investing their earned money accumulated over many years, and in fact I don't know any people like you mention, and I know quite a few millionairs. I don't know any Trust-Fund babies, I don't think, depending on your definition. We accumulated our money by investing over many years with money put aside from wages or salarys just for that purpose. It pays off big time over the years, and allows many of us to achieve the American Dream that you mention most want to attain. In my case I gained my invested money thru Stock Mutual Funds, individual Stocks, Hedges, Commodities, some Real Estate in great markets, and all assets used initially were earned from my Salary thru rigorous saving of a percentage of all earned income (in my case we saved about 30% of every dime, and invested it over 45+ years allowing it to compound). Inherited money from my Mom is in a by-pass Trust (generation skipping) which I now control since my Mom passed, but all assets go to my kids and grandkids, etc....eventually. My Mom set it up that way to avoid death-taxes as best she could, but that only partially worked. We live off pensions, and income from our non-Trust investments (all owned by our personal Family Trust, however). Some of my investments have lost 10's of thousands of dollars, and others have rewarded us handsomely. (that's called "risk-taking").

Even assuming your scenario of inherited capitol, the recipients are taking almost always taking risks daily in investing their Family money in ventures that often fail, etc... To bash them is, to me, sounding like pure jealously and envy, hating their success and luck, and wanting what they have--------that's called GREED, I believe.

Life is good, and there are no "victims" in my Family, and we all are wage-earners and salaried people, or retired.

You have a strange take on the wealthy, and brand all with the rare bad examples you have heard of, or seen. Most don't fit that description!

Barry

monoloco - 5-6-2014 at 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LancairDriver
Quote from Mitch:
In the absence of an economic system of balanced equitable income/compensation, the only current logical and equitable solution is to tax the money where it lies and where it went…at the top. They are the ones who have excessively benefited from the economy and they now have more purchasing power than they themselves need and more purchasing power than they themselves can consume.

You have to look at the big picture…it’s called “macroeconomics”.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have just described the perfect formula for completing the already advanced destruction of the US economy brought on by the Government removing the incentive to work with all the the free stuff. Those who create the jobs and take the necessary risks to build the economy and invest in it, deserve to be compensated, not penalized. That is what built this nation. Hopefully the 1% will continue to blow their excess money on Yachts, Airplanes, Mansions, Businesses, and any number of job creating taxable pursuits.Those who make a living building and servicing and operating these items don't look at these expensive assets and curse the owners in spite of having a government that encourages just that. The smart ambitious ones look at them and think with hard work and a few smarts, I will get there one day if I want. At least that has been the case for over 200 years so far.

As Winston Churchill (who is arguably more credible than anyone who has commented here on this subject) was quoted as saying, "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"
Hows that for a simple real world economics lesson you may be able to understand.

You should read about the fall of the Roman Empire. In many ways history is repeating itself, debasement of the currency, most wealth flowing to the top, an insolvent government from the projection of military power, the need for social welfare (bread & circuses) to keep the lower classes from revolting, and a corrupt and bloated bureaucracy.

rts551 - 5-6-2014 at 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Funny you mention Warren Buffet since he advocates a minimum tax on top wage earners.... among other things.

MitchMan - 5-6-2014 at 06:50 PM

There is a big distinction between investing in corporations and simply speculating. You are truly investing in American business when you capitalize your own corporation that is using that capital to launch a new business or to further invest in its particular business endeavor for expansion or whatever. When you purchase stock in an IPO you are truly investing in a business as that money that you pay to the corp for its IPO will be used to launch the business and buy productive assets.

But, it is quite a different thing when you invest in the stock market and buy stock that is sold not as an IPO but simply you buy it from some else who already bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else, etc. That is how most of the stock is bought every day and not from an IPO. That kind of investing is not investing in America, it is merely "speculation" and those dollars that you spent to buy that stock did not go into capital assets to launch anything or buy a business's productive assets, it simply went into the pocket of some other speculator.

Nothing wrong or immoral here at all. But lets call a spade a spade. Buying and holding securities are really used as a means of storing purchasing power by those individuals with excess wealth (i.e. excess purchasing power) beyond what they needed for their own consumption more than the lofty notion of "investing in America". For the most part, investing in securities is not much more than an exercise in sheer speculation. They are really investing in the art of "speculation", similar to speculators who invest in rare coins, art, antiques, baseball cards or historical artifacts, etc.

A materially significant portion of current day wealthy got their wealth initially by way of inherited "seed" money and resources that enabled them to take advantage of opportunities and/or position themselves to successfully engage in money making endeavors and careers together with "inherited" financial connections, insights, in roads, knowledge, habits, methods and advantageous exposure. A significant portion of the wealthy admit that good luck was also a significant factor for them. Furthermore, there can be no question that children of wealthy people get great advantages from their family.

Many wealthy people die every year. Obviously the wealth didn't evaporate, it went to their heirs.

There is confusion about inherited wealth stats today. If you are 74 today and you inherited $300,000 when you were 24 in 1964 after your parents provided a solid example of how to manage your money as they did and paid for your college education at a good named school and paid for your trip to Europe, piano lessons, and golf lessons, and you started a job in your particular field of study thru the help of familial connections in the business marketplace, you would have such a heads up on life compared to those who inherited nothing and went to a state college with no particular guidance or example from his/her parents and no connections of any kind. The former could have purchased a very nice 5000 sq ft home with a pool in a great neighborhood for $50,000 and buy $200,000 worth of multifamily income property; the home and the multifamily income property would be worth at least $5 million today. If you asked that person "how much of your $5 million net worth today did you inherit, the answer would be: "only 6%, that is, $300,000".

So, be skeptical of those who go around saying that most of today's wealthy only inherited a small portion of their current wealth. Many people inherited not just money and seed capital but in addition, gloriously advantageous familial and social connections and exposure, insight, knowledge by example, guidance, income property, homes, existing established businesses and much more importantly, the proper perspective on how to be a successful custodian of wealth and fortune.

Furthermore, wealth in and of itself has a way growing like a snowball rolling down a mountain. Once you have enough wealth and income to sustain your consumption level, the rest the income just keeps adding to your net worth. For example, for the top 1%, their wealth is skyrocketing.

A significant proportion of today's wealthy did it all their own, completely from beginning to end, that is certain, but certainly not all of the wealthy.

[Edited on 5-7-2014 by MitchMan]

monoloco - 5-6-2014 at 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Barry, I believe that the error in your and other's arguments here, is clinging to the belief that we actually live in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, the government doesn't favor sectors and industries, it doesn't "bailout" failing businesses, it doesn't give subsidies to businesses that could not be profitable without them, it doesn't provide artificially low interest rates that let Wall Street banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds enrich themselves at the expense of working people who have saved their money, and it doesn't wage war to enrich defense contractors. Many here have referred to all the "free stuff" provided by our "socialist" government, the fact of the matter is a very large portion of that "free stuff" goes to banks, corporations, and defense contractors. That's what I referred to when I used the word vulture, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and BOA, by rights should no longer exist, they were insolvent, yet their bond holders, corporate officers, and stock holders were made whole by the intervention of the US government and the Federal Reserve.

LancairDriver - 5-6-2014 at 07:20 PM

Quote:

Quote from Monoloco;

Barry, I believe that the error in your and other's arguments here, is clinging to the belief that we actually live in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, the government doesn't favor sectors and industries, it doesn't "bailout" failing businesses, it doesn't give subsidies to businesses that could not be profitable without them, it doesn't provide artificially low interest rates that let Wall Street banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds enrich themselves at the expense of working people who have saved their money, and it doesn't wage war to enrich defense contractors. Many here have referred to all the "free stuff" provided by our "socialist" government, the fact of the matter is a very large portion of that "free stuff" goes to banks, corporations, and defense contractors. That's what I referred to when I used the word vulture, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and BOA, by rights should no longer exist, they were insolvent, yet their bond holders, corporate officers, and stock holders were made whole by the intervention of the US government and the Federal Reserve.

All very good points and true. I don't see any conservative disputing any of this.

[Edited on 5-7-2014 by LancairDriver]

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working folks"-------just HOW do they do that?

I would STOP all the subsidies if I was in charge, as you would. The 'bailouts' were nutty, for sure.

Barry

When in Rome .................

MrBillM - 5-6-2014 at 07:43 PM

The thought that comes to mind whenever someone (inevitably) brings up Dem Ol Romans is ..................

IF we can last THAT LONG, then we've got a few hundred years left to Reign.

Sounds good to me.

monoloco - 5-6-2014 at 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working folks"-------just HOW do they do that?

Barry

Think of all the people who worked all their lives and saved their money, like mi suegras, who, in their 80's are now faced with the choice of receiving less than 1% on their savings or investing in a rigged casino stock market that they are not nearly sophisticated enough to effectively navigate. I know that you are bullish on the stock market, and a significant portion of my wealth is due to investing in it also, but the vast majority of Americans will never have enough of an understanding of how the market works to avoid being fleeced.

Barry A. - 5-6-2014 at 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

If they spent even a few months listening to Susie Orman's show on CNBC (I think that is the station) then they would learn almost all they need to know----------95% of what that crazy-lady says is spot on, and invaluable advice.

I gave up making decisions on about 2/3rds of my invested portfolio years ago, and now I pay trusted advisors that I am very familiar with to take on that task. (in my case Ken Fisher Investments). Heck, put it all in Birkshire Hathaway-B (Warren Buffett's) and you will be just fine----I have lots with Warren's stuff. The other 1/3rd is in ROTH IRA'S invested in super Mutual Fund Families like Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price. You can get independent newsletters that concentrate on each of those Families for about 100 to $250 a year, which is peanuts when you take their advice seriously, and follow it. Over many years I have averaged annualized returns of from 9% to 14% (and occasionally more). If you then only remove 3% of each portfolio annually, they will last forever and even grow, keeping up with inflation, and then some.

There is a learning-curve, like with everything, but it can be done and millions do it. No, or little "trading" no matter what, don't act on emotion, and you will be fine if history is any clue.

But above all, don't get involved or take advice from any of the nuts bombarding you with their ads touting gains of 15% or more on TV or the internet, or by mail, with a very few exceptions (that's where your experience comes in handy-----few of them are worth your time). If it sounds simply wonderful, it probably is a scam. I NEVER pay any attention to the dozens of unsolicited investment flyers I get each week, and on the NET----NEVER!!!.

(Now each person reading this please remit $25 to my Pay-Pal account ) (-:

Barry

monoloco - 5-7-2014 at 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market?

Barry A. - 5-7-2014 at 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
There is a big distinction between investing in corporations and simply speculating. You are truly investing in American business when you capitalize your own corporation that is using that capital to launch a new business or to further invest in its particular business endeavor for expansion or whatever. When you purchase stock in an IPO you are truly investing in a business as that money that you pay to the corp for its IPO will be used to launch the business and buy productive assets.

But, it is quite a different thing when you invest in the stock market and buy stock that is sold not as an IPO but simply you buy it from some else who already bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else, etc. That is how most of the stock is bought every day and not from an IPO. That kind of investing is not investing in America, it is merely "speculation" and those dollars that you spent to buy that stock did not go into capital assets to launch anything or buy a business's productive assets, it simply went into the pocket of some other speculator.

Nothing wrong or immoral here at all. But lets call a spade a spade. Buying and holding securities are really used as a means of storing purchasing power by those individuals with excess wealth (i.e. excess purchasing power) beyond what they needed for their own consumption more than the lofty notion of "investing in America". For the most part, investing in securities is not much more than an exercise in sheer speculation. They are really investing in the art of "speculation", similar to speculators who invest in rare coins, art, antiques, baseball cards or historical artifacts, etc.

A materially significant portion of current day wealthy got their wealth initially by way of inherited "seed" money and resources that enabled them to take advantage of opportunities and/or position themselves to successfully engage in money making endeavors and careers together with "inherited" financial connections, insights, in roads, knowledge, habits, methods and advantageous exposure. A significant portion of the wealthy admit that good luck was also a significant factor for them. Furthermore, there can be no question that children of wealthy people get great advantages from their family.

Many wealthy people die every year. Obviously the wealth didn't evaporate, it went to their heirs.

There is confusion about inherited wealth stats today. If you are 74 today and you inherited $300,000 when you were 24 in 1964 after your parents provided a solid example of how to manage your money as they did and paid for your college education at a good named school and paid for your trip to Europe, piano lessons, and golf lessons, and you started a job in your particular field of study thru the help of familial connections in the business marketplace, you would have such a heads up on life compared to those who inherited nothing and went to a state college with no particular guidance or example from his/her parents and no connections of any kind. The former could have purchased a very nice 5000 sq ft home with a pool in a great neighborhood for $50,000 and buy $200,000 worth of multifamily income property; the home and the multifamily income property would be worth at least $5 million today. If you asked that person "how much of your $5 million net worth today did you inherit, the answer would be: "only 6%, that is, $300,000".

So, be skeptical of those who go around saying that most of today's wealthy only inherited a small portion of their current wealth. Many people inherited not just money and seed capital but in addition, gloriously advantageous familial and social connections and exposure, insight, knowledge by example, guidance, income property, homes, existing established businesses and much more importantly, the proper perspective on how to be a successful custodian of wealth and fortune.

Furthermore, wealth in and of itself has a way growing like a snowball rolling down a mountain. Once you have enough wealth and income to sustain your consumption level, the rest the income just keeps adding to your net worth. For example, for the top 1%, their wealth is skyrocketing.

A significant proportion of today's wealthy did it all their own, completely from beginning to end, that is certain, but certainly not all of the wealthy.

[Edited on 5-7-2014 by MitchMan]

I just saw this post, Mitch, for the first time.

I think all that you have said here is spot-on, very well stated, and your 'inherited wealth' scenario is a very reasonable example of what may, and often does, happen.

What puzzles me is that this scenario apparently bothers you, and you see something wrong with it?!?!? I hope I am wrong. I see nothing wrong at all with your hypothetical scenario actually happening--------and marvel at how much this actually happens in this Country of ours. I actually applaud it, and it's many variations as examples of how Families build wealth and opportunity, allowing Family members to duplicate it over and over again, and then provide enormous amounts of charity to foundations that provide opportunity to many others less fortunate. The more successful members of my extended Family give literally millions to Foundations and Colleges, etc. of their choice with expressly those intentions of providing opportunity to as many as possible, knowing that they have been extremely fortunate to live in a Country with such incredible opportunities for success and wealth. By far the MOST successful member of my extended Family was an only-child from a Family headed by a Sanitation Worker for the City of San Diego, and he inherited only a fully-paid-off very modest house in Chula Vista. From there he, and College buddies (San Diego State), built up several multi-million dollar businesses, eventually all of them becoming Venture Capitalists, which he remains one as of today, at age 80.. If this isn't something to applaud, then I truly am living in a parallel universe, as somebody suggested earlier.

So far, nobody in my extended Family "inherited" much wealth, certainly not the "$300K" in your scenario, but that will soon change. Hopefully this "seed" money now at hand will produce more prosperity for all involved, and that looks to be on track as NOBODY in my extended Family has EVER had any major problems, and all are building wealth slowly on their own---even my age 20'ish grandkids. It's hard for me to criticize a Country or a system that provided us with these opportunities. I truly believe that ANYBODY with average intelligence can accomplish great things if the simply apply themselves and learn how to do it.

Thank you for that great post---------it shows insight and knowledge, and that you have done your homework and kept your eyes open.

It take's a very special talent & special intelligence to actually "start" a business, and many simply don't have those attributes, as near as I can tell. I know I don't. But I sure applaud those that do-----it's what makes our system truly work, albeit with some unintended consequences from time to time, and yes I envy those that do, but have never felt any jealousy---- Just thank God that we have them as they provide the 'progress' that we almost all desire and utilize!!!

I am only able to tag along behind them thru investing in their endeavors and success thru the Stock Market---------and yes, from your perspective that is "speculation", but I submit, a very educated-speculation.

Barry

Only in America ?

MrBillM - 5-7-2014 at 09:50 AM

Could so many whose financial position would make them wealthy in most of the world consider themselves to be downtrodden and poverty-stricken.

Barry A. - 5-7-2014 at 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market?

I am no "advisor", but ABSOLUTELY (if they intend to leave any money to their heirs), as long as they are willing to pay attention, and if not, then put their money into good Mutual Funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price), or a trusted investment firm (do extensive homework). Because of pervasive law-suits, the professional advisors are WAY to conservative, with a few exceptions like Ken Fisher who advocates total Stock Market investments (no bonds). I have seldom owned any bonds other than Zero Coupon Bonds in a declining interest rate environment----bonds are way to risky and mysterious for me!

If I was just starting out in my '80's, I would stick with good Mutual Funds and/or a good Investment Manager. ANYTHING is better than earning only "1%". Check out the stats on VANGUARD SELECTED VALUE.

Barry

Barry A. - 5-7-2014 at 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM

ONLY IN AMERICA------

Could so many whose financial position would make them wealthy in most of the world consider themselves to be downtrodden and poverty-stricken.

100% agree----------this has ALWAYS amazed me!!!

Barry

[Edited on 5-7-2014 by Barry A.]

TMW - 5-7-2014 at 10:26 AM

Quote:

Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market?

Well said Barry.

wessongroup - 5-7-2014 at 01:08 PM

Some good "stuff" on the only game in town for us working stiffs ... such that "it" is

Suppose there are more than a few, that started with nothing .. we did .. and it took a life time of working, saving and investing to reach retirement without debt and something in the bank for an additional safety net ........

Certainly don't like to see my fellow Americans suffering without jobs and little hope of getting one in the short or long term ... and we willing to pay taxes to help them out ... Know they sure in hell weren't trying to end up this way

Additionally ... their prospects for "investing" to pull it off ... are remote, at best

Difficult times ahead for this next generation ... as the wagon they have been hitched to ... will be getting harder and harder to pull

The class I'm referring to, the unemployed .... left over from this last financial meltdown ... with no place to go

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the current unemployment rate is lower than it has been in six years: 6.3%. While that’s good news, you may want to resist the urge to fully celebrate because the figure only tells part of the story. Here are some other critical numbers that help to paint a more complete picture:

1. 806,000 People Dropped Out of the Labor Force in April

It’s no secret why the job rate hit a low – nearly a million Americans gave up on looking for work altogether last month alone. In its official statistic, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not include people who aren’t looking for work as “unemployed,” meaning that millions of people who have been discouraged by repeated rejections and a poor economy are conveniently left out of the equation entirely.

After last month’s massive drop in job-seekers, that means 92 million Americans are out of the labor force in total. While that figure includes retired individuals, that still leaves far too many working-age adults who have given up hope on securing employment.

2. 344,000 New People Filed for Unemployment Benefits Last Week

It’s interesting that in the same month where the government is heralding record unemployment rates that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits has also been increasingly high. For three consecutive weeks, the number of new applicants has risen, jumping from 320,000 to 344,000 just last week.

Though some economists have dismissed the job as a “seasonal shift,” the numbers could also indicate that people who were hoping to find work on their own for some time are finally realizing that they need government assistance to get by since their job prospects are not looking good. That’s not good news because…

3. 2 Million People Were Forced Off Unemployment Benefits

As of the beginning of March, 2 million still actively seeking for jobs were no longer able to receive unemployment benefits. Thanks to Congress opting not to renew long-term unemployment benefits this past December, people who were depending on this money to get by abruptly found themselves out of luck.

Looking forward, the prospect for helping these does not look all that good. While the Senate (including a handful of Republicans) has agreed to give more financial support to the long-term unemployed, the House’s Republican stronghold continues to dismiss the idea of re-extending these benefits. Considering the average person who loses his or her job goes a full 35 weeks before finding work again, the existing benefits do not even cover that gap.

4. 1/3 of Breast Cancer Survivors Remain Unemployed Years Later

Although this statistic pertains to a small subset of the U.S. population, it does demonstrate that Americans facing health crises have a difficult time reentering the workforce. According to a study by the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, one-third of women who were working prior to their diagnosis are still unemployed.

Those who underwent chemotherapy were especially likely to still find themselves jobless years later. Evidently, as “inspiring” as people consider breast cancer survivors, employers don’t view them as viable candidates. For the record, more than half of the unemployed women were interested in returning to a job, with most actively looking for employment.

5. 64% of Long-Term Unemployed Still No Better Off More Than a Year Later

The longer someone is unemployed, the worse his or her chances of ever landing a job become. Long-term unemployment figures paint a frightening picture of people who have seemingly been disregarded by hirers permanently.

Researchers looked at job-seekers who had been unemployed for at least six month, and then checked up on them again 15 months later. For most, the year had not been kind. 30% of these people were still unemployed and looking for work, while another 34% weren’t working or looking for work anymore. Of the 36% who were now considered “employed,” only about 1/3 were in full-time, stable positions."

Bob53 - 5-7-2014 at 01:32 PM

Wait a minute. Why am I not listed? Oh yeah, I'm not Mexican.

Barry A. - 5-7-2014 at 01:36 PM

In response to Wesson above----------:

As previously stated, Redding, CA (actually Shasta County) has an official unemployment rate of "17%" when last computed. I see "help wanted" signs on many businesses in town. My business friends who are looking for employees to fill vacancies are mostly stymied as few apply, and those that do simply are not qualified due to lack of education, drug problems, poor attitudes, and a work-history that is less than encouraging. (notice that ALL of those "problems" were brought on by irresponsible behavior by individuals) .

I feel sad and compassionate for the unemployed who truly want work but have disabilities, but that sadness fades quickly for the general unemployed individuals who I see, and hear about from my business friends, at least as it pertains to Redding.

Who, in their right minds, would STOP looking for work if they wanted to work??? and do irresponsible things that they have to know reduces their chances of being hired? I believe I know the answer, and it is not encouraging.

Barry

monoloco - 5-7-2014 at 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by monoloco

Quote:

Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market?

Sorry Barry, but investing in the stock market for middle class folks is only advisable if they have a 10+ year timeline, any investment advisor who would recommend that someone in their 80's start investing in stocks and mutual funds, would be guilty of malpractice. Imagine if there was another 2008 meltdown, they would be forced to live out the rest of their lives in poverty.

Barry A. - 5-7-2014 at 02:19 PM

MonoLoco----------then they must accept the consequences of their inaction and their decision, and except "1%" returns, I suppose.

I am 76, and my investment "time line" is always stated as "30 years plus" since we intend to leave our portfolios to my kids, and at 3% take each year I will not be drawing down my Stock investments, historically-----just the opposite as they continue to increase in value even with my 3% withdrawal rate. Even a 5% annual withdrawal rate is acceptable, to some----but no more than that. I state a "30 +year time horizon" because I don't want my Advisor over-reacting to our age, and being way too conservative. He knows our actual ages, but this lets him off the hook legally if things go south.

I was assuming from the parameters you laid out that the subject-people had their nest-egg in bonds, and were getting only "1%", and I assumed that by age 80 they had no debt-----we certainly don't.

We had lost roughly 53% of our entire invested portfolio between early 2008 to April of 2009. My advisor and I tinkered with the investments, changing perhaps 5% of our portfolio to a new strategy, and by Nov. of 2010 we had regained all of the 53% loss and were back in the black. We have gone thru 3 or 4 similar situations over some 45 + years, and all worked out about the same.

With 2 people in their '80's each getting SS and no debt I can't really see why "poverty" would be on their horizon-------belt-tightening for sure, but "poverty"???? There are no guarantees, of course. You (they) makes your decisions, and I would hope live with the consequences regardless. Risk is ALWAYS part of the game.

Between my pension, and my wife's SS, we net about $2300 a month, and that sure pays all the bills. Investment income is gravy!!! and also pays for Insurance protection, and we have a LOT of insurance protection to protect the kids from a possible disaster.

I will stick with my advice based on what you have told me.

Barry

Pompano - 5-7-2014 at 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
The top 10 are:
1.Carlos Slim, 72 billion dollars
2.Germán Larrea, mining, 14.7 billion dollars.
3.Alberto Bailleres, mining, 12.4 billion dollars.
4.Ricardo Salinas Pliego, Grupo Salinas (TV Azteca, Elektra, Banco Azteca) 8.3 billion dollars.
5.Eva Gonda de Rivera, Coca Cola-Femsa shareholder, 6.4 billion dollars.
6.María Asunción Arumburuzabala, former president of Grupo Modelo, 5.2 billion dollars.
7.Antonio del Valle Ruiz, Mexichem, Pochteca y Banco Ve por Más, 5.0 billion dollars.
8.Jerónimo Arango, whose family founded Aurrerá, 4.2 billion dollars.
9.Emilio Azcárraga Jean, Televisa, 2.6 billion dollars.
10.David Peñaloza Sandoval, construction firm Triturados Basálticos (Tribasa), 2.1 billion dollars.

http://geo-mexico.com/?p=11323

Dennis...a reminder that...YOU'VE BEEN HIJACKED!

Pages: 1 2