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.
Obama's government motors subsidizes the chevy volt to the tune of taxpayers spending about 250K on each car depending whose create accounting you believe. the beauty is the average salary of the volt buyer is about 160K.
Subsidizing the rich must be done selectively as all subsidation is not bad.
No wonder I think all income should be taxed except thay below the 90th percentile.
To answer the President; when the upper 10% have 90% of the wealth what could they want? The REST of it! The wealthy are not driven by wages they are driven by greed and envy.
A broad generalization and false.
The wealthy are often "driven" personalities. Wealth is a byproduct of that drive and determination in a capitalistic economy. I never set out to be "rich". I set out to be in control of my destiny and knew I was capable of financial independence if I was patient and disciplined.
The real wealth was only in the last couple of years. I was never driven by money. I was driven by success. Success is an internal measurement.
Envy. Interesting topic. When I was a young analyst I was envious of the man who became my mentor. I remember thinking how nice it would be to not be dependent on somebody else for my livelihood. I don't remember every really envying material goods. Even as I could afford more we never really went overboard. My biggest vice was a few nice cars, but even those were not extravagant by California standards.
I think the wealthy are driven by an internal desire to succeed, and in some cases wealth is the byproduct.
In fairness, there are some slimy people. But sliminess can occur at any socio-economic level.
The problem is debt, such that it is, is built into the system. A more modern opinion:
Dr. Friedman: There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise . . . and yet we need taxes. We have to recognize that we must not hope for a Utopia that is unattainable I would like to see a great deal less government activity than we have now, but I do not believe that we can have a situation in which we don't need government at all. We do need to provide for certain essential government functions - the national defense function, the police function, preserving law and order, maintaining a judiciary. So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.
The next least bad tax is a flat-rate tax on income above an exemption. I could design my ideal tax system it would contain an income tax, but it would not be the kind of monstrosity we have now. It would be a flat-rate tax on all income, from whatever source derived, less only a personal deduction and strict occupational expense, and that kind of income tax I think would be the least inconsistent with a strong free enterprise system.
My point is in the last 30 plus years the effective tax rate for the leisure class has shrank three fold and their take of the income pie has exploded. If the uber wealthy intend to take all the excess wealthy out of the economy they should be prepared to pay most of the taxes needed to fund the government.
1) Don't know about the "leisure class", but if you check the figures, you'll find that people with Tiger Woods income levels pay close to 50% (federal, state, etc). Some may evade paying those rates, but that's a different story. We are discussing tax levels by the law.
2) "Income pie exploded" - its the twisted way the American society rewards people, but that's not against any law. I agree that as a society we should redefine how people are rewarded, but not through taxation.
3) That been said, we reward people with millions, they do not rob it at gunpoint.
4) When we pay someone $50m for a job they do, it is unconditional. As a society, we don't say "since you earn $50m, you'll have to fund the government". Not only that, but the very idea of how much the government costs is controversial. In any case, it is you who decided to put the burden on them, but they didn't accept it. It is an open issue.
Tiger Woods' ex wife recently purchased a $12 million home in Florida and demolished the 17,000 square foot mansion to the ground so she can build an every grander home on the same spot.
My question is why aren't we taxing these people when it appears that they have so much money to burn in idiotic fashions? Are we supposed to feel sorry for the likes of Paris Hilton, this Elin gal and the Kardashians?
Because they are the ones that write the tax codes and all the other laws so matter what they do it is perfectly legal.
In other words the fix is in.
Just because an activity is legal it does not mean it is moral. A thief that writes the law will always take more than a fool with a gun. When the wealthy can write the law that protects their wealth instead of the prosperity of the people that create it the Republic will soon fall, if it has not already, to cronyism and corruption.
It turns out that the building was structually unsafe do to termite infestation.
Habitat for Humanity was given free reign to take any usable materials that it wanted.
Damn those rich people!
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.
)
