Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Roy Batty's column >>

ROY BATTY

If life hands you MELONS, consider that you may be dyslexic!
Articles Posted: 116  Links Seeded: 396
Member Since: 1/2008  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

The Richest Americans are Just Plain Selfish

Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:53 PM EST
politics, money, economy, taxes, corruption, rich, poor, tax-cuts, working, millionaire, average, advantage, billionaire
By Roy Batty

For what this car costs ......

...his family could have a roof over their heads and meals for 50 years.

Advertise | AdChoices

The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, all with government's help. And by the government, I mean not just those in Washington, but you and me.

Case in point, in the US the "trickle down theory" which suggests that the wealthy should be taxed less so that money can "trickle down" in the form of new jobs and commerce ... sounds good on paper except the reality is that the rich just took the extra money and ran:

The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a quarter to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data show.

And they want to keep it.

And why not? Why help someone else when its much more fulfilling to add another skiff to your fleet? Its certainly a better bargain to buy a $65,000 office chair than help feed a family of someone who has lost their job and wants another one. Think about it ... a @!$%#ing office chair ... and the only reason they make these things is because people buy them! (Of course you could really splurge and get the $1.5 million chair, just to show up those people with the cheaper ones!)

And how many cars does one person need? Or homes? (Note that these are just the merely rich, not the really rich)

And if you think these people are rich because they worked hard and earned it, think again:

People on the vertical spike can use their influence single-mindedly and very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, any time he wants. If he doesn't get what he wants he can, in fact, "fight city hall," the statehouse, and even the federal government. People on the horizontal spike must pool their limited individual power and organize to have any effect at all. This is a very difficult thing to manage, in practice.

Surprise! With a congressman or 10 in your pocket, your tax rate magically goes down!

And just what are the top 25% of the wealthy worth?

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

Granted this was four years ago, but $43 trillion? What is it now? How much of that was squirreled away "trickle down" money that created deficits to drive our current national debt up to $11 trillion?

Now to be fair, the "Bush Tax Cuts" did create jobs:

Despite the experience of the past eight years, some continue to argue for more huge, regressive tax cuts that were the centerpiece of Bush's economic policy. But more of the same is not the way to reverse the economic slide and create jobs. The Bush tax cuts cost about $800,000 for every job they created, even under the Bush administration's own optimistic methodology.

I wish I got one of those $800,000 jobs. I wonder who did? Since the average wage last year was $40,405, where did the remaining $759,595 go? I wonder.

Maybe these folks think "trickle down" is seen as something that requires their Bugatti mechanic's attention.

So for every job, Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."

No question they want to keep it. BAD. Do not be fooled or feel sorry for these folks, they took advantage of this great country in every way they could. They understand that the best side to a Madoff-style screw is the side that ends up with all the money. These 10% are the people who will be kicking and screaming bloody murder if their taxes go up, yet have the capability to pay off the national debt and have 75% of their wealth remain. They are content to sit on their piles of hoarded cash while the economy rots. These are Selfish People getting richer knowing that the average American is getting poorer.

And they need to wake up and be willing to give back some of what they have taken because historically, this is the stuff of which revolutions are made.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Roy Batty's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (287)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Roy Batty

Of course there are exceptions. And if those exeptions were the rule, this would not matter.

  • 21 votes
#1 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:56 PM EST
kiml

I would love a Ferrari but at $39.95 for a 1:24 scale, that is too much for me.

  • 8 votes
#1.1 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:25 PM EST
teresa-498430

Roy Batty, I can understand that some rich people or most are, I don't agree with them but it kind of makes sense. What I will never understand is the amount of poor folks that defend the rich man that makes their money off the backs of people like them to the bitter end. Even when they have been injured by the corporate welfare of the rich and selfish they defend them. What is withthat?

  • 19 votes
#1.2 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:45 PM EST
58rose

what is with that is a job, ya dont defend then no job.

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:27 PM EST
100thmonkeync

The focus should be more on Wall Street, hedge funds and ponzi schemes like that of Madoof and Stanford, not celebrities that do good and give money to charity. Wall Street and friends have robbed America and put our banking system in jeopardy.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:42 AM EST
jbdaad

Of course there are exceptions. And if those exeptions were the rule, this would not matter.

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.

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:35 AM EST
Paul Lucero

THIS story is TOTAL Mis-direction.

The Problem is GOVERNMENT, they made a 1980;s boogey man called RIch People. Which is overly broad and ill defined! All NFL and NBA players are RICH People and 79% BLACK!

The Government will do anything to keep the public from shining the light of truth on the the SOURCE of the Problem which is GOVERNMENT not RICH PEOPLE!!!

The term RICH PEOPLE is a code word for typecasting all RIch PEOPLE as WHITE People.

The Problem for 50 years has been Corrupt Congress and Senate management of government and that is it!!!

  • 5 votes
#1.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:29 PM EST
Man of Knowledge

The Problem for 50 years has been Corrupt Congress and Senate management of government and that is it!!!

Duh, who corrupts Congress? Poor people? If government has been mismanaged it is because it has been manipulated by the wealthy to favor their interests over that of the general public and the voting electorate does'nt know when they are being handed a "pig in a poke."

  • 10 votes
#1.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:57 PM EST
jared-c2000

On the contrary I think that "poor" welfare loving americans mismanaged our government, they elect those that will give them the most $$$$. Look at Obamas campaign. Im gonna give you health care, im gonna give you money, im gonna give you all you need to be happy. What lazy welfare junky wouldn't vote for that.

  • 6 votes
#1.8 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:02 PM EST
KMarx

teresa

What I will never understand is the amount of poor folks that defend the rich man that makes their money off the backs of people like them to the bitter end. Even when they have been injured by the corporate welfare of the rich and selfish they defend them. What is with that?

I suggest a couple of reasons:

There is a concept in social psychology called Cognitive Dissonance. This is a situation where a person holds conflicting beliefs. Many Americans live under the illusion that by some trick of fate they will one day make it big. In this case they often express admiration, respect and so on toward those who in fact made it big. Hence they defend the very people who have no concern for them and, as you mentioned, make money off their backs. The idea here is that those who labor under the illusion of one day becoming rich must reduce dissonance. They do this by taking one side or the other, that is, they either praise the rich for their money or acknowledge that making money off the backs of others is wrong. To harbor both ideas would create feelings of inconsistency, anxiety and hypocrisy.

Another scenario can be likened to some dog owners. Occasionally morons get mad at someone or something and take it out on their dog by let’s say kicking it. Usually the dog runs and hides with its head down low and its tail between its legs. In time the dog tries to curry favor by slowly and humbly approaching 'the hand that feeds it' with its head down low and its tail between its legs. If one could read the mind of the dog it might go something like this: I'm sorry if I was to blame and if so I deserved it. If I was not to blame then I'm still sorry and deserved it anyway but in either case please forgive me! Hence, there are far more sheep in America than rams.

  • 11 votes
#1.9 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:17 PM EST
KMarx

jadaad

The ones that don`t legally steal from the poor to give to generously give to the poor

True but many of those who give do so for tax deductions. If we get rid of these deductions, so go the donations with some exceptions of course. It's not altruism which motivates many Americans, it's 'what's in it for me' that motivates them.

Question: 'Legally steal'? Is this word structure not composed of mutually exclusive terms? Oh I just answered my question, there are legalized crooks like the Wall Street racketeers with their gimmicks like credit swaps, lawyers in general and a number of politicians who pass the laws that make it all legal!

  • 6 votes
#1.10 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:34 PM EST
KMarx

jared-c

On the contrary I think that "poor" welfare loving americans mismanaged our government, they elect those that will give them the most $$$$. Look at Obamas campaign. Im gonna give you health care, im gonna give you money, im gonna give you all you need to be happy. What lazy welfare junky wouldn't vote for that.

On the contrary I think that "poor" billionaire loving americans mismanaged our government, they elect those that will give them the most $$$$. Look at Bush's campaign. Im gonna give you tax cuts, im gonna give you tax cuts, im gonna give you all you need to be happy. What lazy corporate welfare junky wouldn't vote for that? Duh!

  • 6 votes
#1.11 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:38 PM EST
jared-c2000

Ok how many billionaires are there in the U.S.? Approxiametly 400. 400 votes, compared to millions of welfare junkies votes....I really hope you are not as stupid as you appear.

  • 3 votes
#1.12 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:45 PM EST
Roy Batty

There is a concept in social psychology called Cognitive Dissonance.

Failure to recognize that when it is presented is a failure of our educational system. Communicators take advantage of this way too often.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, KMarx.

  • 5 votes
#1.13 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:50 PM EST
KMarx

Paul Lucerno

The Problem is GOVERNMENT, they made a 1980;s boogey man called RIch People. Which is overly broad and ill defined! All NFL and NBA players are RICH People and 79% BLACK!

Those in the NFL and NBA got off their asses and earned it. Those on Wall Street and in Corporate America sat on their asses using every gimmick to make money while their well paid puppets in DC looked the other way! The soon-to-be depression is not the fault of the NFL or NBA, it is the fault of the Wall Street scam artists, the corporate low-lifes and the politicians on their payroll who put money over country.

  • 10 votes
#1.14 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:52 PM EST
jbdaad

Whatever you do `Do not` bring up their loot vaults in the ocean. The `Great lakes`failed to contain it all.

  • 2 votes
#1.15 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:05 PM EST
KMarx

jared-c

Ok how many billionaires are there in the U.S.?

I lost count! Most are in hiding behind gated-communities. I've always felt sorry for these people. After they pay their loophole-ridden taxes, it must be tough for them to make ends meet. Oh, it just dawned on me, this may mean that the billions they have left won't be enough to buy the whole world! Oh good heavens whatever shall they do?! Maybe we can start a charity for them?

Approxiametly 400. 400 votes, ...

Wake up, influence in America is purchased by money not votes.

compared to millions of welfare junkies votes....

In terms of buying influence in America, one billion in cash will always trump your so called 'millions of welfare junkies votes'.

I really hope you are not as stupid as you appear.

Actually I'm a genius compared to some people on this site, and no, I won't name names. I wouldn't want to embarrass anyone you know.

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:17 PM EST
jared-c2000

-Wake up, influence in America is purchased by money not votes.

Then dems ought to be the richest around huh.

  • 2 votes
#1.17 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:22 PM EST
teresa-498430

KMarx, Thanks for all of the wise opinions in your preceding posts. Lots of food for thought. I especially found your answer to me interesting. :~)

  • 3 votes
#1.18 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:22 PM EST
jared-c2000

And yes i do know a lot of dumb people, and awful lot of dem.s around these days.

  • 1 vote
#1.19 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:28 PM EST
santame

KMARX

like Joe the Plumber

  • 1 vote
#1.20 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:51 PM EST
headinthegame

Roy, what about the selfishness of groups that capture the power of the federal government, like AARP and old people? and then proceed to steal from everyone to enrich themselves? isn't that a greater threat to the republic than a few crazy, isolated individuals?

  • 3 votes
#1.21 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:15 PM EST
space guy

Wow, then I would guess that all you people would support the fair tax that taxes everyone as a percentage of their income? In using the federal government trying to game the system to benefit the poor, the poor are the ones that get gamed.

  • 7 votes
#1.22 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:33 PM EST
headinthegame

the elderly are gaming the system

  • 2 votes
#1.23 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:47 PM EST
Roy Batty

Wow, then I would guess that all you people would support the fair tax that taxes everyone as a percentage of their income?

The "fair tax" is lacking in so many ways, but mostly support of standing programs like Social Security. I propose a more aggressive progressive tax and/or elimination of tax breaks and loopholes which only the super-well-to-do can take advantage of.

Another worthwhile discussion is a tax on wealth (net worth.)

  • 4 votes
#1.24 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 2:09 PM EST
Roy Batty

Roy, what about the selfishness of groups that capture the power of the federal government, like AARP and old people? and then proceed to steal from everyone to enrich themselves? isn't that a greater threat to the republic than a few crazy, isolated individuals?

Yes, those who have power in Washington to shape spending policy to benefit a particular group or people have been and continue to be a destructive force on our economy; particularly since the working poor have little resources to mount such campaigns.

However, "the elderly" have put a lifetime of their money into Social Security ("payroll taxes") and expect what was promised in that bargain. Fair enough. However, I'm not at odds with some manner of "means test" when payout time comes.

  • 4 votes
#1.25 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 2:19 PM EST
space guy

Your lord and savior FDR set up the largest ponzi scheme in the history of man and you blame old people? They were promised (lied to) these benefits and should get them. What we have today is another liar (president Obama) who says that we can take money from the rich and solve all of the problems of youth. The fact is that youth is their own problem today. All demanding, no giving.

Start working, start educating yourselves, make a life and not continue on the path of death that you are on today.

  • 5 votes
#1.26 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 2:33 PM EST
slemay-1

The share of national income has declined for the bottome 20, 40, and 60% of household incomes in the U.S. So where has all that 'welfare money' gone? The top 5% increased in share. hmm.

  • 3 votes
#1.27 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:46 PM EST
redmichigan

CLASS ENVY ALERT!

Planted article by Obots following orders from the One.

  • 2 votes
#1.28 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:21 PM EST
space guy

The share of national income has declined for the bottome 20, 40, and 60% of household incomes in the U.S. So where has all that 'welfare money' gone? The top 5% increased in share. hmm.

Nope, how about to Saudi Arabia and all those countries that we send money to from buying gasoline. We cannot continue to keep sending all of our money overseas and call ourselves wealthy. Check the Current Account balance for the last 40 years.

  • 5 votes
#1.29 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:13 PM EST
slemay-1

No argument on the current account balance, but that still leaves the share of national income in the same place--moving toward the top. The current account affects the middle more than the top based on percentage of income spent on necessities, but the CEO's salary has still grown at a rate of 8.5% annually since 1980 while the wages of those who work for them has grown at an average rate of .3%. Corporate earnings have remained (til just lately) the same percentage of GDP throughout that time, so it's not like the guys at the top have added significant value.

As the article suggested, I wouldn't knock all of these guys, but many failed to earn their keep. The average hasn't done as well as his or her counterpart in Japan. They also have not led the way toward a better current account; remember President Bush holding hands with the Saudi prince at the Ranch? That might help to explain the problem.

  • 3 votes
#1.30 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:51 PM EST
space guy

the same percentage of GDP throughout that time, so it's not like the guys at the top have added significant value.

Yep even after Ronnie's big business tax cut in the 80's. So they have added significant value as the revenue to the treasury remained the same even with the tax cut. It was corporate america (principally silicon valley) that increased the national wealth in the 80's and 90's. Now that Sarbanex Oxley has killed the goose that lays the golden eggs were not in a good place. Also, we refuse to acquire the oil and gas from our offshore resources that we need to create jobs and to keep our money in the country.

President Bush holding hands with the Saudi prince at the Ranch? That might help to explain the problem.

Bush had little to do with a problem decades in the making, which is the depletion of our oil resources. Add to this the ban on drilling in areas where the oil is and there you have the oil problem. We need energy, and fusion is the future and yet our dear leader Nancy Pelosi killed the funding for that effort. Why?

  • 3 votes
#1.31 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:11 PM EST
Simplistic Reality

The Richest Americans are Just Plain Selfish

Obama falls into that category nicely.

  • 4 votes
#1.32 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 11:41 PM EST
slemay-1

Obama hardly fits into the category of richest Americans. He's well to do, but did not come from wealth at all. He certainly didn't have Bush's wealth, for example.

Bush certainly wasn't the whole problem, but he did nothing to solve it when he had a Republican congress and senate during the first six years of his presidency. His family's long time friendship with the Saudi royal family is well documented, though, and suggests that he had little motive to chance things. I would also not that Sarbanes Oxley was passed by a Republican congress, a Republican senate, and signed into law by President Bush.

And I agree that the problem was decades in the making, and bipartisan in its roots.

Even if we drilled in some of the proposed areas, we would do little to solve the broader problem. We import 70% of our oil, not 7%.

I have no idea when it became a conservative value to waste a resource that is clearly limited, and that has made us dependent on others to fuel--really--our economy. We are no longer self-reliant, let alone self-sufficient.

  • 6 votes
#1.33 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 8:37 AM EST
A. Macarthur

They (Republicans, Limbaugh, Hannity, Santelli, etc.) want the amalgamation that I call "ORGANIZED WEALTH," to succeed. They want the people who export your jobs, deny your health insurance claims, manipulate oil prices, create Ponzi schemes, deregulate Wall Street and who get big tax breaks paid for with your and my Social Security Trust Fund...to succeed.

They want the no-bid contract war-profiteers in Iraq - the blood money gang, to succeed. They want big Pharma, sub-prime lending, short-selling your 401k, faith-based tax-supported initiatives and class-warfare to succeed.

And they currently hope to achieve their successes by:
* Having Republican Legislators vote against everything that will help the American Middle Class family
* Constantly rallying the bigots and religionists with scare tactics and outright lies by way of right-wing talk radio
* Short-selling the stock market and intentionally driving it down every time President Obama appears with a message of hope and a plan!

  • 3 votes
#1.34 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 11:47 AM EST
space guy

And your evidence for this is?

  • 2 votes
#1.35 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:05 PM EST
Reply
River-239955

I can't help but think of the stars. Television, radio, big screen... How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent supporting the stars, whether it be through tickets or CD sales (or whatever), throughout the last 20 years?

And then there's all those other millionaires....

  • 6 votes
Reply#2 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:13 PM EST
Merewen

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.

  • 5 votes
#2.1 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:04 PM EST
Scarlet Termite

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."

  • 5 votes
#2.2 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:10 PM EST
Merewen

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.

  • 3 votes
#2.3 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:15 PM EST
Beauty

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!

  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:40 AM EST
River-239955

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.

  • 2 votes
#2.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:55 AM EST
Al 616

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?

  • 4 votes
#2.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:19 AM EST
Roy Batty

Thanks, all.

The Hollywood Star types are the ones you can see, and we can argue if their contributions to art or commerce warrant what wealth they acquire.

The ones you don't see ... the hedge fund managers and multglomerate CEOs ... make a hell of a lot more and show less caring for the world that made them rich.

  • 5 votes
#2.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:57 PM EST
space guy

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.

  • 6 votes
#2.8 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:34 PM EST
Roy Batty

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

Bill Gates is a shining star when it comes to responsibility that comes with great wealth. Check out the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

  • 6 votes
#2.9 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 2:24 PM EST
Stu-4803409

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.

  • 2 votes
#2.10 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 11:09 PM EST
space guy

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.

  • 5 votes
#2.11 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 11:13 PM EST
Roy Batty

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.

Amen to that, Space Guy. We have fallen way behind in teaching our workforce from K through college.

  • 5 votes
#2.12 - Mon Mar 2, 2009 11:32 AM EST
Reply
Sunshine-731852

Roy Batty...I couldn't agree with you more. I'm so sorry the world is like this! How I would love to be one of the exceptions....Sigh. I better just get even more used to being at the very bottom. Revolution. I think it will come, and sooner than most would believe - just like climate change and economic collapse.

  • 7 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:01 PM EST
Joe-392005

I believe you can achieve what ever you want to. It seems like the problem here is you are satisfied where you are at but just want others to pick up the tab. It is called envy and gets you nothing. Just be content and happy or strive to go further but quit complaining. Makes it sound like Phil Graham was right about the country being nothing but whiners.

  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:18 PM EST
Man of Knowledge

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.

  • 14 votes
#4.1 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:40 PM EST
Merewen

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.

  • 13 votes
#4.2 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:08 PM EST
Spikegary

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?

  • 4 votes
#4.3 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:30 PM EST
Merewen

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?

  • 8 votes
#4.4 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:53 PM EST
bacon n eggs

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).

  • 10 votes
#4.5 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:45 PM EST
slemay-1

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.

  • 4 votes
#4.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:06 AM EST
Reply
pbunny171Deleted
58rose

ill tell ya would make me happy is to have the tax loop holes closed and the rich pay tax's on there money just like i do. ya happy now pbunny171

  • 9 votes
Reply#6 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:32 PM EST
CuriousG

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

  • 6 votes
#6.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:50 PM EST
Reply
Mike Lawrence

Let's take a closer look at that job math. Under Bush tax cuts, one $40,000 job cost $800,000. OK, that's a 20:1 ratio of cost to earnings.

Under Obama tax hikes, we're going to spend $740 billion to save or create 3.5 million jobs. Tell ya what, I'll spot you the "save" part and we'll just call it creating 3.5 million jobs. At 40K apiece, that's (wait, gotta' work out all the zeroes here.) $211,428. Hey, wow, that's an improvement to a ratio of 40:1. Good work!

  • 4 votes
Reply#7 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:42 PM EST
Chuck1968

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.

  • 9 votes
#7.1 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:58 PM EST
slemay-1

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.

  • 5 votes
#7.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:08 AM EST
GeorgeOrwell

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.

  • 4 votes
#7.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:14 PM EST
Reply
Mike Lawrence

Man of Knowledge:

Sorry, but it was the aristocracy that got the blade, not the wealthy (yes, one and the same, but it was political, not financial). The French Revolution was about natural rights more than money.

I can and have created my own wealth from hard work, sacrifice, risk and all the ways you think are just a fairy tale. I started out making $12,000 a year in the Navy and went from there. Do I think you deserve any of it? Not one thin dime. I'm selfish. Try to take my money and you will see just how selfish I'm willing to be.

You probably want to live better than you do. But what about those who don't live as well as you? If you have any extra money, shouldn't you be giving it to those less fortunate than you? When was the last time you gave a family some money to buy a month's worth of groceries? When was the last time you bought a homeless man a sleeping bag? Did you even put anything in the Salvation Army kettle at Chrismas?

Where is the line? Why is it always above what we make ourselves?

I guarantee revolt in this country won't be against the rich.

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

  • 3 votes
Reply#8 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:53 PM EST
pbunny171Deleted
Man of Knowledge

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.

  • 8 votes
#8.2 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:54 PM EST
Chuck1968

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}

  • 6 votes
#8.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:09 AM EST
Roy Batty

Capitalism kills itself if not managed carefully

Agreed. Pure Capitalism depends on moral, reasonable and responsible people. Unfortunately, in the real world it depends on imperfect human beings, greedy on one side and gullible on the other.

  • 3 votes
#8.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:19 PM EST
kls illini

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.

  • 1 vote
#8.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:26 PM EST
Merewen

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.

  • 4 votes
#8.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:42 PM EST
kiml

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.

  • 3 votes
#8.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:16 PM EST
deadcentered

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.

  • 4 votes
#8.8 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:58 PM EST
GeorgeOrwell

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.

  • 5 votes
#8.9 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:25 PM EST
Reply
58rose

Mike Lawrence

-------- nice well i still hope one of those jobs is yours that he saves.

  • 1 vote
Reply#9 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:53 PM EST
Sharn CedarDeleted
pbunny171Deleted
58rose

Sharn Cedar---pbunny171

you 2 are fools that there money will some be departed from.

  • 5 votes
Reply#12 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:17 PM EST
pbunny171Deleted
Sharn CedarDeleted
bacon n eggs

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!

  • 6 votes
#12.3 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:52 PM EST
Chuck1968

OOOh a toughguy named bunny!

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

  • 3 votes
#12.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:01 AM EST
58rose

yes that bunny would be tough meat more then likely

    #12.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:01 AM EST
    pbunny171Deleted
    58rose

    oh but if ya cook that bunny right it nice.

      #12.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:10 AM EST
      Roy Batty

      Thus when Obama and his minions start talking about taxing the "rich" what they really mean is destroying the middle class.

      Obama's tax increases start with a family with adjusted gross income of $250,000; below that you get a tax break. Hardly middle class, based on average wages two wage earners should be making around $82,000.

      • 4 votes
      #12.8 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:25 PM EST
      Reply
      58rose

      if ya got 250,000 then ill be waiting for my cut. go back to work now and make more ill need it for when i go to wal mart next time

        Reply#13 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:41 PM EST
        pbunny171Deleted
        58rose

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

        • 1 vote
        #13.2 - Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:59 PM EST
        Reply
        Gulliver Swift

        Greed is one of the seven deadly sins and Jesus explained what you could do with all that extra wealth to make amends. You could give to Caesar what is Caesar's for one thing .

        But who am I to suggest that someone should be his brother's keeper?

        • 2 votes
        Reply#14 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:38 AM EST
        Gulliver Swift

        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.

        • 2 votes
        #14.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:47 AM EST
        The Observer

        Should the government go door to door and confiscate wealth?

        • 1 vote
        #14.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:19 AM EST
        carpefriggingdiem-866758Deleted
        Gulliver Swift

        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.

        • 2 votes
        #14.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:48 AM EST
        carpefriggingdiem-866758Deleted
        carpefriggingdiem-866758

        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.

        • 3 votes
        #14.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:43 AM EST
        Gulliver Swift

        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.

        • 6 votes
        #14.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:51 AM EST
        carpefriggingdiem-866758Deleted
        Kate-546578

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

        • 3 votes
        #14.9 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:35 AM EST
        Gulliver Swift

        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.

        • 2 votes
        #14.10 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:57 AM EST
        carpefriggingdiem-866758Deleted
        River-239955

        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?

          #14.12 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:02 PM EST
          Roy Batty

          carpefriggingdiem-866758, try to rephrase your arguments without name calling. Comments deleted due to COH #1.

          Please review the Code of Honor and keep thing civil ... thanks!

          • 4 votes
          #14.13 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:32 PM EST
          Reply
          The Observer

          .

          • 1 vote
          Reply#15 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:58 AM EST
          jbdaad

          You are cool Roy Batty.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#16 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:22 AM EST
          Kate-546578

          You sorry parasites wouldn't be sitting here this morning with a venue to spew your pathetic envy if not for one of the richest men in America. A man who became rich by virtue of his intelligence, thereby changing the world you live in. He creates, you enjoy his creation every day and now you think you deserve to share his wealth.

          No wonder this country is going to hell. It's being dragged down by jackals like.

          • 4 votes
          #17 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:40 AM EST
          carpefriggingdiem-866758

          Kate,

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

          • 4 votes
          #17.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:45 AM EST
          jbdaad

          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.

          • 4 votes
          #17.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:45 AM EST
          Kate-546578

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

          • 3 votes
          #17.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:03 AM EST
          jbdaad

          What, they go around taking Salvation Army kettles?

          Exactly what is left. (clue=depression)

          • 2 votes
          #17.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:10 AM EST
          jbdaad

          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

          • 3 votes
          #17.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:09 PM EST
          jbdaad

          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

          • 1 vote
          #17.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:16 PM EST
          Paul LuceroDeleted
          jbdaad

          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

          • 1 vote
          #17.8 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:00 PM EST
          Roy Batty

          You sorry parasites...

          Kate-546578, refrain from name calling. We want to hear what you say but please keep it within Code of Honor bounds. Thank you!

          • 4 votes
          #17.9 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:38 PM EST
          PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
          Kate-546578

          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.

          • 3 votes
          #17.11 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:19 AM EST
          jbdaad

          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.

          • 3 votes
          #17.12 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:32 AM EST
          Kate-546578

          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.

          • 1 vote
          #17.13 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:03 AM EST
          jbdaad

          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.

          • 2 votes
          #17.14 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:20 AM EST
          Kate-546578

          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.

          • 2 votes
          #17.15 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:36 AM EST
          jbdaad

          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.

          • 2 votes
          #17.16 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:48 AM EST
          Reply
          Merewen

          Ewww.... there is no need for all that.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#18 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:02 AM EST
          bundane

          There is a lot of hate for the rich, But you have to ask where would we be if the rich was not rich, There is so much more to this then people know. I understand the people who inherit their wealth but what about the people who come from nothing "rags to riches". You this is just America but it happens all over the world!

          • 4 votes
          Reply#19 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:10 AM EST
          carpefriggingdiem-866758

          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.

          • 2 votes
          #19.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:19 AM EST
          Gulliver Swift

          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.

          • 7 votes
          #19.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:20 AM EST
          carpefriggingdiem-866758Deleted
          deadcentered

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

          • 2 votes
          #19.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:08 PM EST
          GeorgeOrwell

          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.

          • 5 votes
          #19.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:31 PM EST
          jbdaad

          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

          • 4 votes
          #19.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:45 PM EST
          GeorgeOrwell

          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.

          • 5 votes
          #19.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:53 PM EST
          Gulliver Swift

          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

          • 6 votes
          #19.8 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 2:11 PM EST
          Reply
          Kaiji

          I agree that vast wealth differences will destroy a country and trickle down is a fraud. I also agree that there are a lot of greed creating self-serving circuits.

          But what about the psychological problem and moral problem of taxation?

          Psychologically, humans are loss averse. That means that we're wired to feel worse over real or perceived losses than we feel good over gains or potential gains. This is true for someone who makes a little money. And it's also true of someone who makes a disportionately greater ammount of money, dispite that they could need nowhere near to live more comfortably than most of us dream.

          Basically this means that taxes, however beneficial for the health of society, may not be a long term solution as much as education, for example. Things that defy human nature are not sustainable. This is true for attempts to curb greed as it is for attempts to curb other vices.

          The other psychological problem is summed in the idea that power corrupts, or alternatively, power attracts the corruptable. That is: how do we ensure that a tax system set up to do good will not be twisted against the original intentions? Wherever there is a pie to be cut, there will be people fighting over it. And usually those will the most power win.

          So if there are people with money and influence, how are people without money or influence going to win out over time? We can have checks and balances, but who will guard the guards?

          Which segues into my next concern which is morality. Now I'm not going to argue that 'redistribution of wealth' is evil. Rather, I am wondering whether the system we have now is best suited to promoting freedom and peace.

          One reason is because wars, generally, are eventually funded on the backs of the people both in blood and money. If a rich person disagrees with an evil war, higher taxation means that more of 'his' money is going towards a cause he finds morally reprehensible. This is true individually and it is also true collectively.

          That is: countries cannot fund wars without taxes. Or conversely, high taxation permit wars. Wars may be necessary or unnecesary, but in neither case does taxation promote freedom of choice. Taxes are not really voluntary.

          The point about freedom is that I believe variation and competition breeds effective solutions. Whereas absolutism and dogma breeds stagnation. With taxes, usually the money is funneled into a certain way. The winner-take-all political system ensures that while compromises are sometimes made, change is difficult. If we look at the reelection rates of representatives and senators even with low approval of Congress, it is disconcerting.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#20 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:21 AM EST
          Paul LuceroDeleted
          Roy Batty

          Kaiji, thanks for your thought-provoking comments.

          • 2 votes
          #20.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:41 PM EST
          Roy Batty

          Paul Lucero, #20.1 is a repeat of #1.6. Duplicate removed.

          • 2 votes
          #20.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:44 PM EST
          Reply
          jared-c2000

          Isn't Obama participated in reverse "trickle down" Take from them rich and trickle it to lots of poor? Trickle up economics. Will work even less.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#21 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:55 AM EST
          carpefriggingdiem-866758

          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.

          • 2 votes
          #21.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:57 PM EST
          kls illini

          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.

            #21.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:35 PM EST
            Roy Batty

            Maybe we should get away from the "trickle" analogy altogether? There must be another model that makes sense in the real world.

            • 2 votes
            #21.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:46 PM EST
            The Realist Party

            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".

            • 3 votes
            #21.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:35 PM EST
            Reply
            pbunny171Deleted
            redmichigan

            Studies also show that those who have less get great satisfaction from seeing those who have more suffer. Class envy is human nature. Now we are seeing the beginnings of a Class War. It is being fomented deliberately by those who have brought us a closet Marxist and his radical friends as the new Administration. Under the mantra of "Fairness" we will see an all out attack on the Founding Principles and our very Constitution.

            In his very first month, the President has employed tactics that would make his mentors proud, to weaken our military and foreign policy, silence critics, confiscate and redistribute earned income, marinalize the opposition, and force the US toward total economic failure. His economic policies are, as Larry Kudlow wrote today, an all out war on investors, businesses and venture capitalists.

            Seeds like this article will be planted all over the world to divide us further idealogically when we need to be banding together to fight the absolute destruction of our way of life. No, I am not rich. But I will defend anyone's right to be rich and keep whatever they want to. Freedom to be rich or to give it all away or to live simply is guaranteed by our Constitution. The President , in an interview with NPR some time ago, decried the Founders neglect to incorporate what he called "Economic Justice " in the Constitution. He is going around the Constitution right now to correct what he sees are its "inhernet flaws". He is doing it through a propagandist media and a juggernaut in the Democrat House and Senate as well , I suspect, through direct email to legions of Obots and Ominions to promote envy and hatred for those have used their right of Freedom to succeed .

            • 2 votes
            Reply#23 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:55 PM EST
            carpefriggingdiem-866758

            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?

            • 3 votes
            #23.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:11 PM EST
            Reply
            carpefriggingdiem-866758

            jbdaad,

            I believe that this is what you were trying to post:

            • Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
            • Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
            • Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
            • The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
            • Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
            • Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
            • Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
            • Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

            This, and other information like it, can be found at "heritage dot org."

            • 2 votes
            Reply#24 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:56 PM EST
            jbdaad

            The Heritage Foundation - Conservative Policy Research and Analysis Ty.

              #24.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:15 PM EST
              Man of Knowledge

              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

              • 3 votes
              #24.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:17 PM EST
              carpefriggingdiem-866758

              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.

              • 3 votes
              #24.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:35 PM EST
              Florida_kes

              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?

              • 3 votes
              #24.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:39 PM EST
              Roy Batty

              Unfortunately the last census numbers were rife with errors regarding the poor. Those less like likely to be counted ... indigents, homeless, and squatters in rural America ... probably don't have microwave ovens or air conditioning.

              • 4 votes
              #24.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:57 PM EST
              redmichigan

              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.

              • 2 votes
              #24.6 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:30 PM EST
              Man of Knowledge

              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.

              • 4 votes
              #24.7 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:06 PM EST
              Reply
              David -885677

              If you want to see a change, go to WWW. FAIR TAX. ORG and see for yourselves the alternative to the income tax. HR25 currently is in the House in committee with 21 co-sponsers and with enough support from WE THE PEOPLE, could become reality. The fair tax replaces our current income tax with a national consumer tax, abolishes the IRS, and will eliminate the need to file the annual tax return. Join the 2 million Americans that have seen the light. Once you get the facts, email your elected leaders and President Obama and let them know that the fair tax is worth considering. This important bill is in committee but the news media hasn't given it any air time. If you want to see positive change in this country, check out the web site and make up your own minds. Once on board, we all need to spread the word. Even if you think this is a joke and won't work, lets have a honest debate. Isn't that what the news media should be doing?

              • 4 votes
              #25 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:00 PM EST
              carpefriggingdiem-866758

              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.

              • 3 votes
              #25.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:16 PM EST
              Florida_kes

              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.

              • 2 votes
              #25.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:35 PM EST
              Merewen

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

              • 2 votes
              #25.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:52 PM EST
              redmichigan

              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.

              • 1 vote
              #25.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:31 PM EST
              Merewen

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

              • 2 votes
              #25.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:09 PM EST
              redmichigan

              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.

              • 1 vote
              #25.6 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:59 AM EST
              Merewen

              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.

              • 4 votes
              #25.7 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:45 PM EST
              redmichigan

              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.

                #25.8 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:32 PM EST
                GeorgeOrwell

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #25.9 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:23 PM EST
                Man of Knowledge

                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.

                • 4 votes
                #25.10 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:23 PM EST
                space guy

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #25.11 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:28 PM EST
                Merewen

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #25.12 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:44 PM EST
                GeorgeOrwell

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #25.13 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 8:49 PM EST
                space guy

                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.

                • 4 votes
                #25.14 - Sun Mar 1, 2009 9:12 PM EST
                PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                space guy

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #25.16 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:54 AM EST
                PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                Roy Batty

                PastNikeVet, it was not the competitiveness in the housing market that got us into this mess, it was the leveraged investment of mortgages as securities that is the culprit. Take a look here for a pretty good explanation of what has happened.

                • 3 votes
                #25.18 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 3:55 PM EST
                space guy

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #25.19 - Tue Mar 3, 2009 7:38 PM EST
                PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                Roy Batty

                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 ?

                It has not been kept quiet and that's the point. Wall street borrowed money to bet that housing prices would continue to increase and people would pay their mortgages. Look at the link in #25.18 for an explanation.

                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 !

                The point of this article is the RICH took advantage of all this to add to their own wealth. The "poor" are the victims. This has to change.

                • 4 votes
                #25.21 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:09 AM EST
                PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                Roy Batty

                PastNikeVet-906575, agreed. I try to avoid applying the GOP arguments to my point of view as they typically do not represent reality! :-)

                Thanks.

                • 4 votes
                #25.23 - Wed Mar 4, 2009 5:40 AM EST
                Reply
                jopocop

                The topic of tax reform has been around for decades. Basically, the Congress and the President can never get the guts to do it. The got all kinds of reasons, which are really flimsy.

                They argue that years of govt budgeting and spending has been made on the assumption of an income tax structure, and it would be too tough to undo. They argue that the ideas are not reliable and certain enough, thereby, not worth the risk of it back firing.

                They argue that they also got to still tax employers and people for the social security program, so that they would still need a bureaucracy to collect and enforce all of that taxing system which is apart of the IRS function.

                They also consider "what if" America had to go to an immediate war, and so, they need the safety net in place of an income tax to finance a sudden major war, lets say against China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, whatever hot spot could erupt out of no where.

                So, realistically, I just don't see these kinds of tax reforms happening due to so many worries by the politicians.

                You would really need a Constitutional amendment to mandate a major overhaul and change, and that would not happen given the difficulty of doing amendments in America.

                So, I think we are stuck with the income tax and other tax structures we now see in America.

                Right now if you really want to avoid paying federal and state income taxes, you amass your wealth and just buy safe tax free govt bonds, such as muni bonds.

                Who knows if home buying will ever result in making money off of home appreciation. Those days of buying a home and getting an appreciation could be long gone.

                So, one possible way is to cash out of your home, and just rent a nice home. All of your money in the home would go into muni bonds that are tax free.

                Just food for thought that today we have to think of alternative ways to make money in America given all of this wealth destruction and economic game changing taking place in America.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#26 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:20 PM EST
                carpefriggingdiem-866758

                Yeah, yeah goofy Batty. Censor me. You libs are all the same.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#27 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:38 PM EST
                Roy Batty

                We want to hear your point of view, but without verbally abusing others. Feel free to present your arguments in a more civil manner.

                If you feel I have been unfair, follow the instructions in the email you received. I will abide by a Newsvine moderator's decision.

                • 4 votes
                #27.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:58 PM EST
                carpefriggingdiem-866758

                You libs are surely a sensitive lot.

                • 3 votes
                #27.2 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:33 PM EST
                Roy Batty

                That makes those other than liberals ... insensitive?

                • 3 votes
                #27.3 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:00 PM EST
                carpefriggingdiem-866758

                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.

                • 2 votes
                #27.4 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:54 PM EST
                Merewen

                carpefriggingdiem-866758

                You are a very dishonest person.

                • 2 votes
                #27.5 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:57 PM EST
                Reply
                billb88

                a flat tax would be the fairest way to go the rich would pay more when they spent 65,000 on a office chair, but EVERYBODY would pay some why are we in trouble? so many people think they deserve something for the nothing and since politicians love to so how they help taxpayers or tax-nonpayers they give housing food money.

                If you think it's unfair for someone to have more money than you than you should be infavor of a flat tax unless you only make money on taxes and not pay any!

                • 1 vote
                Reply#28 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:48 PM EST
                JohnABuck

                Roy, I think you are misinterpreting some of the statistics. According to the 2006 tax data, the latest that I could find available, only 2.93% of all taxpayers make $200K or greater and only 0.63% make $500k or greater. So, what is your definition of "Rich"? When you state that "the top 25% own 87% of the countries wealth", that would represent every taxpayer that makes approximately $75K and greater. Does $75K fall into your definition of rich? It might be a lot of money for some of the states, but if you live in the New York City area, that is far from rich.

                In my opinion, the uber rich are those making $1.5 million or more. There are only 0.13% or about 175,000 people that fall into this category. Can these people possibly pay for a 3 Trillion dollar budget? The answer is no. So, these new taxes and bailouts will fall largely on the top 25% of the wage earners, a large portion of which are fighting to tread water.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#29 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:28 PM EST
                Roy Batty

                JohnABuck,

                The links to my supporting data are in the article itself. What sources are you looking at? (please link) Thanks!

                (Also, keep in mind there are differences between income and wealth)

                • 2 votes
                #29.1 - Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:41 PM EST
                danwill

                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?)

                • 2 votes
                #29.2 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:51 AM EDT
                space guy

                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.

                • 3 votes
                #29.3 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
                Roy Batty

                Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

                Source.

                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.

                A good question. I suggest that great wealth is maintained by investing, and there is income that can be taxed.

                • 2 votes
                #29.4 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
                space guy

                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!

                • 3 votes
                #29.5 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:34 PM EDT
                Roy Batty

                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.

                Agreed. Long-term investment tax rate is 15%. I think that is what Buffet was pointing out, that hard-earned money gets taxed at a higher rate than money earning money, and that is simply not fair. Income should be income, no matter what the source.

                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.

                • 2 votes
                #29.6 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:01 PM EDT
                Lampell

                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:)

                  #29.7 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
                  Roy Batty

                  Somehow I dont think Warren had too many capital gains last year....

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

                  • 2 votes
                  #29.8 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
                  Lampell

                  , 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:)

                    #29.9 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:00 PM EDT
                    Roy Batty

                    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!

                    • 2 votes
                    #29.10 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
                    Lampell

                    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:)

                    • 1 vote
                    #29.11 - Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:07 PM EDT
                    Atsidi

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

                    • 1 vote
                    #29.12 - Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:27 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse |
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com