The rich have too much money? Whats the solution?

[babylon5]

I think rich people are great. They should be able to make as much as they can and manipulate the laws to their advantage
and hide money in South America's bank.

And poor people are great too. Rich need poor people to work cheap to keep RichieRichie!

 

[babylon5]

Think about how corporations like Haliburton get richer (with Cheney's help) by sending not-rich kids to Middle East so they can make profit.

Shame.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Alot of threads disintigrate into "the rich are too rich" or similar statements. So I'd like some honest conversation.[/b]

The rich have always been rich, they will continue to be rich. That is not the problem. The problem is for a great deal of the country, they are far less "rich" than they were a mere 7 years ago. I had to go back to college so I could make less than I was in 2000. My house was worth a good bit more back then, too. People who bring up the rich are trying to divert the real issue, the shrinking middle class imo.

 

[piasabird]

I say it is your money and what you do with it is your business. When you earned the money the government taxed it. When you earned interest on the money, the government taxed it agian. That is enough. If you give all the money to your kids and they blow it, then that just helps the economy keep going.

I dont think I could leave it all to my kids if I had say 5 Billion. That would be pointless. The money can go to some other cause at the option of the person who earned it. Handouts are fine for the poor, but they just end up spending it and staying poor. The government has plenty of money and they just waste it all. Do you know we only spend about 4% of the budget on defense? The rest is all just stuff like Social Security and Medicare. Defense should be like 10% of the budget.

 

[imported_Baloo]

I think the issue here has more to do with ethics, than success. Money is not a measure of success, a cap would have no impact on anyones level of success. I am not particularly for a cap, but do think it absurd there are people making billions thru clearly unethical and illegal business practices and no consequences.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Alot of threads disintigrate into "the rich are too rich" or similar statements. So I'd like some honest conversation.[/b]

The rich have always been rich, they will continue to be rich. That is not the problem.

The problem is for a great deal of the country, they are far less "rich" than they were a mere 7 years ago.

I had to go back to college so I could make less than I was in 2000.

My house was worth a good bit more back then, too.

People who bring up the rich are trying to divert the real issue, the shrinking middle class imo.

You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I say it is your money and what you do with it is your business. When you earned the money the government taxed it. When you earned interest on the money, the government taxed it agian. That is enough. If you give all the money to your kids and they blow it, then that just helps the economy keep going.

I dont think I could leave it all to my kids if I had say 5 Billion. That would be pointless. The money can go to some other cause at the option of the person who earned it. Handouts are fine for the poor, but they just end up spending it and staying poor. The government has plenty of money and they just waste it all. Do you know we only spend about 4% of the budget on defense? The rest is all just stuff like Social Security and Medicare. Defense should be like 10% of the budget.

Bull, we spend 20% on defense. And we spend 7% just on interest payment on all of the debt those fools have run up. Yes, you and every American are in debt $30,000 thanks to deficit spending.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php...com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=107

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: yllus
There's no real problem.

People seem to get upset at the rich "cheating" the system, which to some extent is an accurate claim. You should all be pressing for a hugely simplified tax code which eliminates the opportunity for cheating.

The Association of CPAs, H&R Block, and well over 1/2 of all the accountants in the USA would lobby to prevent that :x

What we had to understand is that the issue of taxation in the USA and moving to a flat tax is largely just political ammunition that will never be fired. The industry and market that has spawned due to a cumbersome and slow system ridiculed with loop holes is a very profitable one.

From this alone any "rally" to a fair tax by EITHER side is MOST LIKELY (I still believe there are politicians with principles these days 😉 ) an "empty issue" in that it provides nothing of real substance because its goal is not to actually talk about doing something constructive, but to change the way people vote...

Correct - the financial sector would likely never allow this to happen, because it would mean a drastic slashing of jobs in their field. Hah, I actually just typoed "thief" for "their" - how appropriate. 😛

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

Do you deny that there ARE a large number of people who are lazy and squander their money and opportunities?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

Do you deny that there ARE a large number of people who are lazy and squander their money and opportunities?

Of course not but I am not the one labeling all of them "Liberals or Democrats" either.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think the best solution is for people to mind their own business. Class envy and jealousy are something that should be left behind in 2nd grade.

That gets harder and harder for the little people of the country because as they work harder and harder and can no longer afford health care, driving, good roof overhead while the rich get richer and richer.

It's the reason the little people will eventually band together in enough numbers and kick the rich collective a$$e$ with a revolution.

Alternatively, it's the reason they'll want to, but will be absolutely unable to and democracy will be at risk.

Look, it's not going that way, as long as people aren't starving in the streets on a large scale, they put up with the situation.

The wealthy are already grabbing the nation's wealth - from a 50-50 split for the top 5% under Carter to a 75-25 split under Clinton and worse since - and the people are quiet.

How much more of the wealth can the top few take - 80%, 90%? The thing to remember is that as they grab more, they are yet more politically powerful.

We don't live in an age where people can take their musket into the street and change anything. We live in an age where the monied political system can thwart reform.

Look at the California governor's election for a nice example of the state of the electorate. When the Enron crimes were trying to get excused by a deal letting them off easy that democratic governor Gray Davis refused to approve, his recall was funded and occured, and for a replacement, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, who was so close to Enron he'd been invited to a secret planning session with them on the crisis, was elected based on the worst reasons - the public split between 134 alternatives to him.

It's the people's responsibility to elect the liberals who will represent the public over the narrow, wealthy interests and who will reform the political system overweighing money.

Unfortunately, the public ideology, the media, the things needed to push the reforms are in favor of the wealthy, who have done well at spreading that ideology.

You hear people defend the need to cut billionares' share of society's costs more, but argue against funding health care for citizens.

The way things are headed are the wealthy undoing the gains of the middle class they hate so much from the FDR era, and moving the US to a more China-like feudalism.

If a 25 year period of 80% of the public having flat wages after inflation while all the increases in productivity go to the few most wealthy doesn't get the public upset...

That's one thing I see ironically is that the more the people are abused, the more they adopt the mantra that the wealthy are so wonderful and should get what they want.

It's like the Stockholm Syndrome - they reject the policies that are rationals and pretend they're billionares, too, it seems. Ya, it's the poor and government that are the problem.

Our nation is in a sad state and needs a good dose of movig in the liberal direction to where the public is represented in government again as in the 1933-1968 period.

Arguably the two most expensive bullets ever shot in American history are the ones that shot JFK (allowing the end of the liberal era as LBJ went to war in Viet Nam, splitting the party and allowing the republicans to regain power while democrats were weakened over the loss of the south over civil rights), and RFK (who could have re-united the nation as liberal as president in 1968, instead of the disastrous republican era beginning with Nixon). Sorry to go off topic on that but I think it's important to recall the history.

'Leaders' like Reagan, a mouthpiece for the wealthy who was in politics because he resented his personal tax rate as a corporate spokesman, poisoned the political culture.

We need to go back from the Bush/right-wing policies not unlike those that set the nation on course for the Great Depression under republicans then, to liberal policies.

The republicans on this board are very confused about liberal policies, as evidenced in their posts. They'be been spoon fed a false ideology serving the wealthy... and so they continue to want the policies which promised wealth to the public along with the wealthy but instead have been radical policies of redistribution of the nation's wealth to the top, raising wealth and income inequality to the highest levels ever. And I've yet to see one republican on this board say one word against that trend.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

Do you deny that there ARE a large number of people who are lazy and squander their money and opportunities?

Of course not but I am not the one labeling all of them "Liberals or Democrats" either.

fair enough... but would you agree that the lazy and lame are the ones who b*tch the most about the wealthy?

I fairly sure that laziness is a non-partisan issue...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

Do you deny that there ARE a large number of people who are lazy and squander their money and opportunities?

Of course not but I am not the one labeling all of them "Liberals or Democrats" either.

fair enough... but would you agree that the lazy and lame are the ones who b*tch the most about the wealthy?

I fairly sure that laziness is a non-partisan issue...

No, it is now a large portion of the folks that have been working their collective asses off and going backwards thanks to Republican policy that the voices you are now hearing.

I know you would never admit to that.

 

[johnnobts]

punish the rich and they'll continue to expatriate. the way the tax code is written i have no incentive to make it into the next tax bracket. i'm being encouraged by the govt. to make less money, its ludicrous.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
punish the rich and they'll continue to expatriate. the way the tax code is written i have no incentive to make it into the next tax bracket. i'm being encouraged by the govt. to make less money, its ludicrous.

If our only choices are for them to expatriate or be given grossly unfair policies, I say expatriate.

The problem you describe is not their being overtaxed, but rather their being undertaxed so much that their wealth grows to the point they can make demands for special treatment and be encouraged to move out of the country for a tax haven. That's a symptom of the problem of the excessive concentration of wealth, not a symptom that the wealthy are being treated unfairly. Following the great depression, the policies reduced the share of wealth owned by the very wealthy and got the nation back on track.

We did not see massive expatriation.

We are in a bind now with globalism about how to protect Americans' standard of living. The answer from the wealthy: enrich themselves while most Americans move closer to the third world, undoing the gains they got under the FDR policies. We need better leadership which protects the average American and moves to globalism in a more balanced set of policies.

If you are being encouraged under the tax law to make less - something I think is very unlikely but maybe in a freakish exception - then fix the tax code for that detail.

Post the details on how you are being rewarded to make less money, please.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

Do you deny that there ARE a large number of people who are lazy and squander their money and opportunities?

Of course not but I am not the one labeling all of them "Liberals or Democrats" either.

fair enough... but would you agree that the lazy and lame are the ones who b*tch the most about the wealthy?

I fairly sure that laziness is a non-partisan issue...

No, it is now a large portion of the folks that have been working their collective asses off and going backwards thanks to Republican policy that the voices you are now hearing.

I know you would never admit to that.

please cite an example of someone who has worked their proverbial a$$ off, but has still "gone backwards" -- also, please define that phrase.

Then, if you would be so kind, please reference the specific "Bush policies" that directly caused it.

thank you ahead of time.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think it's important to note that wealth translates into political power, at least in our modern world, and that there's a certain tension between wealth and democracy that's unavoidable, actually desirable.

Without that tension, wealth can easily overwhelm democracy, in a variety of ways. I doubt, for example, that our forefathers even dreamed that the press, what has become the media, could ever be consolidated into half a dozen mega-corporations that we have today. If they had, it seems doubtful that they'd have allowed the press that particular freedom. Nor could they have foreseen just how much money is now involved in political advertising and what amounts to paid political editorializing.

They understood, rather well, what inherited wealth meant, and how it worked- it's the basis for european royalty, a royalty that had titles, and those titles meant titles to land and its resources- the ability to exploit resources, collect rents and levy taxes to support their own lifestyles. Not wealth that was earned by those who held it, but rather by their distant forebearers, usually by force of arms...

Revolutionary era Americans opposed that concept wholeheartedly, if shortsightedly. While there were wealthy Americans, the relative difference between wealthy and average was a lot smaller, and, besides that, there was a whole continent there for the taking... they didn't forsee the day when that would be accomplished, when inheritance of wealth would begin to play a major role in the economy. They couldn't even fathom the concept of limited resources.

The whole idea of Capitalism was in its infancy, with capitalists acting in opposition to the established order of royalty, with commerce becoming a much greater source of wealth than mere property. The emergence of inherited Capital as the new royalty was very far in the future, virtually undreamed of...

All of which very much shaped the American psyche, and still does today. Even though the frontier closed over a hundred years ago, we see extreme wealth as a good thing, rather than as a necessary evil... we still think in terms of unlimited resources, and unlimited opportunity, both of which no longer apply... inspiring statements like Xman's-

" Capping wealth is silly. It wrongfully assumes that wealth is a finite resource. "

Over time, wealth is elastic, but at any given moment, it's finite. What one person owns at that moment simply can't be owned by another simultaneously. And that elasticity has limits, with wealth having a tendency to accumulate in the hands of a few, particularly over generational time. Wealth is its own opportunity. Those who start out way ahead can hardly help getting further ahead, particularly in our modern world of professional money managers. They can't actually spend what they take in- the surplus is reinvested, and the whole thing wants to snowball out of control...

The answer isn't in limiting wealth, per se, but rather in limiting inheritance, making sure that wealth circulates rather than stagnating in a few huge pools accessible only to the owners... When inheritance taxes force liquidation of assets, then those assets become available to the highest bidder, and the proceeds flow back into the economy via govt spending... keeping the process of the economy alive and healthy...

Third world economies don't do that, at all, with wealth becoming more and more concentrated over time, and the only ways to keep it moving being in the form of revolution or invasion...

Why was this post ignored by everyone? Some real wisdom here.

 

[Craig234]

One of my favorite writers, Thom Hartmann, wrote the following a decade ago on the topic in an essay, How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege.

And now come the oligarchs - the most wealthy and powerful families of America - lobbying Congress that they should retain their stupefying levels of wealth and the power it brings, generation after generation. They say that democracy doesn't require a strong middle class, and that Jefferson was wrong when he said that "overgrown wealth" could be "dangerous to the State." They say that a permanent, hereditary, aristocratically rich ruling class is actually a good thing for the stability of society.

While a $1.5 million trigger for the estate tax is arguably too low - particularly given the recent bubble in real estate prices - that doesn't invalidate the concept of a democracy defending itself against oligarchy. Set the trigger at 10 million, or fifty million. Make sure that family farms and small businesses are protected. And make sure that people who have worked hard and earned a lot of money can have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will live very comfortably.

But let's also make sure that we don't end up like so many Latin American countries, where a handful of super-rich families rule their nations, and democracy is more show than substance.

The Founders of our republic fought a war against an aristocratic, oligarchic nation, and were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into aristocracy, oligarchy, or feudalism/fascism. We must hold to their vision of an egalitarian, democratic republic.

Now the Estate Tax is before the Senate. Encourage your US Senator to fight against mega-millionaire and US Senate leader Bill Frist, and to keep the estate tax intact.

Note, this is *before* the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Link

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
punish the rich and they'll continue to expatriate. the way the tax code is written i have no incentive to make it into the next tax bracket. i'm being encouraged by the govt. to make less money, its ludicrous.

no incentive? Bull.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

Do you deny that there ARE a large number of people who are lazy and squander their money and opportunities?

Of course not but I am not the one labeling all of them "Liberals or Democrats" either.

fair enough... but would you agree that the lazy and lame are the ones who b*tch the most about the wealthy?

I fairly sure that laziness is a non-partisan issue...

No, it is now a large portion of the folks that have been working their collective asses off and going backwards thanks to Republican policy that the voices you are now hearing.

I know you would never admit to that.

please cite an example of someone who has worked their proverbial a$$ off, but has still "gone backwards" -- also, please define that phrase.

Then, if you would be so kind, please reference the specific "Bush policies" that directly caused it.

thank you ahead of time.

A boatload of articles in my Economy and Economy-Jobs threads.

 

[Skotty]

Originally posted by: Tab
It's absurd; it's like putting a cap on success. I smile every day when I see someone driving a Lexus,BMW,Mercedes and I have nothing but the best of wishes for people who put in a honest days work.

Right there is where the fallacy lies. ;-)

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Alot of threads disintigrate into "the rich are too rich" or similar statements. So I'd like some honest conversation.[/b]

The rich have always been rich, they will continue to be rich. That is not the problem.

The problem is for a great deal of the country, they are far less "rich" than they were a mere 7 years ago.

I had to go back to college so I could make less than I was in 2000.

My house was worth a good bit more back then, too.

People who bring up the rich are trying to divert the real issue, the shrinking middle class imo.

You went back to College yet the rich on here will continue to say you're just lazy and squandering your money.

I know that many of them say that is case. I have zero credit cards and only buy what I can afford to pay for with cash, too! Not the typical lazy liberal tree hugger we have come to learn about here. 3rd degree is the charm!

 

[Jhhnn]

From johnnobts-

the way the tax code is written i have no incentive to make it into the next tax bracket. i'm being encouraged by the govt. to make less money, its ludicrous.

Malarkey. The top federal tax bracket is 35% of anything above $168K, iirc... you still get 65% of everything above that, even with a standard deduction, filing single...

If that's not sufficient incentive, I'll call the wahmbulance...

If you were really wealthy, in the top 400, you'd only pay 23%, anyway...

They probably want the wahmbulance, too...

 

[Engineer]

Solution: Give it to me.

Solved.