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.
Romney paid less of a % of his income than I did by quite a bit.
Thanks, 1% lobbying!
He also donated $4 million in FY2011. About 30% of his income.
Most finance guys donate tons of money to charities. Operas, orchestras, museums, charter schools, etc. etc. etc. And you know what? I would rather someone who has made a ton of money decide where to best donate that money, as opposed to a faceless GS11 in Washington.
Romney paid less of a % of his income than I did by quite a bit.
Thanks, 1% lobbying!
Given a choice I would rather get what Romney paid than what you paid. ErikB your anger and jealousy is going to cause you to have a short life. No matter how mad you are no one is going to hand you a life of luxury so give it up and make it happen yourself.
No one, not even Obama can legislate prosperity to you.
People who became wealthy worked hard and were smarter than the average person. However, a lot of the wealthy people today inherited their wealth and now continue to maintain their wealth through investments. Tax has very little to do with it in my opinion.
Some people are born into it, ever hear of "old money?"
Some people are born into it, ever hear of "old money?"
And a number of people who inherit money squander it....
Another guy I knew made a modest fortune and then lost it again about 4 times over.... he then worked in an office with me - he was a surprisingly happy guy
Are either of these more "moral" than inheriting money and wisely investing it to increase it?
Is all inheritance to be so disparaged or just that going to people you happen to dislike so much?
And a number of people who inherit money squander it....
Another guy I knew made a modest fortune and then lost it again about 4 times over.... he then worked in an office with me - he was a surprisingly happy guy
Are either of these more "moral" than inheriting money and wisely investing it to increase it?
Is all inheritance to be so disparaged or just that going to people you happen to dislike so much?
Why shouldn't the haves be disparaged when the system in this country makes it difficult to improve one's station while income disparities are worsening?
Sorry if that offends you, but who do you think is lobbying our lawmakers to make the system work that way? Poor folks who can barely make their rent? Very doubtful.
Why shouldn't the haves be disparaged when the system in this country makes it difficult to improve one's station while income disparities are worsening?
Disparaging the haves distracts from actual practical fixes to the system. It is not rational and becomes a bad habit because those busy complaining about how the fat cats have everything tend to miss some of the obvious stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarzanman
Sorry if that offends you, but who do you think is lobbying our lawmakers to make the system work that way? Poor folks who can barely make their rent? Very doubtful.
Not offended at all. In other posts you'll find that I disparage dishonesty on both sides of the political equation. Lobbying tends to encourage dishonesty. Encouraging honesty in politics and business is the only rational fix for this - no special cases, no exemptions, simple taxation, simple laws with actual punishment for violation - regardless of who ones' political pals may be.
He also donated $4 million in FY2011. About 30% of his income.
Most finance guys donate tons of money to charities. Operas, orchestras, museums, charter schools, etc. etc. etc. And you know what? I would rather someone who has made a ton of money decide where to best donate that money, as opposed to a faceless GS11 in Washington.
A parasite is a parasite whether they give money to charity or an opera or whatever. Most do it to gain in some way.
The flaw in Marx's solution is that it ignores the presence or absence of initiative in individual workers. Socialists all seem to objectify individuals and assume that the results of their grand plans will be the same for all. That so many socialists ignore the role of desire to earn in the economic equation just tells me that few of them actually know anyone that works with their hands or head to produce something useful.
Some people do get rich by "cheating" in one way or another. Some get lucky. Some work hard. And some happen to see things as few others do and recognize opportunities that most others ignore.
I've yet to see anyone who frets so heavily about "the 1%" who is willing to recognize any but the first one, and maybe the second. I've also yet to meet any who seem to understand that equality of opportunity does not lead to equality of result.
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.
