Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer

[Flying Crane]

Not sure how the Dan example fits into a redistribution of wealth for the common good theory. If a company (through its board of directors) agrees to pay someone severance, in free societies, that is called a business decision. The only need to answer to their shareholders. Customers who dislike these decisions can choose to take there business elsewhere which will provide real feedback to those decisions.

Truth is, guys like Dan with many vacation homes pump lots of money into the economies of the various states in which they own homes. They employ lawcare persons and decorators and caterers and all sorts of other people benefit from their spending. Wealth when pumped into an economy creates jobs and generates revenues through the multipler effect. Overtaxation impedes this process.

The Dan example is just meant to show the unreasonable things that happen when people are dealing with this kind of wealth, and I am suggesting that there are greater social ills at play that the taxation situation is only a symptom of.

I still say that more money will be pumped back into the economy if workers are better paid, then if a few people on the top keep it and use it to buy luxury items.

 

[Flying Crane]

Wow....
then THAT explains why the stunk....




hahahaha....
sorry, just couldn't help myself, ya made it toooooo easy.

It's good to see WHY you think the way you do, even if we don't agree.
Have a good one.


Your Brother
John

yeah, i knew that one was coming...

 

[Brother John]

yeah, i knew that one was coming...

You Knew....without knowing.....

I can teach you no more!
(ref. "The Last Dragon")


Your Brother
Sum-Dum Goy

 

[mrhnau]

mrhnau, I hope you are really young, because if you're not, your arguments and your suggestions ("Send a check to the IRS") bespeak a naivete of the direction things have been taking in this country in the past few years.

I get tired of people telling me that I need to send MY money to the IRS to help those poor people. The people telling me to send my money to them are themselves doing nothing and paying statisticaly less than me. I'd love to see them donate more to the IRS. Not naivete, just an observation of the hypocrasy of taxation and those imposing the taxes.

The middle class is losing jobs. People in good paying jobs are being laid off, and they have no place to go but low paying Walmart-type of jobs, because that's the main type of job being created in this country. Many jobs are being outsourced. I personally have a doctoral degree and more than 20 years of experience in my field, and when I lost my job a few years ago, specifically because of the economy, all I could get was two PART time jobs, which neither made up the money nor the benefits of one FULL time job. In fact, it's hard to get a decent FULL time job, because no one wants to give benefits or a pension plan. The "community college" recommendation you made is worthless to the already well educated individual who's lost a job--and there are many.

not important, but whad degree? pm if you want. working on my PhD at the moment, so I'm interested.

Alot of jobs have been outsourced, but we are still at 5% unemployment, and by almost every source, thats full employment. If you want to say its lower level jobs, thats fine. The reason jobs are being outsourced is because its cheaper! We can help keep jobs here by lowering the tax burden on companies employing those people. I'd love to see some of those jobs come back. It won't unless prices to employ here come down or there is some kind of tax break for these companies to encourage them to bring employees back.

Education is helpful, but not the final answer. I agree with that. However, you are going to go further w/ an education w/out. We pay for alot of education costs, so take advantage of it.

Alot of jobs have been lost, but some of them are on the way back. Repeal the Bush tax cuts, and they won't. It takes time for money to work the way back into the economy and companies to have enough confidence that its staying.

And I'm lucky. I grew up with a family that cared about me. And I hope you are also blessed to be intelligent, able-bodied, and have caring parents. But what if you're not? What if your parents died in a car accident, and you didn't have the luxury of a good education? Or brain damaged? Walmart MAY be your terminal job, and you still have to support yourself and your family. And I believe if you work hard--even if you work hard for Walmart--you should be able to support yourself and your family.

Many people in this country now have the "every man for himself" mentality. But there are lots of us who have a different vision for America, where we do better because everyone does better.

I'd rather be "every man for himself" rather than communism, which is what the 50%+ taxation would do to us. Capitalism is one thing that made this country great. I'm not sorry when someone does well, nor do I think they should be punished for their success. They get a 8 figure job? Well done! I wish I could do that! I imagine you wish that too. Isn't that the american dream? To succeed? Not just in an 8 figure job, but to do well.

Part of what we have lost in the past 100 years is the sense of family. Used to be that if your parents died, a relative adopted you and raised you. Brain damaged? Raised by your family and taken care of, or taken to a place that could. These days we have girls getting pregnant at 15 w/out family support, we in general have no real family ties, and we ask the government to become our parents, the emergency line that make sure everything will work out ok. Gone is the sense of personal responsiblity and drive that made us great. I've known many people who have faked injuries at work so they can get their government checks and stay home doing nothing. Government is trying to do what families and churches have done in the past. Bush tried to make a small step a few years ago in recommending volunteerism and greater roles of religious institutions in helping people. Many churches have volunteers that do these kind of things for free. They donate food for the hungry, help educate people, visit those in prisons. They do it for free. So, you are telling me that the government should not help this movement, since they can do a better job? Should there be limits? sure, things need to be verified for organizations, but I'd love seeing churches/mosques/synagogues/covens/whatever helping out.

An example of my old church. we had a member whose husband left her. took everything in the house, plates, dishes, electronics, sofas, bed, EVERYTHING. The church rallied behind her. before the week was over, her house was refurnished. not with old stuff that people were throwing out, but with new stuff! Think the government could do that? I'd love to see that kind of compassion take place more often, and the church is the perfect place for this to happen.

Now consider, this was a small church. some member had disposable income. you tax them at 50%, most of them would strugle just to make it. could they afford to help in this way?

I know the logicistics are tough. but I'd love to seesomething like this happen... *waits for the imminent complaints* LOL

MrH

 

[ginshun]

What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:

income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
income of 1million and 1 to 5 million, tax at 65%
income of 5million and 1 to 10 million, tax at 80%
income of 10million and 1 and over, tax at 90%

My numbers here are just sort of random numbers that I came up with in a hurry, but it captures the essence of my message.

I don't have a problem with wealth in the abstract, but I believe that the super-rich need to be willing to take a step back and recognize that they have enough. Money becomes a game for them. It is monopoly money and is meaningless. Yet many of them just keep on hoarding more and more. This is what I object to. So, I think that when you move into the realm of the super-wealthy, you should pay most of that back in taxes, and take some of the burden off the poor and midle class. When you make an annual income of tens of millions of dollars, paying a rate of 90% or so shouldn't really make much difference in your lifestyle, if you live a REASONABLE lifestyle (I know, REASONABLE is subject to interpretation, but these are my views I am expressing). By contrast, a poor family is affected much more directly and heavily by the taxes they pay, even tho the percentage is much smaller. 20% of a $20,000 annual income is a lot harder to swallow in concrete ramifications, than 80% of income earned between 5 and 10 million.

I work in the financial brokerage industry, so I do have exposure to this kind of thing on a daily basis. My opinion is based on what I see, working in this industry.

Thats a bunch of crap.
Who the heck are you to tell anyone how much money they should have?

And when is it going to be enough? Exactly how much is any one person allowed to net after taxes? $100,000? $1,000,000?

Who gets to decide how rich is too rich?

Your talking about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

No thanks.

 

[ginshun]

This is also true of Social Security. The wealthy get to collect social security benefits just like the poor and middle class. But once again, THEY DON'T NEED IT! They are already wealthy. I think the wealthy should pay in to social security like everyone else, maybe even at a higher rate, but when they reach retirement age their assets should be scrutinized. If they have assets with a value greater than a certain amount, then they should be disqualified from receiving Social Security payments. Those funds should be available to people who need it, like the poor and middle class. People who are wealthy should never collect a penny of taxpayer's money. Ya don't see Bush making this suggestion as a fix for the Social Security problem.

So you expcet people to pay into SS a % of their income for there entire working life, and then when they retire, if they have too much money the government isn't supposed to give the anything back?

Thats a bunch of crap too. Again, who gets to decide whether someone NEEDS that money or not? And why should it matter?
Just because person A has done well in life and made himself a lot of money, your going to take his money and give it to somone else?

No thanks again.

 

[Shaolinwind]

Is this the Republican way?

The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.

President Bush and the republican congress are causing a deficit that future generations will have to pay back....since they will likely be dead or out of office they don't care about the future.

What are these tax cuts going to do....I garentee the excuse that it is going to place more money in the economy is bullcrap.

Isn't that a little Reaganesque? You know, trickle down..

 

[Shaolinwind]

Is this the Republican way?

The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.

President Bush and the republican congress are causing a deficit that future generations will have to pay back....since they will likely be dead or out of office they don't care about the future.

What are these tax cuts going to do....I garentee the excuse that it is going to place more money in the economy is bullcrap.

Isn't that a little Reaganesque? You know, trickle down..

 

[ginshun]

Here is another thought: Let's take the above described company and recognize that it is successful and wealthy. The top level of executives are compensated with several millions, maybe even tens of millions in some cases, of dollars each year. The company has 20,000 employees. The employees, while not being poorly paid, are certainly not well paid. They are paid just well enough to think that it would be difficult to find another similar job that pays enough more to make it worth making the jump.

OK, so according to the market, they are reasonably well paid. But I suggest that the company could do better than that for the employees. If the top brass are paid many millions of dollars, then I suggest the employees are not paid well enough. Some of this profit should be redistributed at least to the employees, since without them, there would be no profit for the top brass to get. When the top brass is compensated some 200 times more than the line employees, I think something is out of balance.

Let me restate: I don't have a problem with people becoming wealthy, but I think our notion of what is acceptable in wealth has become distorted. I think it is unfair, socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible.

Some people argue that this money gets cycled back into the economy, so the wealthy should just be allowed to keep it. I say that it would be cycled back into the economy much more if it was distributed to the workers thru better wages, rather than sitting in the hands of the few wealthy. This would also spark greater company loyalty among the employees, and make the company stronger in the long run.

Even if a company pays its employees a wage that is in line with the industry, I believe this is not enough. If the company is successful and wealthy, then the employees should be paid better than the industry average. After all, without the employees, the company would not have the success.

My numbers may be a bit off, but I believe some 80% of the nation's wealth lies in the hands of some 10% of the people. I think this is unacceptable.

Meantime, since my bid for the Presidency has not yet been successful, you all can breathe easier about by proposed tax initiative...

So under your system, if a company is successful enough, the government steps in and tells them how they have to distribute its profits? Its not up to the company leaders anymore, the people who built the company from the ground up, but rather the government gets to deside? And again, when does a company qualify to be taken over by government watch dogs? Once thier profits total a million a year? $10,000,000 $100,000,000

Where do you come up with this stuff?

If I wanted to live in a communist country, I'd move to one.

 

[Flying Crane]

So under your system, if a company is successful enough, the government steps in and tells them how they have to distribute its profits? Its not up to the company leaders anymore, the people who built the company from the ground up, but rather the government gets to deside? And again, when does a company qualify to be taken over by government watch dogs? Once thier profits total a million a year? $10,000,000 $100,000,000

Where do you come up with this stuff?

If I wanted to live in a communist country, I'd move to one.

Actually, no. In this kind of case, I am simply pointing out that there are things that are grossly wrong and unfair with how things work. I really was suggesting that the companies themselves should wake up to this, show a little enlightenment and make some changes.

relax, dude. stress is a killer.

 

[Flying Crane]

So you expcet people to pay into SS a % of their income for there entire working life, and then when they retire, if they have too much money the government isn't supposed to give the anything back?

Thats a bunch of crap too. Again, who gets to decide whether someone NEEDS that money or not? And why should it matter?
Just because person A has done well in life and made himself a lot of money, your going to take his money and give it to somone else?

No thanks again.

so what you are really trying to say is that you respectfully disagree?

 

[Flying Crane]

Thats a bunch of crap.
Who the heck are you to tell anyone how much money they should have?

And when is it going to be enough? Exactly how much is any one person allowed to net after taxes? $100,000? $1,000,000?

Who gets to decide how rich is too rich?

Your talking about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

No thanks.

Just a suggestion for discussion, and to stimulate a little introspective thinking. You can agree to disagree, if you like, I have no problem with that.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'd rather be "every man for himself" rather than communism

MrH

I think really that neither way, in it's pure sense, works. There is a common ground between the two that I think would make life better for more people than we see now. The best successes in communism were when they incorporated aspects of capitalism. The best successes of capitalism also have aspects of communism.

 

[ginshun]

I can agree that there are problems with the way this country works, and I don't personally claim to know how to salve them.

What I am pretty sure of, is that the government playing Robin Hood and stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't going to solve anything.

 

[mrhnau]

I think really that neither way, in it's pure sense, works. There is a common ground between the two that I think would make life better for more people than we see now.

I don't think a totally free capitalistic system works, but I think the government role should be very minimal, making sure certain rules are enforced, ect.. Don't want a oligarch type system happening...

The best successes in communism were when they incorporated aspects of capitalism. The best successes of capitalism also have aspects of communism.

Really? examples?

MrH

 

[Marginal]

Thats a bunch of crap.
Who the heck are you to tell anyone how much money they should have?

One does wonder just what 40 billion in your bank account does for you that 39 billion does not....

 

[Flying Crane]

I can agree that there are problems with the way this country works, and I don't personally claim to know how to salve them.

What I am pretty sure of, is that the government playing Robin Hood and stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't going to solve anything.

well, I think I can agree with you here. really, I think the best scenario is if the wealthy, both individuals, and corporations, wise-up and decide to be more reasonable on their own. I agree, when the govt. gets involved to enforce these things it is often problematic. They are, unfortunately, the only ones with any actually authority to MAKE thinkgs happen, so that is sometimes all we are stuck with. But for me, the ideal would be for the private industry money-holders to voluntarily change their ways. One problem with strict capitalism is that there are few incentives for them to do this.

 

[Flying Crane]

Really? examples?

MrH

1. China opening up to more free industry.
2. The US has social security. While it is a messed-up system, I think it is better than not having it at all. Not everyone is as adept at creating financial success. But those people shouldn't have to spend their old age in the gutter.

 

[mrhnau]

1. China opening up to more free industry.
2. The US has social security. While it is a messed-up system, I think it is better than not having it at all. Not everyone is as adept at creating financial success. But those people shouldn't have to spend their old age in the gutter.

I'll give you china opening up. still, it has its limitations. Once it really opens up, watch out!

social security is more of a socialism thing, not communism from my understanding. I'm not a fan of SS either way, but thats neither here nor there

MrH

 

[Brother John]

I think really that neither way, in it's pure sense, works. There is a common ground between the two that I think would make life better for more people than we see now. The best successes in communism were when they incorporated aspects of capitalism. The best successes of capitalism also have aspects of communism.

OK....I'll bite: When was this?? What communistic principles were employed with real success w/in Capitalism?? ....and vice versa............???
Think I might have to respectfully disagree again, as a brother...
BTW: Why are all the "disagree'rs" so rude all of a sudden? WOW...
play nice...


Your Brother
John