"Are Whites Racially Opressed?" a.k.a. "How Hard Can CNN Troll?"

[Diff-chan]

If an individual is making 1 billion/yr it can be said that without tax cuts or breaks, they're probably paying 500 million at base. That's a lot of money to put into investments. The more money put into investments, the richer the country becomes.

No, it makes them richer. It doesn't actually help society at large, really. What are hedge fund managers contributing to society? How did the real estate bubble actually help this country go round? A lot of people got very rich by inventing BS financial products and passed them around like a hot potato.

One concrete thing banks can do - loan money - they have largely stopped doing since 2008. It just makes more sense for them to clap louder and get free money from the Fed.

It may not lead to direct monetary gain for less fortunate people but it does lead to cheaper goods and more employment.

Cheaper goods is largely the result of competition in a market economy.

I fail to see how tax cuts directly encourage job growth. Companies hire when there is demand for their services, not when their CEOs can take home an extra $100 mil. Unless it's a yacht manufacturer I guess.

Case in point, the stock market largely rebounded in 2009, and wealth among the rich has recovered nicely since crashing in 2008. Yet unemployment is still high. Because the demand isn't there. Giving more money to people who have tons of money is not going to break that cycle.

I think it's fairly apparent how much more shit people have now than they did in the early-mid 90's. More and more housing developments are popping up with $300,000+ houses..

Which people can't afford because the median income barely moved an inch from 1980-2008. And since 2008 it's gone down.

The rich make this country go round. You can hate on them all you want but it doesn't change the fact.

This is only true if the "rich" were the Randian Supermen the right loves to think they are. Unfortunately that's not the case. Most of the ultra-wealth is inherited. Like I said in this post I find the claim that the ultra rich are providing great services to society to be dubious.

[Razor Ramon]

Don't be ridiculous. If we got rid of all the rich people in this country, it would topple in weeks, if not days.

lol

[Razor Ramon]

The rich the way they exist now didn't exist until 19th and 20th Century in this country. We did just fine then. Shut the fuck up.

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

Most of the ultra-wealth is inherited. Like I said in this post I find the claim that the ultra rich are providing great services to society to be dubious.

O rly?

[Yoshi]

How much money do you think people need to have in an account for a bank to "make money" off of them? Let's say 1,500.00 since that is what is required to avoid fees. Someone with 100,000 in an account then can cover the fee for 66 people without the required funds to avoid a fee. A single lawyers IOLTA account could cover hundreds of people. The banks never needed to use fees to make money before 10 years ago and in that time the biggest banks profits have soared. I refuse to believe that they need this source of revenue.

It's meant to fuck poor people. Just like the 40 dollar overdraft fees.

The overdraft fees are a whole different animal. They are clearly designed to be punitive.

But designing a service where some customers subsidize others doesn't make any business sense. If all the money is made from those with $100,000 in an account, then they wouldn't offer the service to anyone with less than that at all. They're not running a charity. You have to allow a business to make a profit or the unemployment rate will be a hell of a lot higher than 10%.

[dave is ok]

O rly?

That article makes very little sense. Who cares how much of their wealth was inherited? If someone left me one million dollars and I made 100 million off of that million, I could say that I only inherited 1% of my wealth - but that doesn't speak to the fact that it would have been impossible for me to make the other 99% of it wasn't for that initial 1%

[Diff-chan]

But designing a service where some customers subsidize others doesn't make any business sense.

Funnily enough, that is more or less how the credit card industry was working until the CARD Act passed. All those BS fees and arbitrary interest rate hikes to some customers were being used to pay for rewards for others.

I know when the act passed, the CC industry tried to use that fact as a wedge, and a lot of people bit. They were losing some of their precious rewards because the companies couldn't scam as much anymore.

[dave is ok]

They're not running a charity. You have to allow a business to make a profit or the unemployment rate will be a hell of a lot higher than 10%.

Go google the profits of Bank of America, Citizens, Wells Fargo, etc.

I think they're doing fine, and without the fees they are about to implement or have just implemented in the past couple years.

[Razor Ramon]

Don't banks take the money from checking accounts, pool it together, and buy expensive financial services with a high chance of payoff? Because if that's the case, what does it matter if you have $1,500 or $15? They're still playing a game with your money.

[Yoshi]

Don't banks take the money from checking accounts, pool it together, and buy expensive financial services with a high chance of payoff? Because if that's the case, what does it matter if you have $1,500 or $15? They're still playing a game with your money.

If they can make $1 from your $15, and they provide you a service that costs $1.50, that's dumb business.