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 top 1% aren't the ones I'm looking at. How about the Forbes top 400?
Let's compare figures. You say most are "self-made" while my figures show 42% won the sperm lottery and were born on home plate -- inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. Unless "self-made" means they were savvy enough to decide which family to get born into, our numbers sharply disagree. Be the note how "Secrets Of The Self-Made 2009 - Forbes.com" defines "self-made". (Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune.) Donald Trump might be considered self-made, even though he inherited $400 million in 1979. (Which incidentally, would have been worth more than Trump boasts had he just invested it in mutual funds.)
you might just be one of them by now. Using your logic, I assume you are outraged at every middle class kid whose parents help him/her with college tuition as well?
Life isn't fair. Get used to it. Stop whining and work harder and smarter to get what you want.
Last edited by CaseyB; 12-22-2011 at 10:26 AM..
Reason: rude
The top 1% aren't the ones I'm looking at. How about the Forbes top 400?
Let's compare figures. You say most are "self-made" while my figures show 42% won the sperm lottery and were born on home plate -- inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400.
My figures actually come from Forbes in 2009, as previously cited. Your figures are vastly outdated, from 1997.
Back to the drawing board, MTAtech. Can't believe you're using data that's almost 15 years old to support your position.
But they are not economies which are able to be directly correlated. Denmark is a primarily service based economy able to serve an international market without real production. How exactly can we draw parallels between such a dramatically different economic base? To adequately compare income equality in the US to Europe, you need to look at Western Europe in a larger scale, not simply one small, service based economy. The US does not have the luxury of cheap imports like Denmark, nor would we stand for the historically high unemployment rates Denmark has struggled with. Not only that, but Denmark's net tax levels are off the charts. A few years ago, Denmark had the honor of having the highest net tax level of any country in the world. There are tradeoffs everywhere, and it is intellectually dishonest to paint a rosy picture of another country benefits without discussing the downsides and shortfalls as well.
Why does it matter? But since you're arguing against the idea that inequality is bad, I suppose you're arguing that greater inequality is a good thing? Would you mind explaining how?
You know, if you spent as much time working as you did complaining about the wealthy, you might just be one of them by now. Using your logic, I assume you are outraged at every middle class kid whose parents help him/her with college tuition as well?
Life isn't fair. Get used to it. Stop whining and work harder and smarter to get what you want.
All I'm driving at is that taxing this group a few percentage points more will increase equality and opportunity to those that have been shut-out.
How the right-wing responds to a reasonable proposal that the wealthy, that have had their share of income increase by 276% since 1979, pay a bit more taxes is that it will make the world stop spinning on its axis. It won't and the nation was a better one when we had higher taxes on the wealthy.
A guy that shares spot 130 or so with oprah lives the next town over. He tried to hit up family members 25 yrs ago for loans to start. All he got was $10 . He sold s sports car and used that money.
Thats up to the shareholders to fix , not the gvmt.
On that subject, I agree with this guy (and the love the quote in bold)...
"Every CEO tells the same great white lie. It is at the heart of every communication. It is at the heart of every financial decision. It is, at it’s very base, the reason why you all are in the 99pct and they are in the 1pct. The Lie ?
Great CEO White Lie = “We are acting in the best interests of shareholders.”
When a CEO utters this lie, everyone automatically forgives whatever they do. Add 10k jobless to the unemployment rolls ? Sorry, we did it in the BEST INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS. Merge or buy a company and cut back across the board ? We did it in the Best Interest of Shareholders.
The problem is that unless the company is losing money and it is the only way to keep the company alive, in this era of 9.1pct unemployment it NEVER is in the BEST INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDERS."
How much would any of you be willing to part with if you were one of those rich people?
The same percentage everyone else pays. Flat tax. We're all Americans. We all pay.
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.
