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.
Why do conservatives love to take from the poor & middle class (cheap labor/starvation wages) and give to the rich
Who's taking? They're EARNING. And it took a LOT of work and sacrifice to get there.
Quote:
The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians). They are *not* robber barons, or trust-fund babies, or plutocrats, or even celebrities. They are mostly the meritocrats who worked hard in high school and got into the better colleges and grad schools, where they studied while others partied. They pushed through grueling hours and unpleasant “up or out” policies in their twenties and thirties at top law firms, banks, hospitals, and businesses to earn salaries in the solid six figures (or low seven) today — in their peak earning years. Their work ethic is prodigious, and, as Tigerhawk points out, in their spare time they sit on the boards of most of the complex charities and arts institutions that provide aid and pay for culture in America. No group of people contribute more to their community. And now the president, who followed a path sort of like that, and who claims that his wife’s former six-figure income was a result of precisely such qualifications and efforts, is demonizing them. More problematically, he is penalizing their success and giving them very clear incentives to ratchet back on productivity.
B*tch and moan enough, demonize them enough ...and they'll say f*ck it ...and go Galt. Who in their right mind would continue to work their butts off to make the world a better place when they're constantly treated like a pariah?
Then who are you going to blame and tax?
More than 100 hours a week... multiple all-nighters... the most productive...
ugh, Why do conservatives love to take from the poor & middle class (cheap labor/starvation wages) and give to the rich (Bush tax cuts)? Why do conservatives want to leave the UN so that USA itself becomes a Third World Nation? Cui bono, who benefits? "Divide and conquer", the uber wealthy mantra, so that the poor get poorer, which makes the rich even richer. "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." 1 Timothy 6:17-19
See, I like your attitude. Now I would like it even more if you put action into your words. I would urge you and all your like-minded friends to commit to sending any income and accumulated wealth you might have over and above $50,000.00 a year to meet the needs of the poor in Third World countries. Will you do that, please, for the children? Thank you so much!
Large scale aid to 3rd world countries is like ringing the dinner bell for swiss bankers and arms merchants. (Like the somali famine aid that was just being resold because the somali "government" WANTED that sector to starve since they were rivals.
Grass roots aid is what works best...that whole "teach a man to fish" thing.
There are some strong arguments that flooding countries with aid when they have a crisis perpetuates some of the problems like putting bandaids on the sores of someone with diabetes you are treating the symptoms.
Long term solutions...not short term cash floods appropriated by the local warlords.
P.S. This happens in the US also. Corruption and being able to make big money off the govt. teat is found here too.
B*tch and moan enough, demonize them enough ...and they'll say f*ck it ...and go Galt. Who in their right mind would continue to work their butts off to make the world a better place when they're constantly treated like a pariah?
Gee, your own quote says they would... for compensation as board directors, though, of course.
I would think such open-hearted, sensitive people wouldn't mind an extra 4% off the top of income above $250K. The article is careful to say they're on charity boards and art boards, but doesn't mention that they are paid to be there and that they vote the compensation of the CEOs of those outfits.
The original article actually contradicts itself as to these loving folks who "contribute more [than anyone else] to their community" by guessing with a chuckle that rather than knuckle under to the cruel burden of an extra 4% on the $251,001st dollar to help their own country which allowed them to do so well in the first place, instead they'll "go passive-aggressive." Oh, I mean, "Galt." Don't go to the government for food stamps which taxes me, I want to control that via local and national charities.
These same "meritocrats" support RW agendas that fight tooth and claw against improving opportunities for the disadvantaged to achieve the Ms' own levels of education and success. Instead of being encouraged to help their country do well, they're encouraged to be selfish and to pout and "go Galt" as a pressure tactic.
The original article concludes with, "'working affluent' is a far more useful and less loaded moniker than 'the rich,' which has overtones of dilettantes, poodles, and yachts." They don't deny that the "working affluent" are statistically "the rich", they just recommend changing the label. And you fell for that?
Protect the uber-rich by focusing attention on the lowest rung of their top 5%, and change that group's "moniker" to something more palatable. Just like Glenn Beck, but in reverse.
Why do liberals think that letting people keep the money they earned is stealing?
"earned"?
Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
Okay, the "working" top 1%. By what wage measurement do they "earn" their incomes?
The process [of determining CEO compensation] has been explained in detail by a retired CEO of DuPont, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., who is now chair of the New York Stock Exchange's executive compensation committee. His experience suggests that he knows whereof he speaks, and he speaks because he's concerned that corporate leaders are losing respect in the public mind. He says that the business page chatter about CEO salaries being set by the competition for their services in the executive labor market is 'bull.' As to the claim that CEOs deserve ever higher salaries because they 'create wealth,' he describes that rationale as a 'joke,' says the New York Times (Morgenson, 2005, Section 3, p. 1).
Gee, your own quote says they would... for compensation as board directors, though, of course.
BS. A lot of those charity and arts foundation board memberships are donations of time and talent, not paid positions.
Quote:
The original article actually contradicts itself as to these loving folks who "contribute more [than anyone else] to their community" by guessing with a chuckle that rather than knuckle under to the cruel burden of an extra 4% on the $251,001st dollar to help their own country which allowed them to do so well in the first place
...and there's the flaw in your logic. If 'the country' allowed them to do well, everyone would be pulling a $250,000+ year income. The point the article AND the video is making is that it is possible to do well in this country, but a LOT of effort and sacrifice is required to do so.
Instead of making the effort and sacrifice required to achieve that level of earning and self-sufficiency, far too many are perfectly content to hold out their hands for freebie entitlements and say, "You owe me."
Quote:
These same "meritocrats" support RW agendas that fight tooth and claw against improving opportunities for the disadvantaged to achieve the Ms' own levels of education and success.
More BS. Where do they suggest that anyone not work as hard as they do to succeed? They endorse a meritocracy. Earn it.
Quote:
The original article concludes with, "'working affluent' is a far more useful and less loaded moniker than 'the rich,' which has overtones of dilettantes, poodles, and yachts." They don't deny that the "working affluent" are statistically "the rich", they just recommend changing the label.
No label change. They quite clearly indicate that they are not robber barons, trust-fund babies, plutocrats, or even celebrities. They worked hard and sacrificed for years to earn their income, and they suggest others should do so, as well.
Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
Hmmm... you need to read The Millionaire Next Door. People of rather ordinary income levels accumulate an astonishing amount of wealth simply by making wise financial and life decisions. There is absolutely nothing preventing the vast majority of people from doing the exact same thing. The only excuse I can see for them not doing so is willful ignorance or selfish indulgence.
Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
Okay, the "working" top 1%. By what wage measurement do they "earn" their incomes?
The process [of determining CEO compensation] has been explained in detail by a retired CEO of DuPont, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., who is now chair of the New York Stock Exchange's executive compensation committee. His experience suggests that he knows whereof he speaks, and he speaks because he's concerned that corporate leaders are losing respect in the public mind. He says that the business page chatter about CEO salaries being set by the competition for their services in the executive labor market is 'bull.' As to the claim that CEOs deserve ever higher salaries because they 'create wealth,' he describes that rationale as a 'joke,' says the New York Times (Morgenson, 2005, Section 3, p. 1).
You seem to ignore the fact that when people invest in bonds and in stocks it allows the working capital for businesses to grow and thus hire more workers and pay more taxes. You seem to ignore the fact that investment in municipal bonds allows state and local municipalities to hire people to complete projects for the building of infrastructure and funding of schools.
Do you think these "loans" should not give the person any return on their investment? Really? Do you think people should just loan their money for free?
Why do liberals fail to acknowledge that it is not a sin to let one's money work for them while simultaneously working for more money?
You can either live to work for your money or you can allow money to work for you so that you may live. It is not rocket science nor is investment for the "wealthy". Take a look where 401Ks, ROTHS, Pensions, HSA, etc... are invested.
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.
, Why do conservatives love to take from the poor & middle class (cheap labor/starvation wages) and give to the rich (Bush tax cuts)? Why do conservatives want to leave the UN so that USA itself becomes a Third World Nation? Cui bono, who benefits? "Divide and conquer", the uber wealthy mantra, so that the poor get poorer, which makes the rich even richer.
