Re: (Mu+`ng Vu+`a Vu+`a Thui) Re: Cha`o mu+`ng To^ng To^ng mo+'i

On Nov 6, 10:58 am, Mai Dao <MaiDa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 6, 5:07 am, valmarie...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



Good morning, Chi. Mai ye^u wa^'u! :-)

Please quit it!  It's not good for your heart :-)

Nga`y xu+a co' Mr. DDa`m Quang Vinh.  Chi? va`i tie^'ng ddo^`ng ho^`
sau ke^'t qua? cu?a cuo^.c ba^`u cu+? TT la` anh a^'y dda~ bi. ta^?u
ho?a nha^.p ma!  Heheheh!!!

Va` n.t. cu~ng nho+' kho^ng la^`m la` Chi. Mai co' ba?o vo+'i Mr. W.W.
la` afterward, nga~ ngu~ nhu+ the^' na`o thi` cu~ng kho^ng dduo+.c
re^n ri?, chu+?i ru~a ma`, pha?i kho^ng? :-)

Life is good.  Life with a new President should be good as well, if
not better...

Cheers,
n.t.

On Nov 6, 3:56 am, Mai Dao <MaiDa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:42 am, Mai Dao <MaiDa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Trong vo`ng chi? 3 Hrs

Dow Jones Industrial Average ($US:INDU):
9,336.08  -289.20 -3.00%

Do' la` ddie^`u Tui lo so+. nha^'t. Hm ...  Chuye^'n na`y cha('c pha?i
ddem $ bo? Money Market cho cha('c a(n. Co`n ma^'y ddo^`ng chi' ye^u
chu? nghi~a xa~ ho^.i, cu+' ye^n ta^m ma` a(n uo^'ng lo+`i hu+'a.

Mo+'i co' 1 nga`y, ca'i dda'm tho^ng tin tho^? ta? dda~ ddo^?i to^ng.
Co' mo`i thu+.c te^' ho+n. HaHa ...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167696/page/1

As The Rich Get Poorer
Making the rich poorer doesn't make everyone else richer
By Robert J. Samuelson | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Nov 5, 2008 | Updated: 1:54  p.m. ET Nov 5, 2008

For years, we've debated rising economic inequality. On one side,
liberals denounce it as unjust. Redistribute wealth to the poor and
middle class, they say. On the other, conservatives minimize its
importance. What matters most is overall economic growth, they retort..
Well, the conjunction of the presidential campaign and the financial
crisis is giving the debate a curious twist. Liberals have triumphed
politically; soaking the rich has become more acceptable. But
conservatives may have won the intellectual argument; making the rich
poorer doesn't make everyone else richer.

If Barack Obama and John McCain agreed on anything, it was this: Greed
is bad. They competed in denunciations of reckless investment bankers
and avaricious CEOs. Obama proposed raising taxes on higher incomes
(couples making more than $250,000); though McCain didn't, he
suggested that much recent wealth accumulation was ill-gotten.
Unintentionally, perhaps, he buttressed the moral case for more
redistribution. Let's tap the gold mine of the rich.

Unfortunately, the mine has less gold. All the financial turmoil has
left the wealthy—however they are definedcmuch less wealthy. Stock
ownership is highly concentrated. In 2001, the richest 1 percent owned
34 percent of stocks and mutual funds, estimates economist Edward N.
Wolff of New York University. Let's see. Since the market's high in
October 2007, stocks are down (through Oct. 31) 38 percent, or $7.5
trillion, reports Wilshire Associates.

That will mean lower capital gains taxes, because capital gains—
profits on the sale of stocks and other assets—will plunge. In recent
years, capital gains taxes have been running at $100 billion or more.
That amount could drop sharply, even if the top rate on capital gains
were raised from 15 percent to its pre-2003 level, 20 percent.

Thousands of well-paid investment bankers, traders, portfolio managers
and securities analysts are losing their jobs. Though Wall Street
bonuses will continue, their total is likely to decrease. Gains in
executive compensation may be similarly squeezed. Profits are down;
the political climate is hostile. In 2005, the richest 1 percent of
Americans had 18 percent of total income and paid 28 percent of all
federal taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Their
income won't grow much. Even if higher tax rates increase government
revenue, the effect will be less than before.

Judged only by economic inequality, the financial crisis is a godsend..
It will probably narrow the gap—though still vast—between the rich and
everybody else. But what good will that do? Economic inequality also
declined in the Great Depression. The country wasn't better off. By
and large, the poor aren't poor because the rich are rich. They're
usually poor for their own reasons: family breakdown, low skills,
destructive personal habits and plain bad luck.

The presumption implicit in the criticism of growing economic
inequality is that society's income is a given and, if the rich have
less, others will have more. Up to a point, that's true. The
government already redistributes much income, often for the good.
During the boom years, companies might have been less lavish with top
executives and slightly more generous to other workers or
shareholders. Some new fortunes stem from self-dealing and financial
razzle-dazzle, not the creation of real economic value. It's just
deserts that some of this wealth has evaporated.

But the redistributionist argument is at best a half-truth. The larger
truth is that much of the income of the rich and well-to-do comes from
what they do. If they stop doing it, then the income and wealth
vanish. No one gets it. It can't be redistributed because it doesn't
exist. Everyone's poorer.

This isn't just theory. Last week, New York Gov. David Paterson
pleaded with Congress to provide emergency aid to states. Heavily
dependent on Wall Street for taxes, he testified, New York faces a
$12.5 billion budget deficit next year and expects joblessness to rise
by 160,000. Wall Street bonuses will drop by 43 percent and capital
gains income by 35 percent, he estimated. People in New York would be
better off if the securities industry were still booming, even if
there were more economic inequality.

Americans legitimately resent Wall Street types who profited from
dubious investment strategies that aggravated today's crisis. And
government properly redistributes income to reduce hardship and
poverty. But that's different from attempting to deduce and engineer
some optimal distribution of income. Government can't do that and
shouldn't try. Scapegoating and punishing all of the rich won't do us
any good if the resulting taxes dull investment and risk-taking,
discouraging economic growth that benefits everyone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HaHa ... Tu+'c ha?. Tui ddang du`ng con so^' fact dde^? chu+ng to? nhu
+~ng gi` Tui vie^'t la` ddu'ng - ddo' la` ma.t luo^n. The^' na`o
ddi.nh ddem 401K gi` ddo' ca^'t ddi dda^u chu+a?. tie^`n lo+`i bo? CD o
+? nha` ba(ng cu?a Tui ba^y gio+` cu~ng tu.t tu+` 4%/year xuo^'ng co`n
co' 3.26%/year. Tui cu~ng dda~ request ngu+ng la^'y tie^`n lu+o+ng mua
stock, vi` Chuye^'n na`y Tui bie^'t se~ CHANGE, nhu+ng change tu+`
xa^'u ra ma.t.

Dow Jones Industrial Average ($US:INDU) hie^.n gio+`: 8,878.18
-261.09 -2.86%

Co' ngu+o+`i tie^n ddoa'n la` Dow Jones se~ xuo^'ng co`n co' 6000 real
quick.


I don't wanna sound evil or anything, but if it will ever actually get
that low, then a couple years later I will invite everyone here to a
Bahama Vacation, all expenses paid! :-)

Heheheh!!!
n.t.



Ca'i gap cu?a da^n kho^ng ddo'ng $ thue^' na`o, va` da^n trung lu+u
ca`ng nga`y ca`ng ga^`n. Va` ca'i da^n muo^'n XHCN se~ ddu+o+.c vo^
co^ng ro^~i nghe^` cho thoa? da.. HeHe ...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It May Be Happening
    ... at all I fail to see how their taxes can be transferred to the rich. ... top 10% pay well over half, perhaps as much as 2/3 of all income ... for the matter of jobs when was the last time a poor man hired you ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Worthless Republicans steal American life style
    ... Maybe "the rich" don't pay much in taxes - depending on what your ... According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax ...
    (misc.rural)
  • Re: OT: The Fake Fiscal Crisis In Wisconsin
    ... burden of the federal individual income tax off themselves and onto ... rates paid by the top and bottom income earners. ... into account the many loopholes the rich can and do use far more than ... The lower taxes the rich got for themselves are one reason why they ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Taxes
    ... " Most of the taxes that you listed are regressive...they cost the poor ... independent of income entirely. ... The argument about fair share of income tax ... as a proportion of income, wealth, or whatever. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Taxes
    ... " Most of the taxes that you listed are regressive...they cost the poor ... independent of income entirely. ... The argument about fair share of income tax ... as a proportion of income, wealth, or whatever. ...
    (soc.retirement)