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.
If they really believed that they would send the government a check. There is nothing stopping them from sending a check. They are hypocrites.
You originally said that people who want to raise taxes on the rich "are jealous of what other people have. It's that simple." Obviously, it's not that simple.
I don't think that you know what hypocrisy is. Rich people advocating public policies that are contrary to their personal financial interests is not hypocrisy but civic virtue. As Bill Maher said, "the difference between rich Republicans and real Democrats is that the latter votes against their economic interest for the benefit of the country."
I know we've got you on the ropes when sports and film celebrities start being used as examples of success that everyone can be inspired by.
That isn't what was said.
Quote:
If you are not born rich you will never become rich by your own feeble efforts.
Did I prove that statement wrong? Yes I did but no you won't admit to it. Read my other replies, I've not defended the rich, I just dislike vast generalization like you made that aren't true.
You just don't get it -- the world recovered, but the American/Canadian monopoly on high-tech and mass production was shattered -- never to be re-institutued by political hacks, We have to compete in a global economy -- and that spells the end for "soft" low-demand jobs, "protected" by a government-backed union monopoly.
There are plenty of "good" jobs out there, but they're found in consumer-driven sectors like health care, where a high level of responsibility and discipline are mandatory. If you can't handle, or empathize with that, there are fields like distribution or utilities, but these industries don't run on the limited 9-to-5 schedule to which a lot of conformist suburbanites (or "trailing spouses" with household and family responsibilities) are limited. And some of us are always going to be stuck -- temporarily or permanently -- in places like retail shops and call centers; either that or the wasteland that runs on "entitlements".
The "Pax Americana", as we knew it, is over; it should have been obvious that it was too good, and too phony to last. And Donald Trump isn't going to be able to restore it any more than "Bernie" Sanders.
Well I do agree with most of what you write. I will say that the fact that overall GDP growth is still trending in the right direction means there is a chance that a systematic change could reverse the flow of inequality. I have no idea what the answer would be and agree that probably Bernie and the Donald don't have the answer either. I applaud Bernie for talking about it though. I love that this is at Liberty University of all places
I know we've got you on the ropes when sports and film celebrities start being used as examples of success that everyone can be inspired by. And billionaires, self-made or not... really... 362 million vs. 424... excuse me if I don't take it as a mark of personal failure that I am not a self-made billionaire. And neither are you I suspect. In fact... why should we accept as credible the assertions of numerous starters of threads like this, none of whom are even in the 5% let alone the 0.1%? How would someone in the 50% be qualified to know that, in fact, there really is nothing wrong with the present income and wealth structure? Normal attainment shaming by normal people, gotta love it. Please excuse me if I don't get on the self-hate bandwagon.
Comparing LeBron James or Miguel Cabrera to the millions of kids playing high school basketball, or enrolled in a Dominican "baseball academy" isn't that much different from the prospects of the Business Administration major who, after ten years if fawning, phony-smile corporate conformity, is told that he/she "is well-placed in his/her present role" and can expect no further promotion and a likely permanent layoff when the economy retrenches -- or the Theater Arts major who heads for Hollywood upon graduation, and finds herself serving -- and stagnating -- as an "administrative assistant" in Van Nuys two years later.
The economy is, for the most part, an impersonal anthill. The societal "safety net" is run by well-conditioned bureaucrats whose goal is to provide the minimum to an ever-growing clientele, rather than to weed out the frauds and parasites.
You can either learn to live with it -- or outgrow it.
You originally said that people who want to raise taxes on the rich "are jealous of what other people have. It's that simple." Obviously, it's not that simple.
I don't think that you know what hypocrisy is. Rich people advocating public policies that are contrary to their personal financial interests is not hypocrisy but civic virtue. As Bill Maher said, "the difference between rich Republicans and real Democrats is that the latter votes against their economic interest for the benefit of the country."
Many people don't think democratic polices actually do benefit the country.
I've said this before. If you think taxes should be raised on the rich because they are the 1% and it's not fair to the 99%...globally WE are the 1% so you are more then welcome to take the same percentage out of YOUR income to make up the difference and donate it to charity.
Yeah... crickets!
It's a lot easier to tell other people what they should do with their money though, isn't it?
Many people don't think democratic polices actually do benefit the country.
I've said this before. If you think taxes should be raised on the rich because they are the 1% and it's not fair to the 99%...globally WE are the 1% so you are more then welcome to take the same percentage out of YOUR income to make up the difference and donate it to charity.
Yeah... crickets!
It's a lot easier to tell other people what they should do with their money though, isn't it?
Not really - you are looking at it wrong. History shows us and most economists agree that having such large amounts of wealth in the hands of so few individuals is unhealthy for the country and the economy as a whole - so while the top 1% and especially the top .1% have seen their total portion of GDP/income grow for the last 40 years, the average working man has seen his inflation-adjusted income decline. Why this is happening is complicated but this is a problem for everyone.
Sure you can point to inept politicians in the Democratic Party try to manage this through the tax code but if your rich you always have options -i.e. have a LLC buy your luxury goods, set up off-shore accounts and move income to tax havens, etc.
Not really - you are looking at it wrong. History shows us and most economists agree that having such large amounts of wealth in the hands of so few individuals is unhealthy for the country and the economy as a whole - so while the top 1% and especially the top .1% have seen their total portion of GDP/income grow for the last 40 years, the average working man has seen his inflation-adjusted income decline. Why this is happening is complicated but this is a problem for everyone.
Sure you can point to inept politicians in the Democratic Party try to manage this through the tax code but if your rich you always have options -i.e. have a LLC buy your luxury goods, set up off-shore accounts and move income to tax havens, etc.
Not anymore...FATCA
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.
