Is it bad to be "rich"?

[sandorski]

No, not really. We were discussing taxation and whether it is justified to tax someone who is successful (specifically due to his innovation). My contention is developing the innovation and turning it into a successful product is only possible due to our extraordinary infrastructure, and it is therefore reasonable for society to expect a cut of the success. CycloWizard's contention is the innovator is "forced" to use this infrastructure, but would be just as successful and prosperous without it (as I understand his position).

I wish it were true. My arm is getting sore holding this gun to the head of this Rich bastard.

 

[nonlnear]

No, not really. We were discussing taxation and whether it is justified to tax someone who is successful (specifically due to his innovation). My contention is developing the innovation and turning it into a successful product is only possible due to our extraordinary infrastructure, and it is therefore reasonable for society to expect a cut of the success. CycloWizard's contention is the innovator is "forced" to use this infrastructure, but would be just as successful and prosperous without it (as I understand his position).

I've looked through this whole thread a couple of times and never saw Cyclowizard make that claim. The closest I found was this:

The bottom line is that "society" has never invented anything. Individuals and groups of people have invented things, resulting in a raising of the bottom line for everyone that takes advantage of said invention. Your misattribute all of these things to "society" because it's convenient for your worldview. You assume that all of these things which you attribute to society would not exist without society, without noticing that society did not create them. You also confuse society with government. In the end, you cannot understand reality because your premises are so bassackwards.

All CW seems to have been arguing is that the government imposed system of infrastructure development is not necessary to produce an environment in which innovative people can innovate effectively. I don't see where he was claiming that the innovators can do it all on their own.

The part where he focused attention on the individual as the source of innovation might seem to some like he was arguing that the individual innovates "alone", but I think that is a poor read of his posts. After all, if the individual actually did innovate alone, then it makes no sense to simultaneously claim that the innovator is forced to use infrastructure when, after all, the innovator could have just unplugged from society and done it alone.

 

[Bowfinger]

I've looked through this whole thread a couple of times and never saw Cyclowizard make that claim. The closest I found was this:All CW seems to have been arguing is that the government imposed system of infrastructure development is not necessary to produce an environment in which innovative people can innovate effectively. I don't see where he was claiming that the innovators can do it all on their own.

The part where he focused attention on the individual as the source of innovation might seem to some like he was arguing that the individual innovates "alone", but I think that is a poor read of his posts. After all, if the individual actually did innovate alone, then it makes no sense to simultaneously claim that the innovator is forced to use infrastructure when, after all, the innovator could have just unplugged from society and done it alone.

Yes, but that started from this exchange between Red and CW:

Red: Hell no, I'd take it extra tax burden and all and not complain.

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

That is the context of my reply, addressing the feeling by so many, including apparently CW, that all income is "theirs" and that the government (i.e., society) has no right to take any of it. (In any case, I'd suggest CW is best qualified to speak to his intent.)

Would you care to address my point: a key reason we all have our fantastic incomes is because of the opportunities afforded us by the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure available in America, funded in great part by tax dollars. Therefore, it's misguided to fixate on one's gross income, bemoaning the portion directed to taxes. That's the "Glass is half empty" perspective. Instead, I prefer to focus on the amount I get to keep and how wealthy it makes me compared to most of the rest of the world. In a sense, I see that society has invested in my success, and that taxes are a fair return on that investment. I therefore do not resent that a certain percentage is subtracted from my imaginary "gross" income.

Naturally I'd like that percentage to be as small as possible ... but it needs to be enough to keep America solvent and fueling prosperity.

 

[EndGame]

What a stupid question! None of you know who I am but I can guarrantee I and my wife make more than 95% of you on this board. Will this BS hurt me? Hell no! That's why I have CPA's and bookeepers........Play your games, call your names and continue debating BS you can't control.........bottom line is, the vast majority of you are "wanna be's" and the rest are "never gonna be's". If any of you BS'ing about this actually had to worry about it, you'd be talking about your accountants and your investments.......NOT what you "think" will occur.

I reallize a LOT of you are 30 year olds or less but, this whole forum (P&N) is becoming a laugh to say the least........GROW UP and Gain some commone sense!

 

[nonlnear]

No, I don't really care to address your point because I find it altogether uncompelling. It essentially boils down to "things are as good as they are now because the system that was used to get here is what was used to get here, therefore the way we got here is the best way to go where we want to go." It amounts to a dodge of any truly critical analysis of the underlying need for the infrastructure system to be the way it is. It's not very different from a simplified anthropic principle - which is never very interesting.

I don't harbor much in the way of bitterness or resentment for the way things are. I understand that most people crave authority and external structure, and want just enough freedom to convince themselves that they are truly independent. That's my species. I get it. I dislike the kind of governments that these "entrenched systems craving" people construct, but I can't resent them for being what they are. That's like being mad at the ground for being in my way when I fall. My only critique is that the perceived necessity for many of the infrastructure systems to be government run is not really justifiable even on economic grounds. Many of the services which are claimed to be necessary to be government run due to "market failures" are nothing of the sort. Many of the "market failures" are actually manufactured by massive government intrusion into the supposedly failing markets.

I'm not one who buiys the corporate lobbysists' lines about the wonders of just deregulating and privatizing government services directly. The problem is there is a lot of underlying corporate welfare that often makes the result of such changes worse than before. I think the only sensible path towards a more libertarian regime is to end all corporate welfare first, and then start rolling back the state from the markets once they are actually functioning correctly. That puts me squarely in the middle of nowhere when it comes to powerful political forces espousing my views. I'm okay with that.

(Actually as a practical matter, my political goals would most likely achieve progress by aligning with certain forces on the left, but just submarining the subsidies they might advocate along the way. Strange because I'm really not a "left wing libertarian", I just think that corporate welfare is a bigger monkey wrench to proper market function than individual welfare.)

 

[Bowfinger]

No, I don't really care to address your point because I find it altogether uncompelling.

Then why are you wasting electrons?

It essentially boils down to "things are as good as they are now because the system that was used to get here is what was used to get here, therefore the way we got here is the best way to go where we want to go." ...

Now that is a straw man ... or a complete misunderstanding of my point. I'm not suggesting anything at all about the best ways to move forward. I am talking about the way things are now, how this facilitates Americans' opportunities to succeed, and how that justifies taxing our incomes. It's a statement of what is, not what could be or should be. I agree the government is into all sorts of things that could be done differently, and in many cases done better by the private sector (which would, in turn, devise different ways of collecting it's ROI on our successes). That's a topic for another thread, however.

I don't harbor much in the way of bitterness or resentment for the way things are. I understand that most people crave authority and external structure, and want just enough freedom to convince themselves that they are truly independent. That's my species. I get it. I dislike the kind of governments that these "entrenched systems craving" people construct, but I can't resent them for being what they are. That's like being mad at the ground for being in my way when I fall. My only critique is that the perceived necessity for many of the infrastructure systems to be government run is not really justifiable even on economic grounds. Many of the services which are claimed to be necessary to be government run due to "market failures" are nothing of the sort. Many of the "market failures" are actually manufactured by massive government intrusion into the supposedly failing markets.

I'm not one who buiys the corporate lobbysists' lines about the wonders of just deregulating and privatizing government services directly. The problem is there is a lot of underlying corporate welfare that often makes the result of such changes worse than before. I think the only sensible path towards a more libertarian regime is to end all corporate welfare first, and then start rolling back the state from the markets once they are actually functioning correctly. That puts me squarely in the middle of nowhere when it comes to powerful political forces espousing my views. I'm okay with that.

(Actually as a practical matter, my political goals would most likely achieve progress by aligning with certain forces on the left, but just submarining the subsidies they might advocate along the way. Strange because I'm really not a "left wing libertarian", I just think that corporate welfare is a bigger monkey wrench to proper market function than individual welfare.)

I generally agree with this, though we might differ on some details if we got into more depth. That is a different thread, however.

 

[nonlnear]

Then why are you wasting electrons?

Boredom of course, and a bit of insomnia.

Now that is a straw man ... or a complete misunderstanding of my point.

I didn't mean it as a straw man. It would have to be a misunderstanding then.

I'm not suggesting anything at all about the best ways to move forward. I am talking about the way things are now, how this facilitates Americans' opportunities to succeed, and how that justifies taxing our incomes. It's a statement of what is, not what could be or should be.

Okay, if it is just an observation then I just don't get what the point is. Yes, there are services, and they do what they do. Yes, the wealth that has accrued in the current system is due in large part to the infrastructure that was preexisting (and implicitly due to the political system that underpinned that infrastructure). So what? Yes, I was reading into your post more than you meant when I inferred that you were justifying future policy, but that was only because I was really hoping that you had a point in there somewhere. I guess that's final confirmation: I misunderstood your post.

I agree the government is into all sorts of things that could be differently and in many cases better by the private sector (which would, in turn, devise different ways of collecting it's ROI on our successes). That's a topic for another thread, however.

I generally agree with this, though we might differ on some details if we got into more depth. That is a different thread, however.

There are many threads to be had...

 

[Nemesis 1]

What a stupid question! None of you know who I am but I can guarrantee I and my wife make more than 95% of you on this board. Will this BS hurt me? Hell no! That's why I have CPA's and bookeepers........Play your games, call your names and continue debating BS you can't control.........bottom line is, the vast majority of you are "wanna be's" and the rest are "never gonna be's". If any of you BS'ing about this actually had to worry about it, you'd be talking about your accountants and your investments.......NOT what you "think" will occur.

I reallize a LOT of you are 30 year olds or less but, this whole forum (P&N) is becoming a laugh to say the least........GROW UP and Gain some commone sense!

If a man gains the whole world but loses his Soul(Spirit) what is his gain. As I look threw time and space . I want much more than money can ever buy, What is 80 years compared to eternity. I do well also . But money has never and will never make me happy . When I grow up maybe I will be like you. I hope not.

 

[niallmcg]

Hmmm...well this topic has gotten pretty intellectual. How about I bring it down a bit and post a quote from the infamous Gene Simmons, who says "Whoever said 'Money can't buy you love or joy' obviously was not making enough money".

I love this quote...and, well...pretty much agree with it. No it is not bad to be rich.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL, welcome to the club. Everybody thinks they are overworked, overtaxed and are jealous of all those people getting a "free lunch", whoever/whereever they are? I know I don't know any of them. Will somebody please point in the right direction so I can get a free lunch?? Please??

What do you do for a living again?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are a hoot. Don't you want my shoe size also?

All I want to know is where are all these people you claim are getting a free lunch? Be specific please.

No...I don't want to know your shoe size...I want to know where you're coming from. Please answer.

BTW...you totally misunderstood my post. Let me help you...entitlements cost money (lots of money) and don't come free...they have to be paid for. Does that help you?

 

[nobodyknows]

What do you do for a living again?

I've probably did more work by accident in my life then you have on purpose in yours, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[nobodyknows]

No...I don't want to know your shoe size...I want to know where you're coming from. Please answer.

BTW...you totally misunderstood my post. Let me help you...entitlements cost money (lots of money) and don't come free...they have to be paid for. Does that help you?

Entitlements? You mean like golden parachutes and coporate welfare? Or do you mean like gold plated health care plans or 400 million dollar retirement plans?

I beleive you said something about people getting a "free lunch" and I asked how do you go about getting said free lunch. Apparently you can't answer the question?

 

[nobodyknows]

Hmmm...well this topic has gotten pretty intellectual. How about I bring it down a bit and post a quote from the infamous Gene Simmons, who says "Whoever said 'Money can't buy you love or joy' obviously was not making enough money".

I love this quote...and, well...pretty much agree with it. No it is not bad to be rich.

Who was it who said "Money can't buy you love, but it can rent you some very interesting people"?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I've probably did more work by accident in my life then you have on purpose in yours, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Well, I guess we can rule out English teacher.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, I guess we can rule out English teacher.

Or college graduate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Entitlements? You mean like golden parachutes and coporate welfare? Or do you mean like gold plated health care plans or 400 million dollar retirement plans?

I beleive you said something about people getting a "free lunch" and I asked how do you go about getting said free lunch. Apparently you can't answer the question?

The reason I didn't answer your question is that it's obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was talking about and your question was irrelevant...I never said entitlements were a 'free lunch' for recipients as you imply. I thought that I clearly explained this in my post above...I was referring to our need to pay for these entitlements as they don't come free (ergo my 'no such thing as a free lunch' comment) but that also seems to have gone over your head.

If you read my original post you'll note that I (including my mother, brother and sister) was on the receiving end of 'entitlements' (ADC and SS in our case) and was damn grateful for them. I don't know how I can be any clearer than this. /sigh

 

[nobodyknows]

The reason I didn't answer your question is that it's obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was talking about and your question was irrelevant...I never said entitlements were a 'free lunch' for recipients as you imply. I thought that I clearly explained this in my post above...I was referring to our need to paid for these entitlements (they don't come free <---ergo my 'no such thing as a free lunch' comment) but that also seems to have gone over your head.

If you read my original post you'll note that I (including my mother, brother and sister) was on the receiving end of 'entitlements' (ADC and SS in our case) and was damn grateful for them. I don't know how I can be any clearer than this. /sigh

Who says SS is an entitlement? They take money out of people's paycheck check every week to pay for it.

As far as other programs go, if it weren't for them then employers would have to pay more. They are more of a saftey net. I think in the vast majority of cases that the people's work has paid for their so called "entitlments". So where is this "free lunch' you speak of?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Who says SS is an entitlement? They take money out of people's paycheck check every week to pay for it.

As far as other programs go, if it weren't for them then employers would have to pay more. They are more of a saftey net. I think in the vast majority of cases that the people's work has paid for their so called "entitlments". So where is this "free lunch' you speak of?

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

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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

Those that have not are jealous of those that have.
A lot of the "non rich" aka liberals. Like to see the rich taxed more and pay more into social programs the rich will never need because it acts as a retrobution system against the rich, which are more often than not Republicans or right leaning.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've probably did more work by accident in my life then you have on purpose in yours, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Really? You don't seem to have any real world experience, so I was curious.

 

[Bowfinger]

Those that have not are jealous of those that have.
A lot of the "non rich" aka liberals. Like to see the rich taxed more and pay more into social programs the rich will never need because it acts as a retrobution system against the rich, which are more often than not Republicans or right leaning.

You recite the propaganda points well, but as is usually the case, they're nonsense. You ignore the fact that "the rich" gain far greater benefit from our government and the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure it fosters than the poor can ever dream of.

I went into this in some depth above, but I've never seen evidence you have the interest (or the intellectual horsepower) to actually debate and discuss a topic with anything one couldn't fit on a bumper sticker. I doubt you even bothered to read the thread. Suffice it to say your parents wouldn't have such a nice basement for you were it not for the exceptional opportunities we have in America ... thanks in great part to those very taxes you denounce.

 

[nobodyknows]

Really? You don't seem to have any real world experience, so I was curious.

In my world, talk is cheap. So again I say put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In my world, talk is cheap. So again I say put that in your pipe and smoke it.

This is your best response to date

 

[SparkyJJO]

Being rich is bad because the left says so. You should feel bad at being successful and making money.

Now, the left also secretly love the rich because they tax them to pay for all their stuff. Which does backfire every now and then.

Of course, they won't tax themselves. Look at some of the political "fat cats" so to speak, and look at how many of them are democrats - but I'm willing to bet that they won't give away all their cash to others. But they certainly are willing to take YOUR money and give it away.

Eh... politicians are a bunch of greedy, hypocritical liars. But people believe them anyway.