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.
Is it or is it not fair than 10% of the people have busted their ass and earned/accumulated 70% of the wealth, while the remaining 90% have not busted their ass in order to accumulate wealth and/or have used their wealth on disposables such as liquor, tobacco and the like.
Wealth is created by industrious endeavor, which some engage in (and have weath) while others don't (and don't, as a result, have wealth).
Who can argue with the truth. I don't expect thsoe who expect something for nothing, to have wealth. And those i know who have it, have earned the right.
I'm just basing my facts on a book I am reading by Paul Krugman. Calm down.
May I respectfully suggest that you read the two Friedmans (both Milton and Thomas) at least as thoroughly as Krugman.
Mr. Imbbobb's point is correct; with the exceptions of Canada and Australia, in 1946, every other industrialized nation was in ruins, in chains, or in the ignorance called socialism. We simply didn't have to compete, so we could afford the luxury of "buying off" the more militant unions.
But eventualy, our competitors got wise; Japan went first -- India is much less further along, but the sheer weight of numbers counts for something.
We don't have to retreat to the "Third World" scenario used as a scare tactic by the soft Left. We easily have the wealth to maintain at least as solid a "safety net" as we now have -- provided that it's locally overseen (to discourage permanent dependency), financed by taxes on crass consumption rather than income, and that the dangerous partnership between a public-employee union monopoly and a legally enforced monopoly on government "services" is downplayed and discouraged.
Is it or is it not fair than 10% of the people have busted their ass and earned/accumulated 70% of the wealth, while the remaining 90% have not busted their ass in order to accumulate wealth and/or have used their wealth on disposables such as liquor, tobacco and the like.
Wealth is created by industrious endeavor, which some engage in (and have weath) while others don't (and don't, as a result, have wealth).
That implies everyone else didn't work as hard. FYI, rewards are not always based on effort. Most wealthy today is crated by having friends inside the fed or the too big to fail banks.
Is it or is it not fair than 10% of the people have busted their ass and earned/accumulated 70% of the wealth, while the remaining 90% have not busted their ass in order to accumulate wealth and/or have used their wealth on disposables such as liquor, tobacco and the like.
Wealth is created by industrious endeavor, which some engage in (and have weath) while others don't (and don't, as a result, have wealth).
10% of the people have not busted their asses and worked hard to accumulate their wealth. Most of that money, is old money. Their mommys and daddys worked their butts off. Their kids, didn't do a damned thing.
Exactly what the story behind Romney is.
Nothing wrong with wealth, but when you've been increasing your wealth, while decreasing your responsibility to pay for the protection of it by the government, well, that ain't fair.
And as I said before, when you are asking the middle class, lower class, and Lower upper class to cut back, conserve, and that they will have to pay more, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that someone who has been paying 15% on his taxes, should pay a little more.
Originally Posted by buzzards27 Back in 2007 the top 20% owned 93% of the FINANCIAL ASSETS of this country. Might have been what you were thinking of.
Maybe, but still, 10% owning 70% of everything you see? Doesn't seem exactly fair.
It's a pretty fair distance from "10% of everything you see" once the large percentage of wealth under the control of non-profit institutions is factored in, and that sector gains in prominence with the pasing of each generation.
There are, of course, exceptions, but the most prominent fortunes of the present day represent relatively recent success stories, sometimes with people who started out without very much. The great fortunes of a century or more ago get spread among more and more descendents.
And with basic financial security no longer a concern, many of them choose to pursue interests, like the arts, where other factors than wealth and conspicuous consumption are not the driving force. We don't hear much about the George Plimptons, Abby Rockefellers and similar "rich kids" who pursue productive lives; Hollywood's "bad girls" sell better at the checkout counter, precisely because they fit in with the "culture of envy" being peddled here.
Warped logic like this is why there are so many problems.
People need to read the Constitution until they understand it.
Not only that, but read the Federalist papers and the many, many writings of the founders to see what the original intent was.
It was LIMITED government.
Not what they can do FOR me, but what they are limited to do.
Section 1, Article 8 explains it.
Read and comprehend before posting again.
You think one type of income is different than another type of income and you are calling me warped and you further think you have a right to tell me what I should think? People who think like you are the biggest problem this country has. I am not asking for the government to do anything for me that has not already been put into law. I got an e-mail this week pointing out to us how much income per month we could probably have if the amount paid by us and our employer had been invested into a private account and an annuity had been bought with it. It was a lot more than anyone is getting from SS.
My husband got a call this morning from a person he worked with before he retired. The man is still working and collecting SS and he was telling my husband how well they are doing. When I started calculating, I realized that the man's income was almost exactly the same as ours. But would you like to know how many more taxes he is probably having to pay than we do; about $11,000 a year because we are living on investments and he is working for a large portion of his income. I am sorry you do not agree, but that is just not right. People who think like you do need to become less greedy and start agreeing to pay their fair share. I agree that we need less government and more freedom, but that should go for everybody, not just the rich or those on welfare.
I didn't get upset when Romney said that he was not worried about the rich or the poor. That is exactly right. It is the middle class that always pays for everybody and we have finally come to the point that there are fewer people paying than people who pay and support everybody. Even worse are those that collect and pay nothing.
I am not the person thinking in a warped manner. Our government is working in a warped manner. I own no money and I pay my own bills. And I have no problem with everybody paying their fair share.
Why pick only on the 68000 wealthy folks to support the bums in America?
57% pay taxes in this country and we would mostly like the other 43% who are not elderly or disabled to get off their butts, find a job and to also pay taxes.
That implies everyone else didn't work as hard. FYI, rewards are not always based on effort. Most wealthy today is crated by having friends inside the fed or the too big to fail banks.
Well, since Obama took over, yes, to a degree, but the premiss that work and risk-taking are rewarded, and slothfullness isn't, holds true overwhelmingly, nonetheless.
FYI, you don't have to be a hedge fund manager to pass profits thru a company tax free. Sole proprietorship, most partnerships, LLC, s corporations... Come on you should know that if you ran a "successful" business.
SP, S-corp, and GP pass the income to the owners every year via K1 where it is taxed at the owners ordinary rate. There is no asset protection from a SP or GP, and to some extent certain LLC's. And then you have to go back to the company for cash to pay the tax. No thanks.
I had a C-corp, and milked it good. My strategy was to lower the corporate income as low as possible, while deferring the maximum amount of compensation allowed to me and the other key managers. I paid my wife, hired my kids, had qualified tuition plans, company cars, a company RV, a corporate apartment in Seattle, and a dozen other legally deductible tricks. Key-man life insurance, discretionary profit sharing plan, and more.
When I left I had a huge pot of deferred compensation. So did my wife. My kids worked as interns and made a nice salary. Tuition money.
I owned the LLC that owned the property which was leased to my business. I still own it. The new owners didn't want it because it would affect the valuation under Prop 13. So I lease it to them. When I get tired of being a landlord, I'll 1031 it pay no tax there.
I could write a book on this stuff...and "Sole Proprietorship" would not be a chapter. Thanks for playing.
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.
Let the other 47% pay some taxes.
