Is it bad to be "rich"?

[Steeplerot]

From a Socialist himself: Nothing wrong with being "rich", using the power of wealth to screw others is a different story.

You righties going on about taxing others and wanting free stuff are out in la la land.

 

[Craig234]

Somebody shoot me...and where the hell is Craig234 when you need him?

You rang?

I'd interpret his point on 'SS not being an entitlement because they pay for it' not as just meaning what I assume drove you over the edge that all entitlements are paid for with taxes, but that he's distinguishing between entitlements paid for out of the general fund in the 'rich pay the taxes, poor get the benefits' type entitlements in contrast to the more direct correlation of 'workers pays years into SS, then gets payments from SS' type.

I haven't read most of the later posts in the thread after my earlier (I searched for my name for replies) and am unsure what you were looking to me to comment on.]

But I'll use this response to mention that I think many fail to appreciate the other types of contributions - such as 'cheap labor' being a 'contribution' that doesn't sjup up in dollars.

The more impoverished a workforce is, the mre you might find it's paying less in taxes, yet giving more to society in the cheap labor, while increased concentrations in wealth may well lead to massive increses in the paying of the needs of the masses by the rich who now own everything, whether it's in the form of taxes or some other method - but is the plantation owner who pals all the costs for his zero-paying slaves 'generous'? No.

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_RuhwWhSM

 

[alkemyst]

If you concider yourself "rich" while paying your taxes and not bitching about it then you are doing just fine.

Everyone bitches about taxes. IMHO it's usually the poor the most vocal especially when they make comments how "they are paying for 'this and that'".

We have created a society that is out to get each other esp on the bipartizan level.

This is why most revolts will fail, someone will easily sell the rest out once the price is right.

There is no loyalty in man anymore.

 

[blackangst1]

Everyone bitches about taxes. IMHO it's usually the poor the most vocal especially when they make comments how "they are paying for 'this and that'".

We have created a society that is out to get each other esp on the bipartizan level.

This is why most revolts will fail, someone will easily sell the rest out once the price is right.

There is no loyalty in man anymore.

The poor might have alot to bitch about, but taxes isnt one of them.

 

[alkemyst]

The poor might have alot to bitch about, but taxes isnt one of them.

but they do...more often how little they get back.

 

[nobodyknows]

The poor might have alot to bitch about, but taxes isnt one of them.

Might??

It's true the poor have some very legitamate concerns like health care, food, and shelter but they can bitch about taxes if they want to. In my state we have no income tax and everybody pay state and city sales tax on everything... including food.

 

[blackangst1]

but they do...more often how little they get back.

Which is amazing to me how someone can bitch about getting back more than they put in :hmm:

 

[Bowfinger]

Everyone bitches about taxes. IMHO it's usually the poor the most vocal especially when they make comments how "they are paying for 'this and that'".

We have created a society that is out to get each other esp on the bipartizan level.

This is why most revolts will fail, someone will easily sell the rest out once the price is right.

There is no loyalty in man anymore.

In my experience, it's the wannabe-rich who bitch the most about taxes. They need something to blame for their own failure to become as rich as they "know" they deserve to be. Taxes are an easy scapegoat. It's those damn taxes holding them back. They aren't honest enough and attentive enough to recognize that if it weren't for those taxes, they'd be making a tenth of what they are today.

 

[Tom]

Why? What claim would anyone else have to your money? Why do some here think that this claim is a right?

people have a right to the fruits of their labor. that doesn't mean they get to keep it after they're dead. Or their heirs. The practice of passing on wealth comes from the tradition of monarchy and lords, it flies in the face of democracy. liberty, and equality. I'm not opposed to it completely, but fairly high estate taxes are justified philosophically.

In addition, "money" and it's value doesn't just come from an individual's work, but also from the fact the individual is part of a community. So the "fruit" only partly belongs to the individual.

 

[AzN]

Rich people are the best and most good of all. They provide JOBS to other people so that they too can be rich someday if they work hard enough. They also pay almost every penny of the tax revenue, they should be applauded and held in high regard, not demonized.

Do you really think you can get rich by working?

 

[AzN]

I don't mind rich who earned all their shit. (who know the value of money)

Can't stand rich who already had free funds to work with. (dicks)

 

[Red Dawn]

The poor might have alot to bitch about, but taxes isnt one of them.

Income tax no but with most other taxes they have as much reason as anybody.

 

[Bowfinger]

Income tax no but with most other taxes they have as much reason as anybody.

As I understand it, even that is skewed by a small number of the poor who "pay" a negative federal income tax vs. the majority of poor who do pay, albeit at a pretty modest effective rate.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Do you really think you can get rich by working?

That's how a lot of people got there, yes. Takes time, and hard work, but you don't get rich by sitting on your rear end playing video games all day.

 

[blackangst1]

people have a right to the fruits of their labor. that doesn't mean they get to keep it after they're dead. Or their heirs. The practice of passing on wealth comes from the tradition of monarchy and lords, it flies in the face of democracy. liberty, and equality. I'm not opposed to it completely, but fairly high estate taxes are justified philosophically.

You know what they say about opinions

 

[Bowfinger]

You are forcing them to pay for the infrastructure, then claiming that because they have to use the infrastructure they paid for, they must continue to pay for it. The "resources" that gave them that foundation were their own, or those of a previous generation. "Society" does not generate any resources. At best, it can simply pool them together for the common good.

Forcing them? As opposed to what, heading off into the forest and using stone tools to make their own Center for Innovation by hand? You need to get past this fantasy that you or anyone else is self-made. Everything you are and have was built upon those who came before you, using America's extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure (substituting other countries as appropriate for other people).

We don't see meaningful innovation coming from aboriginal tribes using hand-made stone tools. It comes from people people who leverage the benefits of a developed society to push forward. It comes from people who can take for granted things like electricity, clean water, plentiful safe food, roads, housing, education, banks, merchants, public safety, etc., so they can focus on creating the next big thing instead of scrounging for grubs for dinner.

Even more, turning that idea from a pipe dream into a profitable product demands extensive infrastructure support. One needs facilities, utilities, an adequately-educated workforce, suppliers, service providers, public safety and health, transportation, distributors, investors, a legal system with property & IP rights, ... and customers, all of whom are products of and dependent upon the same incredible physical, financial, and educational infrastructure provided by society. Take it away and no matter how brilliant and ambitious you may be, you're just a smart chimpanzee in a loin cloth.

And which side am I beholden to? I have no representation in our government at this point, and I've never been a member of any political party. I don't have a dog in the fight. I simply object to those who claim that their need gives them a right to what I have earned. To be fair, you have made just about the best argument I've seen for why "society" might have some claim to what I've earned, but it still falls apart because society as a whole cannot contribute anything - only its members can.

As an educated person, you surely must understand that "partisan" is not limited to political parties. It can also, for example, refer to ideologies and generally taking sides. In this case, I was referring to your partisan devotion to the myth of the self-made man.

One last bump for CW, or for any of the folks who believe they are "self-made" and don't see that their success (or opportunities for success) are a product of America's extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

In my experience, it's the wannabe-rich who bitch the most about taxes. They need something to blame for their own failure to become as rich as they "know" they deserve to be. Taxes are an easy scapegoat. It's those damn taxes holding them back. They aren't honest enough and attentive enough to recognize that if it weren't for those taxes, they'd be making a tenth of what they are today.

Eh? Are you really that stupid? I've not heard that from anyone - except from you leftists who use it as a strawman.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

As I understand it, even that is skewed by a small number of the poor who "pay" a negative federal income tax vs. the majority of poor who do pay, albeit at a pretty modest effective rate.

Uh... please show how a "poor" person would have to pay NET federal income taxes. And before you do so - please define "poor"

 

[Bowfinger]

Uh... please show how a "poor" person would have to pay NET federal income taxes. And before you do so - please define "poor"

Give it a rest. I'm not trying to make a definitive statement about poverty and taxes. I was offering a quick, general expansion on Red's response to Blackangst1 about the poor. Set your threshold sufficiently low and it's true that they pay no federal income taxes.

I can tell you my older son paid over $700 federal on an income of about $19K. (Laid off from EDS/HP when they discovered they could lower their wage scale $2 per hour thanks to the poor economy. He was already looking for a new job due to the slimy way they cheat customers, but it still took months.) Anyway, in my book that's poor. YMMV.

 

[Bowfinger]

Eh? Am I really that stupid?

So it seems.

I've not heard that from anyone - except from you leftists who use it as a strawman.

Cad, I understand you struggle with English, but please make at least some attempt at comprehension. You'll note I didn't frame my comment as a quote. Rather, I presented it as my opinion of some people's attitude based on my observations and experience: "In my experience ..." Just look at CW's comments in the "Why more Americans pay no income tax" thread. It certainly looks to me like he's blaming taxes for his presumed lack of success rather than his own self-admitted decision to quit trying and start slacking on the government teat.

I also note that just like CW, you've made no attempt to refute my points above. None of us are self-made men. Our opportunities for success and our fabulous standard of living are built from America's extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure, greatly funded by the taxes you rail against. This benefit is multiplied many fold as your wealth increases. (Generally speaking, of course. One can find odd exceptions to any rule.)

I'd love to see you take a stab at rebutting the rationale and examples I gave. Bonus points if you can do it by refuting things I actually said instead of inventing -- and then attacking -- nonsense I didn't.

 

[Acanthus]

It depends on your definition of "rich"

The Waltons, none of whom had anything to do with their current wealth, are all well beyond "rich".

There is a point where you are so rich that you will never be able to productively use your wealth. You are just keeping score. It is just an exorbitantly large number.

As a nation, we should define that point (say $100m+) and tax the hell out of it (80%+) until the deficit is erased.

 

[Vic]

Of course not.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Every rich person I ever knew worked 80+ hour weeks and usually 100+. But that doesn't matter. Risking everything they have, forgoing human contact, not having a life, not having a family, and working tons of hours shouldn't be rewarded. If you work a single hour in your life it's the same as a man putting in 100 a week. Kill whitey, etc.

 

[Bowfinger]

Every rich person I ever knew worked 80+ hour weeks and usually 100+. But that doesn't matter. Risking everything they have, forgoing human contact, not having a life, not having a family, and working tons of hours shouldn't be rewarded. If you work a single hour in your life it's the same as a man putting in 100 a week. Kill whitey, etc.

There's a surprise. Another purported newcomer who starts churning out retarded straw man arguments parroted straight from the list of RNC-approved propaganda points. WWYBYWB?