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.
Saying that those earn more do so because they "work harder" is an unfounded claim, especially since 6 out of ten on the Fortune 400 got their through inherited wealth.
Yeah, they worked hard winning the sperm lottery.
That figure is a complete lie. Its something like 30% but even if it is 60%, what difference does it make? Are you telling me people shouldnt be allowed to give thier children money?
So let me understand you..
I shouldnt be able to give me kids money, but I should give every dime I've ever worked for, to the government..
It is still FAMILY MONEY. Most inherited wealth is lost in future generations. Come back when you refuse any inheritance from your parents when they die. I hope you did the right thing and gave their house back to the bank or sold it and turned the proceeds over to the state.
Family money that the heirs did nothing to earn, which discredits the point I was addressing, that these people earned what they have.
Moreover, we see today that most of the top 0.1% are in the executive suite, which earns hundreds of times the AVERAGE worker (not the lowest worker). Nobody can show that these executives work hundreds of times harder than the average work.
Why normal people defend the privileged aristocracy is beyond me.
Moreover, we see today that most of the top 0.1% are in the executive suite, which earns hundreds of times the AVERAGE worker (not the lowest worker). Nobody can show that these executives work hundreds of times harder than the average work.
So what? Do you think giving money to the government stops people from being in executive suits?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Why normal people defend the privileged aristocracy is beyond me.
One of the reasons I adopted children was to have someone to leave my wealth to.. Why you think those kids would be better off homeless is beyond me.
...the majority of super rich seem to have a lower tax rate because they live off passive income.
It's actually not that much lower than the effective rate the top 1% pays.
The latest reported IRS data for the top 400 income tax filers shows that their average effective federal income tax rate was right around 20%. Just below the rate the top 1% pays, just above the rate the top 1-5% pays, and significantly higher than the rate the middle class pays. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09intop400.pdf
i.e. If you're rich, you should be able to buy as many politicians as you like.
You keep throwing out this meme, but the most anyone, rich or poor, can give to a single politician is $5200. I make substantially less than George Soros (sadly), but he and I have the exact same amount of maximum monetary lobbying influence over any one person. If I want to "buy" a whole committee in the House or Senate, I could...same as any rich person. Only need about $50k in disposable cash to do that. It wouldn't be a very good use of money, and I hate Republicans and Democrats alike with the same white hot intensity, but I could if I wanted because the max I can give to any one person isn't all that much.
Campaign finance and the latest SCOTUS decision are not how politicians get "bought." Legislative agreements that later in life turn into $10+ million in really "fortuitous" investing that their earlier legislation "coincidentally" helped is how politicians are bought. While drawing a $400k salary, Obama's net worth has gone from $2 million to $9 million in 5 years. Do the math, and about $5 million goes unexplained, because nobody is that savvy an investor without insider perks.
Why would a US Senator spend $6 million of his own money to get a job that pays $200k per year? Trust me, the answer ain't "so he can help his fellow citizen."
But these examples are not part of campaign finance per the SCOTUS decision this week. My examples are already illegal, it's just that the only body that would investigate, indict and prosecute the crimes are the folks committing those crimes the most often. The House and Senate "ethics" committees might be the two biggest jokes in the entire federal government. Ted Stevens has half of Alaska named after him, but there's nothing to see behind that curtain? Charlie Rangel has evaded taxes for like a decade, been "censured" or "reprimanded" like half a dozen times, but did he get fired? Look how all of Cory Booker's friends and allies made out. Coincidence?
None of that is because individuals can now give the max individual campaign contribution to unlimited people. Don't confuse one for the other.
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
If you can afford $100 sneakers then you can afford to pay for your own food.
Family money that the heirs did nothing to earn, which discredits the point I was addressing, that these people earned what they have.
Moreover, we see today that most of the top 0.1% are in the executive suite, which earns hundreds of times the AVERAGE worker (not the lowest worker). Nobody can show that these executives work hundreds of times harder than the average work.
Why normal people defend the privileged aristocracy is beyond me.
They guy steering the ship is more valuable than the guy peeling potatoes in the galley.
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.
Most inherited wealth is lost in future generations.
That is actually very true:
Quote:
"Wealth transfers — inheritances and gifts combined — constitute a small part of the holdings of the rich, whether you define “rich” in terms of income or net worth. For the top income quintile, gifts and inheritances amount to 13 percent of household wealth, according to research published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the top wealth quintile, they amount to 16 percent. For the hated “1 percent,” inherited wealth accounts for about 15 percent of holdings.
...Meanwhile, inherited money makes up 43 percent of the wealth of the lowest income group and 31 percent for the second-lowest."
If you can afford $100 sneakers then you can afford to pay for your own food.
Think of how much drug money comes out of the poverty stricken areas, of which is paid for by taxpayers..
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.
