The Richest Americans are Just Plain Selfish

While I can understand what you're saying. Keep in mind that a good portion of those celebrities donate A LOT of money to different charities. I can think of one power couple in particular.

If it's the couple I am thinking of, that's great except none of the money is staying here in the United States. Remember the adage, "Charity begins at home."

Understandable. That is a peeve of mine. Like Oprah opening up a school in Africa. Why couldn't she open a school here? But then I start really thinking about it and most of the countries in Africa have nothing. And the ones that do are so screwed up they don't care about their citizens, especially if you're the wrong shade. But the couple I'm thinking of did a lot in NOLA and a few other things.

While I can understand what you're saying. Keep in mind that a good portion of those celebrities donate A LOT of money to different charities.

Why should people have to live on charity, perhaps the question should be why are they poor in the first place? most of the countries in Africa have nothing is not correct, you would be surprised to find The Richest Africans are Just Plain Selfish!

While I can understand what you're saying. Keep in mind that a good portion of those celebrities donate A LOT of money to different charities. I can think of one power couple in particular.

You are right, and I can think of more than one couple/individual that has proven to be exceptional philanthropists both inside the states and around the world.

I'm seeing stars, though, get all bent out of shape when their music is used by a fan. They go so far as to demand royalties when a fan publicizes their music, or demand that their fans quit using their music all along. Copyright laws.....yeah, I know. They are stupid laws and should be abolished.

It curdles my blood to hear the estimated values of jewelry worn on the red carpet. Do people really pay that much for some frigging rocks? Okay, yes, they are pretty rocks. Yes, I love diamonds, emeralds, sapphires, etc., just like every other woman, but tens of thousands of dollars paid for some pretty rocks? Haha..... Those people are far removed from humanity and reality.

These are the people who have influenced us. Through their music they have touched our souls. Through their stories they have given us many laughs, and many tears. They have been our friends on lonely rainy days, always on our televisions or our radios with only a flip of a switch.

There are some who have charity in their hearts. There are some who shine with wisdom and understanding about the crisis that America faces. There are those that reach out, and there are those that need to be reached to. The bottom line is, every class of person in this country has a responsibility to do whatever it takes to do what is right with what they have. It seems that the majority of entertainers here have a long way to go to fulfill that responsibility.

Merewen,

About your comment about Oprah. She did try to open up a couple of schools here. Point blank: the kids didn't appreciate it. They had access to the best tech, best teachers, etc. Yet, they were primarily concerned about high end tennis shoes and socializing. The majority of those kids did not care about the education.

When Oprah opened the school in South Africa, the girls (it was a girls school) applied themselves to their studies with a passion. That passion was missing in the United States. (Chalk one against "the teacher is solely responsible for inspiring students").

The girls in South Africa know what the value of a good education is...a value that evidently goes highly unrecognized in the United States. As an educator, I agree with Oprah's decision. I hear it all the time on the Vine...why help people who refuse to help themselves?

While I can understand what you're saying. Keep in mind that a good portion of those celebrities donate A LOT of money to different charities. I can think of one power couple in particular.

Bill Gates and my former employer together (both from silicon valley), have donated more money to charity than all of Hollowwood combined.

No he isn't he outsouces thousands of good paying tech jobs to indians claiming 'nobody can do them...'

what a joke... he has 2 options then, either have local tech schools help with a curriculum for the jobs they need, or pay the indians the same... Its not right to advertise jobs you have no intention of filling just so you can bring in a couple thousands foreigners for half price.

he has 2 options then, either have local tech schools help with a curriculum for the jobs they need, or pay the indians the same... Its not right to advertise jobs you have no intention of filling just so you can bring in a couple thousands foreigners for half price.

Gates is right about the lack of qualified workers. The problem is that our educational system is still teaching a 19th century curriculum and most teachers are not qualified to teach what is needed for a 21st century world.

You manage to miss the point of the article. It's not about whining it's about what is healthy for this country.

Your comment is akin to "let them eat cake."

The disproportionate distribution of wealth is not only bad for the working class, it is bad for the aristocracy, and will ultimately destroy their golden goose. Remember the French revolution. The wealthy got the guillotine.

Bah! Same ole piece of doodoo rhetoric. It's not about envy. It's about people working hard and still not making it. Not everyone can do the same job. Not everyone wants to own a business. People should still be able to work hard and provide for their family and that's not happening right now.

So, what is the answer? Abandon our tradiion of capitalism and just hand out money equally to all, including those that don't pull their weight? Whatever leadership and innovation we have left in this nation would leave because there would be nothing to shoot for.

Just saying that you deserve wealth doesn't make you wealthy or deserving of wealth. People need to go out an earn it. As a nation, we are the most giving people on the face of this earth. If you start equalizing the distribution of money, do you think people are going to give in that same spirit?

No one deserves wealth and I don't think that's what is being said. The only hand out most people really want is a job. A job that will allow you to provide for your family.

Also, who gets to decide which American citizen works harder? The below poverty guy or the rich guy? Is it automatically assumed that because one has more money they work harder? Or how about the poor guy is below or at poverty because he's not pulling his weight? Who gets to decided?

So, what is the answer? Abandon our tradiion of capitalism and just hand out money equally to all,

First the business owners should pay a living wage. If you can't raise a family of four in a middle class neighborhood with a 1 full time job, then the employer is not paying the employee a proper wage.

The wealthiest people don't have an income per se. They make their incomes from investments. Capital gains should not taxed at a different rate. If it's part of your income it should be taxed as their income, not at the 15% rate that people making 30 grand annually.

I have read many posts describing how "the wealthy pay most of the taxes now".

Of course they do. They make more money than most people can fathom. In fact, an amount so great that when they pay taxes (which is the same rate for a person in the 15% tax bracket or 32K), they still pay 78% of the taxes.

I have heard this point used to claim that the wealthy pay far more than they should. But it actually emphasizes the enormous amount of money they get as income (capital gains).

Here are the basics:

Since 1967, the share of national income going to the lower 60% of income has gone down by about five percentage points;

the lowest 20% falling from 5% of national income to 4% of national income;

the next 20% up, from 11% to 9%,

the middle 20% from 17% to 15%.

The upper middle 20% has stayed about the same at 24%;

the next fifteen percentage points up has also stayed about the same, at 17%;

the top five percent has gone from 17% to 22% of national income.

On the Gini Index, which measures income distribution, 25-40 is considered ideal for economic growth. We are now around 45 and rising, and most closely resemble China and Mexico. Problem: they're getting better; we're getting worse.

I'll add we shouldn't be taxing earned income (from work) higher than unearned income (from paper shuffling and speculation).

we're still waiting for the rich to create those jobs they keep saying they will where are those jobs Mike? The rich aren't creating jobs they are busy holding onto the money they stole from their laborers.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the wealthy are much less likely to spend money realized from tax cuts than are the rest of us; if they do invest it, the investment does not have to be in the U.S., so it does us little good.

Under Bush tax cuts, all of 4 million jobs were created over 7 years, and 3.6 million jobs were lost in the last 11 months. Meaning that under the Bush tax cuts, a total of 400K jobs were created in 8 years.

Now, do the math.

The French revolution was about people starving while the rich lived it up and made all the decisions.

Big deal. You made money. I don't envy anyone success, but I do think we all should pay our fair share for the benefit of the environment that was created that made us wealthy in proportion the the wealth we have. I'm not talking about charity.

I don't want your money, but you damn sure owe the government big time and should pay a hell of a lot more than you are paying for the privelege of making your cherished money.

You supply side economists think that business just prospers automatically if you leave it alone, but that thinking has been proven an utter failure.

Capitalism kills itself if not managed carefully. That is what is happening right now. The economy has been mismanaged in a gross way. And it will get a lot worse if the government does not step in and provide some decent regulation and support an environment that empowers workers rather than making them indentured servants.

If you want to whine about a leftward swing in the government now, just keep going with trickle down until we have cardboard ghettos and soup lines all over the country and see how far left the public sentiment swings then.

And, oh, btw, everybody who got a job from a poor person raise your hand.

Btw I've never seen a business owner grow a business without laborers...and if a biz grows 8% to 10% or more, year over year, giving employees a COLA of 3% is nothing short of stealing from them.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/richest-americans-see-income-share/story.aspx?guid={83E36877-222E-4718-9438-98DBEFEB5202}

Then all the poor people have to do is start thier own buisness. Remember that most rich people started out poor comparied to where they are now. The reason they get rich is because they put themself and everything they have out on a limb to start thier buisness. They do deserve the money they create. Also when buisness goes south do the employees have to help support the rich man? No they can walk away and find another job and work for another rich man. Those who take the most risk gets the most reward and visversa if it tanks.

Not everyone wants to or should be owning their own business. Just because they don't doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to provide for their family by working for someone else. Everyone can not do the same thing or earn the same amount! It's unrealistic. Like it has been pointed out before... no one is saying that everyone should be wealthy. BUT, people should be able to work hard and provide for their families without having to decide between utilities or food for the month or living with debilitating pain for weeks because you don't have the money to pay the deductible. It's disgusting that people are put in these types of positions.

8-9 months ago I moved to get a job. I got a great job. two months ago a very good friend asked me to help a nephew of theirs who lost his job and who has three kids.

He now lives in the basement, has a job and is saving up to bring his family out here.

This is what this is all about. Helping out when people are in need. The rich only help out when they have a tax deduction or something else that helps their bottom line.

Money is important. But when do you draw the line on too much money. The rich have drawn their lines. This will hurt the average person.

Leaps of logic.

Then all the poor people have to do is start thier own buisness. Remember that most rich people started out poor comparied to where they are now.

Proof please.

The reason they get rich is because they put themself and everything they have out on a limb to start thier buisness. They do deserve the money they create.

While I agree that people deserve the money they earn (not create as that's a broad term), people often do not get rich by putting their personal assets at risk. Actually, that's a horrifically bad idea and one that can bankrupt a business and the people behind it.

Also when buisness goes south do the employees have to help support the rich man? No they can walk away and find another job and work for another rich man.

It's not that simple. In the current situation, there are fewer and fewer people to find work with. It's not a matter of switching income from one place to another, it's a matter of even finding it that's the problem.

Those who take the most risk gets the most reward and visversa if it tanks.

Not really. Take a look at the stock market. There are certain stocks out there that are labeled as high-risk. Yes, you do tend to get a great return on a high-risk, but it's just that - a high-risk. But your theory above makes it appear that ANYONE who puts a bunch of time and money into a business venture will get rich. Sorry kid, but it doesn't work that way, and you've killed your first point by illustrating this last one.

How many times will conservatives make that ridiculous statement about raising your hand if you got a job from a poor person?

Can we discuss this whole fallacy that rich people create jobs. Very few do. Small and mid-size businesses are the best job creation engines in the US, not rich people. Rich people tend to invest in places that keep their money safe. They already have theirs.

Small and mid-size businesses looking to be mid to big businesses is where job creation occurs. Most small business owners make nowhere near the amount to be considered rich - we'll use the Obama amount of $250,000 as rich. And, actually, most of the people who become rich are employees of large corporations, which create jobs at a fairly paltry rate - certainly not the amount of job creation necessary for our economy.

Most rich people did not start out poor. Sorry, that's just not true. At least, not in the US. There's actually greater economic movement in England and Europe - yes, those socialist bastions - than in the US.

whoever thinks they are going to part me from anything which belongs to me please know I'm waiting for you.

OOOh a toughguy named bunny!

OOOh a toughguy named bunny!

LOL no kidding... Whatya gonna do bunny? LOL.

yes that bunny would be tough meat more then likely

oh but if ya cook that bunny right it nice.

fish oh no ill leave the sushi to you i eat steak with your tax return ill have one on you.

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth ....

The amazing thing is that wealth continues to be unevenly distributed when you compare how it is allocated among the rich. The top 1% probably has about half the wealth that the entire top 10% does and the top 1/10th % about half of what the top percent does.

It's just amazing and it explains in part why even the wealthy feel they need to keep up with the Joneses. Greed seems to know no bounds.

Should the government go door to door and confiscate wealth?

You don't strike me as somebody who has a great deal of self-confidence, or even competence in running your own life.

You strike me as a person who suffers from too much Pride.

Forgiveness awaits those who repent.

Gully,

It just occurred to me what you said about Jesus' teachings. Have YOU given up all you have to the poor? Hmmmm? I don't think so. Otherwise, you would not be sitting in your home, safe and comfy, using a computer. Get rid of your computer, your house and everything else. Then you have the right to hold YOURSELF up as an example. Most of us will think you are nuts, but you will have a great deal of self-satisfaction, won't you?

Get started on this right away. Here's an easy way to do it. Get out your checkbook. After the word "amount," put a "1." Then, add a string of as many zeroes as you like. Make it payable to the charity of your choice.

Hmm. It is interesting how angry you people are and how you take this thread personally.

What is probably even funny is that the people who get the most worked up emtionally and waste their time on NewsVine defending the rich probably only dream of being rich.

Back to Jesus.

I hate to break it to you guys, but Jesus didn't found a business school. He founded a radical religious movement that spoke truth to power, challenged the Roman Empire and was critical of the comfortably rich locals who were mainly corrupt collaborators abusing their religious authority to bilk the poor.

What kind of political choices do you think Jesus would support in the current day? Would he be foaming at the mouth in support of tax breaks for the rich? Don't make me laugh at you.

He also said, "The poor will be with us always."

I hope you guys are done embarrassing yourselves in public.

Jesus Christ is a personal choice. I have chosen Jesus.

I do hope you find a religion some day that suits you, or that you at least understand. Go in peace.

Now get off your computer and write that check. Remember, put a "1" after "Amount," and then just start adding as many zeroes as you can, or as you feel the need to cleanse your conscience. Remember, your very soul depends on following these directions. Need a pen?

That is by far the lamest route to take when trying to clear one's conscience. Is that really how people have learned to associate charity with reality? Only give if you've got a guilty conscience?

Kate,

You knocked that one out of the park. Good job. "Sorry parasites." Right on the money. Oh. I forgot. Money is bad.

Feel free to highlight the ones who give to charity and don`t take it out on their taxes. The ones that don`t legally steal from the poor to give to generously give to the poor.

jbdaad - Steal from the poor? What, they go around taking Salvation Army kettles?

What, they go around taking Salvation Army kettles?

Exactly what is left. (clue=depression)

2008 Federal Poverty Guidelines

The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely referred to as the “federal poverty level” (FPL), but that phrase is ambiguous and should be avoided, ...
aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

Clue,

Understanding Poverty in America

This key research from 2004 has been updated in Robert Rector’s new paper, How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau counts the number of "poor" persons in the U.S. In 2005, the Bureau found 37 million "poor" Americans. Presidential candidate John Edwards claims that these 37 million Americans currently "struggle with incredible poverty." Edwards asserts that America's poor, who number "one in eight of us…do not have enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need," and are forced to live in "terrible" cir­cumstances.However, an examination of the living standards of the 37 million persons, whom the government defines as "poor," reveals that what Edwards calls "the plague"of American poverty might not be as "terrible" or "incredible" as candi­date Edwards contends.

Still have a few coppers left,

Living wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

This fellow would be quite proud.

Sheriff of Nottingham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feb 14, 2009 ... The Sheriff of Nottingham is an important figure in the legend of Robin Hood, an antagonist against Robin and his Merry Men. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_of_Nottingham - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

EVE Online | EVE Insider | Forums

You sure got a purty mouth boy ... Sqeeeeel like a pig! "You gonna do some prayin' for me, boy. And you better pray real good." Amandin Adouin Minmatar ...
myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=831736 - Similar pages

Kate (full of hate the selfrightous)< discriptive

It was Not the Rich that moved this nation to creation nor whom defended it it came from first the citizen/soldier in a place called Vally Forge BTW where was the rich then?

Its been followed up for 250 years by the Armed Forces made up mostly by parisites like myself !

So full of hate and vile you are the poster child for the rightous just what is it like being so perfect that you can judge whom the parisites are?

BTW you elude to Bill Gate as being so wonderful(hidden but hinted at in your tirade) just how many companies did he destroy along the way/people that became unemployed in his quest to feed his greed as well to feed his ego ?

As for me I see it as greed=ego all the uber rich do is amass more wealth check your history see caste system,fudal system and if you have the time dracoian.

Next all this crying about the poor rich having or getting a tax increase tell you what I will trade my pension as a disabled veteran (tax exempt) for your millions then see if I whine about even a rate of 90% any takers ???

I make less than $30,000.00 a year which includes a full time job, a part time job and I clean houses on the weekend. So I have no millions to to trade. Sorry.

I also do not covet my neighbors possessions. Forgive the lack of civility in my original post. I am just about fed up with people who seem to be terminally discontented with their own lives thinking that by taking from someone else, theirs will all of a sudden be rosey.

The class war that is being engineered is destructive not only to us as a society, but it is soul destroying for those who indulge in it. Life comes with no guarantees and it is all too fleeting (which, as a widow, I know all too well) to spend it envying those who have more than you do.

I learned in 8th grade Social Studies class that man's three basic needs are food, clothing and shelter. Look around you at all of the crap we accumulate that we don't need. Therein lies one of the reasons people find themselves in dire straits. Take a moment to calculate what your bank account would look like if you had saved the money you spent on 'stuff'. I am just as guilty as the rest of you. The difference is I take responsibility for my own actions and don't scan the horizon looking for someone to blame it on while echoing the age old cry of the young; "It's not fair!"

Have a nice day.

Take a moment to calculate what your bank account would look like if you had saved the money you spent on 'stuff'.

Yes do that Jane. Take a good look at at it. I learned at an even younger age that some people want a bigger half a candy bar. I propose to you that 10% owning more than 90% is a bit more than just a little unfair.

jbdaad - You're still singing the three year olds favorite song. LIFE isn't fair. Taxing the wealthy out of this country is not going to make your life any better. Anyone with a 'drag them down to my level' mentality will never be satisfied with their life. It indicates an ugliness of character that nothing will ever be enough for.

I don't care what anyone else has and nor should you.

As long as you are satisfied Jane with things the way they are, good for you.

The Richest Americans are Just Plain Selfish

Will not change that fact.

jbdaad, Since I can't convince you of the inherent dangers that envy brings, please allow me to leave you with this :

I may be broke, but I am not poor. I am wealthy. My wealth isn't measured in dollars. It is measured in self worth, loving friends and family and the ability to appreciate the priceless things that cost nothing and are available to all. I hope your wealth is similar to mine, because if it is, once you begin to tally it up nobody elses will matter.

jbdaad, Since I can't convince you of the inherent dangers that envy brings, please allow me to leave you with this :

Yes I thought along the same lines. As long as you are satisfied fine. I said that.

bundane,

You just don't get it, do you? Those who go "from rags to riches" were winners of life's lottery. Or maybe they knew somebody. That doesn't happen on merit. The common guy is just screwed, no matter what he does. There is no hope, unless it involves getting free cheese from Uncle Sam.

I'll bet you will find that most fortunes were made at the end of a sword or the barrell of a gun. The world is a thug-ocracy. The more you examine wealth, the more it stinks and drips of blood.

Gully - yes. Actually some of America's dynasty families had their roots in crime.

Can it also be pointed out that the two wealthiest men in the world both started from families that would be considered rich. Both Buffet and Gates come from very well-off families, Buffet making his initial investments from money given him by friends and family, and Gates' father being a well-off lawyer.

How rude. Of course not.

Good ol' boy network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oct 30, 2008 ... In some areas, the good ol' boy network is said to still exert considerable influence over many aspects of local government, business, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_ol'_boy_network - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

btw, I happen to find both Gates and Buffet to be remarkable men, but even they don't believe they reached the heights they have just because of their individual accomplishment.

As Buffet has stated frequently, He is where he is because of talent, hard work and luck. Luck because he was born in a country that provided him opportunity, opportunity which he sees being kept from millions of americans.

An awful lot of wealth in this country got started in the slavery era and through illegal smuggling. The taking of land from native Americans created a lot of wealth. Labor was "managed" at the point of a gun throughout a lot of our history. So much for hard work being what we value most.

It often seems that the guy who is stuck with working the hardest, is often the guy rewarded the least. If the hardest work got the greatest reward the coal miner would earn more than the investment banker.

I don't want to reduce things to absurdity, but just make the point that you can't really construct moral arguments in defense of wealth any more easily than moral arguments condemning wealth. We've got a nation with a lot of problems to solve and one of those problems is inequality itself. One obvious place to look for some money to fix those problems is the wealthy It's where I am looking.

a

jared,

Good term---"trickle up." In fact, I would propose that conservatives begin using that very term in their discussions. The concept of trickling up is ludicrous on its face.

The problem with what oboama is doing is all this money he is still giving out still goes to large coporations and rich guys who will hire subcontractors(rich guys) who will hire the poor to run a machine or shovel dirt to build the roads the money is for. The rich will still get thier cut. Everything the gov. does is trickle down. The rich are the only ones who can get things done in this country.

The Triumph Of "Trickle Up" Economics http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/opinion/meyer/main3379624.shtml

If trickle up doesn't work then pleas explain to me why our economy started heading south when consumers, mainly at the bottom of the money food chain, pulled back their spending? And easy analogy that even a conservidiot can understand (if they choose to) is that a rising tide rasies all ships. Interpretation for the challenged: when the economy grows bottom up EVERYONE is better off. No real example of this working for "trickle down".

redmichigan,

You are right. The seeds of fascism----yes, fascism----are starting to sprout before our very eyes. This sort of class warfare has been tried before. Juan and Eva Peron did it in Argentina. They beat the drum of class envy, increased taxes on "the rich" (driving investment out of the country), and they came up with all sorts of free cheese programs. That was in the 1950's. Since that time, the history of that country has been one of civil strife, coups, counter-coups, death squads, and poverty. What was once the world's 10th largest economy is now a Banana Republic----without the bananas. There are other examples just like this out of Europe in the last century.

What is so incredibly dangerous about the Messiah is that he is deliberately drawing lines between the people of this country. He's deliberately and in a cold-blooded way attempting to divide us----and he's doing a pretty good job of it.

The thing I find absolutely fascinating about Oblahblah is the fact that he is completely oblivious to history-----except in the context of his own "historical" election. He is egocentric and he is very dangerous. In fact, I believe he is not only trying to stir up class conflict, but I believe he is deliberately attempting to tank our economy so that he can rush in as the great Savior. Then, of course, he would be able to remake the country consistent with his vision. It's the ultimate bait and switch of a presidential candidate. The man who traded on "hope and change" offers neither. What he is doing instead is moving hard to the left as fast as he can. He knows that the independents and moderates who voted for him would never have done so-----had he been made to provide specifics as to his intentions during the campaign. But that didn't happpen. As a result we have a Stealth president----the first Affirmative Action-MTV president in our history----how "historic" is that?

The Heritage Foundation - Conservative Policy Research and Analysis Ty.

Consider the source of this so called data.

The creation of the influential Heritage Foundation was probably the single most important event in the development of a national network of conservative policy- oriented institutions. Heritage was founded in 1973 by the anti-labor, racist, homophobic brewery magnate Joseph Coors together with prominent right-wing activist Paul Weyrich and wealthy right- wingers Richard Scaife and Edward Noble. The initial funding came from Coors ($250,000), Scaife ($900,000), and "significant sums" from Noble. Large corporations, including Gulf Oil, also made early contributions. In the early 1980s, Heritage reported that "87 top corporations" were supporters. By 1995, it had an annual budget of $25 million.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=153

Whose interest do you think they advocate for?

The official govermment census poverty level threshold is an annual income of $21,027 for a family of four. Do you think those people afford the things listed in #24?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/altmeas07/povertythres.xls

Man of Nonothing,

Refute the Heritage dot org figures or go away. Understand, though, that Heritage got their numbers form the U.S. Census Bureau.

Refute the Heritage dot org figures or go away.

Actually, it would be trivial to "refute" but people like you don't want to know the truth, just the lies that support your beliefs. So what's the point?

I'm sure now that the US Census is in the hands of the extremely even handed Rahm Emanuel that all those errors will be corrected in the next one.

The point about 'heritage.org' figures needs no refutation. You use a generic term 'poor people' without defining it, and then ascribe a bunch of statistics to it also without defining the specific tables or sources from which these conclusions are drawn. It is a typical propaganda tactic.

It is not hard for anyone trying to make a living in this country to figure out what can be afforded with $21,000 per year for four people. They can draw their own conclusions.

David,

Good link. Good idea. Flat taxes are the way to go. And while we are at it, make those on welfare pay a tax as well. If there's a substantial number of people who pay no taxes, when they vote they have nothing to lose by voting for candidates who will forcibly take money from those "above" them on the economic scale.

Good link. Good idea. Flat taxes are the way to go

NOT! If you think rich people don't pay taxes now...just wait until the "Fair" tax gets put into place! LOL There's entire industries in place who's sole purpose is to make sure a certain segment of the populations doesn't pay sales taxes on their luxury goods.

That type of tax policy would unfairly take great portions of poor peoples incomes while barely causing a bump to others.

merewen,

The idea of the Fairtax is that it is consumption based. The policy behind it is that everyone would recieve a check to offset the tax on the "basic necessities " every month. From there, we would be taxed on what we buy at the same rate. The more you buy the more you pay. Because there would be no Fed income tax , you would get most of your check without deductions.

I understand that. But it still wouldn't change the fact that people that make less will be left with less disposable income.

Where do you get that? Prices will drop for all goods because the unseen taxes will no longer be attached to them. With more of your paycheck you will have more disposable income not less. The argument that this would be more of a burden on the poor than the wealthy is does not hold up.

See that's the thing. You can't guarantee that prices would drop. Just like you can't guarantee that giving BB and wealthy Americans tax cuts mean that jobs would be created. The past has shown us that. Take oil for instance. The price per barrel has gone down significantly, but the price at the pump doesn't really reflect it in some areas. Expecting a business that is already questionable to do the right thing is lunacy. If anything they'd probably raises prices.

The market in almost every area, not necessarily including Oil, will guarantee prices to drop when expenses drop. The key is competition. If one business lowers prices when they don't have to pay the embedded taxes to produce,ship or sell an item, then their business will increase and those that kept them high will lose out. It is competiton that has kept this economy going for 200 years now. It is when government becomes a competitor, like with farm subsidies or mandates to make so much corn onto ethanol that the market gets screwed up. That is exactly what happened with housing . When the government for several decades pushed banks to make home loans to buyers with no credit or means to pay. The resulting defaults and foreclosures have tanked real estate values in every major city. But the market will recover as those that have cash can now buy those homes very cheaply and so the wound will heal over time.

As for Oil, I don't think anyone has figured out the prices there. They are so dependent on a volatile regional situations and government regualtion that you can't call it a freemarket commodity exactly. That is why we should make every effort to drill for our own as well as exploit reasonable alternative energies. But the elimination of the added costs would be a boon to Business here. Can you imaigne the number of businesses returning or relocating here if we had no business tax? It happened in Ireland when they lowered theirs. It could happen here.

The market doesn't guarantee anything of the sort. You're assuming a perfect free market system, which has never existed. You assume that there is never any complicity amongst providers. That's simply not historically true.

As for oil - as the price of gasoline goes up, the price of everything else goes up because companies have to transport their products. All you have to do is look back to the summer of 2008 to see what happens when gasoline prices rise and what it does to the price of everything else.

As for business taxes - the top 500 coprorations in the US paid no corporate taxes between 1998 and 2006. This comes from the GAO. So you may want to rethink the tax question.

When the government for several decades pushed banks to make home loans to buyers with no credit or means to pay.

That is absolutely incorrect. No bank would make a bad loan if they had the expectation that they would have to collect on it no matter how the government pushed them. It was the bundling of mortgages into investment packages and selling them off as securities that caused all the bad loans and subsequent foreclosures. When the lender doesn't have to collect on the loan then they have no incentive to make sure the loans are good. It is up to the government regulatory agencies to make sure that securities have the value reported by the sellers. These agencies were lax in their duties and let to much fraudulent securities be marketed. Bank regulators are also required to make sure banks don't leverage themselves to the point of insolvency. These regulators also failed in their duty. That is what comes of unbridled free enterprise. Greed outweighs honesty every time.

No bank would make a bad loan if they had the expectation that they would have to collect on it no matter how the government pushed them. It was the bundling of mortgages into investment packages and selling them off as securities that caused all the bad loans and subsequent foreclosures.

Oh they were forced to make the loans alright, with ACORN backed lawyers like Barack Obama leading the way. The reason that the banks securitized the loans was to spread their risk to others so that they would not go out of existence like the Savings and Loans did.

ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Stop Red Lining, making sure that certain communities are not disenfranchised or over looked.

ACORN did not hold guns to the banks or mortgage companies heads. A good portion of the foreclosures are investors/flippers and those wanting "vacation" homes. They got greedy. They saw an opportunity and they knew this was goona happen hence the selling. You can not in all honesty blame this crap on one unpaid all volunteer group.

space,

That ACORN @!$%# is just so discredited. You're actually trying to blame the present economic crisis on poor people: the group which has probably the least ability to affect the economy.

That ACORN @!$%# is just so discredited. You're actually trying to blame the present economic crisis on poor people: the group which has probably the least ability to affect the economy.

No actually it is all of the above, but if you aggregate millions of loans from people without the ability to pay into a ponzi scheme, you have what we are facing today.

Space explane please why tracks of 100 home developments in the hardest hit markets nation wide are just weed infested lots on arces of empty land were these the future homes of the poor whom got them 250K loans LOL

Come back to earth your claims do not hold up friend as for the Freddie/Fanny claim the housing that failed was not on there inventory the did not back these huge developments Wallstreets junk bonds ect did .

BTW a person whom was builfing homes in Fla gave me this information he was doing well as were other builders (single home demand market) till the flippers and development corps came in and oversaturated the market or simple put the folks with huge money backing them.

Undique Venimus

Come back to earth your claims do not hold up friend as for the Freddie/Fanny claim the housing that failed was not on there inventory the did not back these huge developments Wallstreets junk bonds ect did .

Yep, but Fannie and Freddy promised to buy the loans, which then were securitized and sold around the world, thereby providing a government backed exit plan for all that investment money. This was the fear back in the 1990's and that fear has come to pass.

space guy that may hold true with the house flippers yet the big developments are not and if a persons did the math 100 homes times 250K average cost equals 250 million so it was not the poor that got those loans my friend Dennis had at most 10 homes he was building some were built to order and with that money from the sale he built homes to be sold.

To quote him we (single home builders)were doing great until the hugh track developments came in and killed the market they also under cut the prices by building 2500 SQF homes in the same price ranges as our 2000 SQF and below homes in the area BTW I have a second friend Rich whom confirms this whom did roofing and rough while in Fla. so both these men have it wrong ?

Any one else have information on these hugh 100+ home developments that failed I know there has been stories in the press yet no one has done a report on just how much these tallied up too ?

Undique Venimus

space guy that may hold true with the house flippers yet the big developments are not and if a persons did the math 100 homes times 250K average cost equals 250 million so it was not the poor that got those loans my friend Dennis had at most 10 homes he was building some were built to order and with that money from the sale he built homes to be sold.

If you look at the areas with the most foreclosures you will find that a majority were in poorer areas such as the Inland Empire, Fresno, Las Vegas with its transient population and in many other areas of the nation where poorer people bought houses far above their income level.

In California it was exactly people who could not afford a $250k loan (at $1500 bucks a month loan cost) when they made $40k per year.

Roy & Space guy here we go again what is/was the impact of these large developments in the mortgage industry and I am not disagreeing about some folks getting into homes way above their head (these people were part of these large developments also) My point is wallstreet funded huge developments in the millions what is the tally of cost from these money pits and why is that kept quiet ?

Pointing to the folks whom defualted for whatever reason is just part of the story what about these corperations that built empty arces just how much was the cost of that and I noticed dozens of these stories in the news prior as areas impacted from them ended up having depressed markets ?

Next the market up here had the same problem 20 years ago and this happened its simply putting the cart before the horse, twenty years ago it took that long to fill these empty arces up from that bust it was over saturated markets looking for warm bodies.

Yes some people were not able to handle this yet some got sucked down from this pratice why is it not being discussed ?

You cannot dump everything on the poor and in this case little of it when those whom built them and those whom funded them could not wait and just filled them up with anybody !

Undique Venimus

Okay Roy we are arguing about agreeing LOL I am aimed at the fact saying it is not enough to counter the right, a tally of the cost by GAO or someone has yet to be done as the GOP hardcore keeps pounding Freddie & Fanny as the root cause.

Undique Venimus

You libs are surely a sensitive lot.

No, liberals are hyper-sensitive. They want to be judged for their sensitivity to the plight of others. They are hyper-sensitive to criticism (going so far as to consider trying to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine). We are supposed to judge liberals on their intentions, not their results, so maybe that is where the focus should be---on the results of liberal philosophy. So let's go back to the pre-Great Society Days, back to the mid-50's when liberals began to destroy the Black family with subsidized high rise apartments and AFDC checks. Remember how successful that was. And I could go on, but don't have time to list the countless similar failures.

carpefriggingdiem-866758

You are a very dishonest person.

yes roy, there is a difference between income and wealth.

I agree, some of the tax rules make no sense at all. even warren buffet stated that it made no sense at all that he paid 15% on what he made (since it was primarily"capital gains" income) while his secretary paid around 50% on her 70k a year salary.

he also said that he made money when the capital gains rate was 40% , and he would make money if it was more.

this is a man that has irrevocably earmarked most of his fortune to the bill and melinda gates foundation. he saw what the gates were doing with their fortune, and decided that it offered the best possible way to "spread the wealth" to the poorest people and countries on this earth, I absolutely applaud him for that. yet I have seen far right wing conservatives condemn him as a "extremist liberal" BECAUSE he was giving his fortune away.

Warren said that he would leave his children "enough that they won't have to worry, but not enough that they won't have to work" (the quote may not be exact, but the idea IS clear).

but I do ask One question Roy, what do you do with those that already HAVE enormous wealth? you can't tax their wealth based on "income" if they already have the wealth.

so, what to do? not all are as generous as warren. (shrugs?)

while his secretary paid around 50% on her 70k a year salary.

If Buffet said that, my respect for him diminishes greatly. No one making $70k pays that high a percentage in taxes, that is until Obama care gets passed.

Roy

Thanks, you made my point that it was far below the 50% reported. Buffet also failed to explain that he purposefully moved most of his income into capital gains rather than income, which is actually a tax dodge, legal but still a tax dodge. If he is so concerned he can just cut his stock gains and shift that into ordinary income. Then he will be happy that he is paying more taxes than his staff as a proportion of their income!

I'm not sure the statement "purposefully moved his income into capital gains" is quite fair. Being a rich man, I imagine most of Buffet's income is from capital gains.

Somehow I dont think Warren had too many capital gains last year, perhaps he can write off some of his billion dollar loses off on his 1040, like 3000 dollars against his income tax:)

, Buffet made this statement in 2007, referring (presumably) to the 2006 tax year. Just before everything started sliding into the crapper

Which is probably why he wants a second stimulus, nothing personal in it for him, well cept that it might make his investments do a bit better:)

Which is probably why he wants a second stimulus, nothing personal in it for him, well cept that it might make his investments do a bit better:)

Bingo!

There arent too many advantages in being old, but being able to be cynical is definetly one of them:)

You got that right. I am short on cash but long on cynicism.