Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The rich have never had it better in this country, in many ways.
-1st!! Maybe most important. The school system isn't producing very many future rich people! Where's the competition going to come from if most kids who graduate highschool now can barely read or write?
The "smart ones" in this country, the "elite" (as we like to call them) go onto college. But college right now is just a secondary holding cell, a more advanced day care center with bars. On top of debt accumulated. On top of brainwashing, from 18-25 by the mainstream media. Very few 25 year old's are coming out of school now with a clear head on their shoulders. School is a minefield of antiwealth. Misinformation. Half truths.
Books like the millionaire next door, etc are not taught in schools. Neither is rich dad, real estate investing, etc. Some kids will study on their own and do well. But the majority are being held down. They're silently starving and being pulled apart until their 25.
Young people don't have realistic role models for wealth. Donald Trump's Apprentice? A game show? A reality show? Being a "celebrity"?
-The tax code has never been more favorable to the rich.
-The mainstream media has never been more favorable to the rich.
A distracted society, like the one we have now (Dancing with the stars, octomom) is not a threat to the rich. How do you threaten the rich by being distracted?
That's the point, anybody with ambition can be successful because all you have to do is go to the library and self educate yourself. Remember the saying, "don't let school get in the way of your education." That couldn't be more true in this instance. Most people that have masters degrees, are Drs. or Lawyers tend to live lavish lifestyle while being completely dependent on their jobs for income. That is no different than the person making $30,000/yr and spending their entire paycheck, it's just one gets to enjoy riches but they are both slaves to their job. Neither one of these two people are truly "wealthy" or "rich" because in order to be rich you aren't dependent on your job for money. This is the biggest misconception in our country, people think because someone makes $1 million/yr from their job that they are rich. They will be on their way to riches if they save 80% of their income, but if they spend 95+% of their income then they are no more rich than the person making 30,000/yr. Because they both depend on their job for survival.
I think you've been watching too much Glenn Beck. First off, income tax rates are among the lowest of the century. A flat tax is ridiculous, poor people would be paying a larger percentage of their income than rich people then. I also love that saying that goes something like the richest 5% pay 50% of our nations taxes. They also make 50% of our nations wealth. Keep in mind the extreme wealthy like those mentioned in the atricle have amont the lowest effective tax rates compared to the semi-wealthy (say 2 or 3 hundread thousand a year).
Your right taxing the rich more isn't fair, it's more than fair.
How is 10% of 300 dollars a larger than percentage 10% of 3000 dollars? 10% is 10% no matter what number you take if from... and in the 300 dollars the poor would be paying 30 dollars and in the 3000 dollars the rich would be paying 300 dollars...
Here's a rational cup of tea for you. It's called the theory of marginal utility. If everybody gets taxed at the same percentage, then the ones with their last dollar closer to the survival line will be at an exponentially greater hardship than the ones with a larger gap between the cost of living line and their last dollar, which nets a greater social cost to the collective (dispossession and risk of lawlessness), as there are more poor people than rich people. That's why it's equitable for somebody with larger disposable income to pay a greater PERCENTAGE towards society than one with no disposable income. The reason for that is not economic, it's ethical. More of that in a second.
To me this is the problem with your cup. The first point is what is the criteria to say someone is poor? The reason I ask this question is because I have done research in different people come up with different and opposign criteria. It seems that political inclinations do affect views on who is poor. Second, you said there are more poor people than rich people. Also, what is rich? Based on income? On money? Possessions? Here we also find that the criteria will vary and have opposing views. Both rich and poor are very subjective terms.
However, I will go along with you that there are poor people becuase they do exist as far as I am concerned. I am with you in helping those that find themselves under very precarious situations. We as a society should show care for our poor, children, and elders. However, I do not share with you that taxing people that make more money to help the poor is the way to go. First because many people that are classified as poor I do not believe they are in such precarious situations as you describe them. It is a system that does help many that do not deserve it. That is why the states should be the ones setting programs to decide who deserve help. That means less of a burden on the taxpayer. The next point is that it takes away from the fruits of others labor to support many people that in reality do not deserve.
Regarding the all too-common response to an egalitarian allowance to non-flat taxation: the supposed "well if we tax rich people more then that discourages people from working to be rich and thence these people would choose to be poor". That's hyperbole and bunk. Rich people's desires are always going to be driven by the notion of being better off than those they deem lazy or unworthy of their personal space. As such, their aggressiveness will always net them an economic construct where they will never have to starve. This is equitable, as it still yields them a superior condition. They won't have as many excesses as they could if this was darwin's capitalism, but they'll still be alright for their troubles. Rich people will never simply choose to sit on their hands and starve because they're whining the government will not allow them to buy the seventh vacation home at the expense of millions of dispossessed unemployed "lazies" raping and torching the streets for a bite to eat. That's one fear-mongering argument that says more about people's greed than the recognition that we are not islands. They'll work hard enough to satisfy their personal assessment of the utility value of their toil when compared to their troubles. A rich person is never going to starve over a poor person as a result of progressive taxation (the only scenario where a rich man would elect to sit idly over toiling). So that's that one debunked.
I do agree with you there. Proactive people will not get stopped for making money. They will find a way to make money.
Now, your objection to this of course has nothing to do with the statistics of the matter and we all know it; you're just engaged in a self-righteous moral adjudication of poverty. You need to stop using poverty as a moral quantifier first of all. You also need to stop using hard work as a moral quantifier for the rich. Work ethic is no guarantor of success, nor is it even a pre-requisite! (I bet your BP is through the roof after hearing that one....). This is to say, poor people are not by default lazy and morally bankrupt, and rich people conversely, are NOT rich because they are hard workers, and they may not even be hard working at all, while still rich, in the first place!
I agree.
See, in an egalitarian society, the value of a poor person and a rich one are deemed the same, therefore establishing utility-based policies like progressive taxation recognizes that allowing the poor an opportunity to not get taxed BELOW the survival line, while taxing a bigger percentage from the guys not missing their sixth-sigma-above-COL last dollar, is for the overall betterment of the welfare and security of all of society. But for that to make sense you have to step out of the gated subdivision and look past the trees to see the forest. Rich folk wanting their sixth toy is merely just that, wanting to live among other humans and expecting them to obediently starve below you because they are less aggressive and time-favored than you while in the pursuit of competing scarcity of resources.
In a capitalist society poor and rich people are valued the same. What differs in value is what supply and demand give the value to a skill, knowledge, experience, etc. that is a commodity. I can see you have socialist inclinations with this paragraph. In a nutshell I will say that nations that have tried forced equality have failed big time. People do risk life to emmigrate to countries where capitalism is the economic system, not the other way around. In a capitalist system people are allowed to try their best in getting ahead in life. However, like anything in life some do better than others. Because others do not do as well does not mean we need to force that do to give what they have. For the sake of argument let me agree with you about your criteria of poverty as some government agencies do. El Paso, Texa where I live is in the top poverty cities in the nation. It is also interesting that the same city is at the top five happiest cities in the nation. In other words richness or poverty do not necessarily mean happiness. People tend to make 'poor' people look as if they are in such a bad situation. Again, I am for helping people in need but the states can set programs to help them, not force the whole nation to do so.
You ever see the animal shows on TV? The alpha lion is stronger and faster, until it gets hurt (chance, luck or lack thereof, the big kryptonite of the rich-by-my-own-hands crowd). At that point darwin takes over and the next in line lion, who wasn't as strong, becomes the alpha lion while the strongest still dies a young death. This, if you've fallen off the parable wagon already, means that we are NOT all a product of our "hard work". Quit being so self-righteous. Reagan is dead and he was an actor in his own fake reality, let's move on from the American "FU I got mine"; it's balkanizing us to a Roman empire's fate.
You are doing the same thing you are accusing of, self rightheousness. My points have nothing to do with being self righteous. I just see it from the standpoint of what I see as a more efficient system for all. I believe most taxpayers do not mind helping those in need but the point many of is focus on is to do it smartly, not with misplaced compassion.
Life can still wound you and put you at a disadvantage. In your ideal society you'd die a young death for being incapable of being the most aggressive at the time where it matters. Meaning I, though not as aggressive as you but certainly just as opportunistic, would crush your throat and take your women instead of picking you up and sharing a 1/3 of my toil. Alas, in an egalitarian construct there is the recognition that one should still value the least among you as equally valuable, instead of thumping your chest and decrying the distribution of your wealth as inherently inequitable. There is value in carrying another on your shoulders, even while recognizing you could easily beat him (in economic terms, starve him) in a race. But we don't like to see ourselves as executors of another's hunger, that's a downer in the Reaganesque individualism bootstrap bravado garbage mantra. We rather not focus on that.
Again, the nations that have tried your pholosphy have failed. People risk life to make it to the type of system you put down. Interesting.
The reality is that there's no free lunch, and freedom is not without a cost. Wealth is peer-deprivating. The question is to what level of peer-deprivation are you willing to go to get what YOU WANT. This is colloquially called...greed, which we privately rationalize in America as a strong and desirable trait. We use monikers to describe this aggressiveness, but it's good ol' greed in the end nonetheless.
Do not confuse greed with the right to keep what you earn. It is an ad hominen to attack people by calling them greedy because they do not agree with helping people forcefully. I believe you can ask anyone of us here and we will tell you we do not mind helping people in need. I do a lot of community service out there helping people as many do. We are saying we need to do so mor smartly and less wasteful.
Don't take this to imply I want some form of command economy or some such nonsense. I simply would like to temper the individualistic masturbation exhibited in some of these threads by people who grew up on too much of "what I hear everyday must be true" that is prevalent in an America that only saw the excesses of a time where our "irrational exuberance" was without cost, and now we face the bill and all of a sudden they get indignant about paying for the law and order afforded by subsidizing the masses.
What you call in a degrading way as 'individualistic masturbation' is what has made this and many other countries great economic powers and the nations people risk lives to make their dreams.
And finally, since we're on the rhetoric train, I leave you all with some poetry for your hearts and minds, from the common yet wise Carl Sandburg:
"Get off this estate. What for? Because it is mine. Where did you get it? From my father. Where did he get it? From his father. And where did he get it? He fought for it. Well, I’ll fight you for it."
~The People, Yes (1936)
Basically is saying I want to steal it from you.
What I take from that is this.....Humility is a virtue that will get you farther in life than self-serving aggresiveness. Preemptive Aggression is a policy that works so long as you bet you will never get wounded in the process. And Ownership is a concept only spoken by those stuck in the idea that their flesh with breathe forever. (This one is mine... )
Being proactive does not mean you are not humble.
Admittedly, how much human strife is there really in hegemon Nebraska...
Well, I have worked and scrimped and sacrificed and saved, just like my late daddy from the Depression but some of these semi-articulate types on city-data think they have the right to decide what I can do with my hard-earned savings...
How is 10% of 300 dollars a larger than percentage 10% of 3000 dollars? 10% is 10% no matter what number you take if from... and in the 300 dollars the poor would be paying 30 dollars and in the 3000 dollars the rich would be paying 300 dollars...
Good catch. I meant to say this in a Marginal Utility context like mentioned earlier. In your example the 30 dollars the poor would be paying would be a lot more painful than the 300 dollars the rich would be paying.
For example:
Mortgage: 100
Insurance; 50
Car payment: 50 Food : 50
Total 250
Poor= 300-250= 50 dollars leftover, now pay your 30 dollars in taxes. that means 60% of disposible income goes to taxes (30/50)
Rich= 3000-250= 2750 dollars leftover, now pay your 300 dollars in taxes. That means less than 11% of disposible income goes to taxes (300/2750)
The point being that the price of a gallon of gas, a gallon of milk etc. doesn't change depending on how much money you make. As you can see in this example, a flat tax is much more painful to the poor.
Good catch. I meant to say this in a Marginal Utility context like mentioned earlier. In your example the 30 dollars the poor would be paying would be a lot more painful than the 300 dollars the rich would be paying.
For example:
Mortgage: 100
Insurance; 50
Car payment: 50 Food : 50
Total 250
Poor= 300-250= 50 dollars leftover, now pay your 30 dollars in taxes. that means 60% of disposible income goes to taxes (30/50)
Rich= 3000-250= 2750 dollars leftover, now pay your 300 dollars in taxes. That means less than 11% of disposible income goes to taxes (300/2750)
The point being that the price of a gallon of gas, a gallon of milk etc. doesn't change depending on how much money you make. As you can see in this example, a flat tax is much more painful to the poor.
That's the point, anybody with ambition can be successful because all you have to do is go to the library and self educate yourself. Remember the saying, "don't let school get in the way of your education." That couldn't be more true in this instance. Most people that have masters degrees, are Drs. or Lawyers tend to live lavish lifestyle while being completely dependent on their jobs for income. That is no different than the person making $30,000/yr and spending their entire paycheck, it's just one gets to enjoy riches but they are both slaves to their job. Neither one of these two people are truly "wealthy" or "rich" because in order to be rich you aren't dependent on your job for money. This is the biggest misconception in our country, people think because someone makes $1 million/yr from their job that they are rich. They will be on their way to riches if they save 80% of their income, but if they spend 95+% of their income then they are no more rich than the person making 30,000/yr. Because they both depend on their job for survival.
I certainly wouldn't say that someone earning $1 million/yr is in the super rich category, however they have far more discretionary income than someone earning $30K. In fact the latter probably has none, it going for shelter, food and clothing - the essentials in life. The former's money is likely going to assets which can be turned into cash at a later date.
Someone earning $1 million/yr is indeed VERY rich in my opinion. What world are people living in? 1 million a year? geez, that is a crapload of cash. Remember that the rich hardly pay any taxes as a percentage of their income...they just write everything off. Many of them also have fraudulent tax shelters and try to avoid the law with smart accounting tactics. We need to develop a system to get money out of these swindlers because as a percentage of their income they are NOT paying their fair share.
Someone earning $1 million/yr is indeed VERY rich in my opinion. What world are people living in? 1 million a year? geez, that is a crapload of cash. Remember that the rich hardly pay any taxes as a percentage of their income...they just write everything off. Many of them also have fraudulent tax shelters and try to avoid the law with smart accounting tactics. We need to develop a system to get money out of these swindlers because as a percentage of their income they are NOT paying their fair share.
WRONG, you can believe whatever the propaganda media tells you but I know the truth. I happen to know somebody that grossed $1million last year and paid 45% in taxes (this includes state income tax, social security tax, and EXCLUDES property taxes) and this was WITH the Bush tax cuts. This person works 7 days a week and about 12hrs/day...sit there and rationalize how it is "fair" that the gov't took 45% of his money when he works that hard. I would LOVE to hear that explanation.
Where the hell does this idea come from that they can just write everything off? Again, another way to make yourself sleep better at night knowing the money you collect from the gov't is money the gov't stole from someone that worked much harder than you. I already know what your response is going to be..."he still took home $550,000..blah blah blah." How about I walk into your home (lets say you make $100,000/yr) and take away $45,000 of that, then we'll see how you feel. You can't comment on it until you have it happen to you.
It's amazing to me how selfish some people are because they don't want to work hard or study hard so they expect everything else to be given to them. You lay your own bed, that's what this country was founded on, and unfortunately we're turning into the very things the founding fathers were running away from. When I study my butt off and get an A the teacher doesn't come to me and say, "Johnny over here was out partying all week and didn't study for his exam so we're going to take 20% of your grade and drop you down to a C and give that other 20% to him so he has a C as well, that way we're all equal." It's complete idiocy and such a selfish way of thinking that I can't wrap my head around how any rational person (that isn't being selfish) could have this train of thought.
Last edited by hskrfan2187; 05-08-2010 at 01:37 PM..
WRONG, you can believe whatever the propaganda media tells you but I know the truth. I happen to know somebody that grossed $1million last year and paid 45% in taxes (this includes state income tax, social security tax, and EXCLUDES property taxes) and this was WITH the Bush tax cuts. This person works 7 days a week and about 12hrs/day...sit there and rationalize how it is "fair" that the gov't took 45% of his money when he works that hard. I would LOVE to hear that explanation.
Where the hell does this idea come from that they can just write everything off? Again, another way to make yourself sleep better at night knowing the money you collect from the gov't is money the gov't stole from someone that worked much harder than you. I already know what your response is going to be..."he still took home $550,000..blah blah blah." How about I walk into your home (lets say you make $100,000/yr) and take away $45,000 of that, then we'll see how you feel. You can't comment on it until you have it happen to you.
It's amazing to me how selfish some people are because they don't want to work hard or study hard so they expect everything else to be given to them. You lay your own bed, that's what this country was founded on, and unfortunately we're turning into the very things the founding fathers were running away from. When I study my butt off and get an A the teacher doesn't come to me and say, "Johnny over here was out partying all week and didn't study for his exam so we're going to take 20% of your grade and drop you down to a C and give that other 20% to him so he has a C as well, that way we're all equal." It's complete idiocy and such a selfish way of thinking that I can't wrap my head around how any rational person (that isn't being selfish) could have this train of thought.
In fact many millionaires pay little or not taxes. Most millionaires are small business owners, the current tax law allows them to take advantage of deductions far more than any other class of people. As for the 45% in taxes. I'd like to see the math on that one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
