Originally Posted by Josie
I do agree that loopholes need to be closed and they need to pay a bit more though. So we are in agreement
The rich should be categorized into several groups.
The useless, like trustfunders and Hollywood
The employers, moguls, sm and lg business owners, whatever you wish to call them
The money launderers ,several subgroups to be found here,
add whichever you wish. These are only a few broad categories.
Ok, so we have the leeches who complain about everything evil rich, while never ever contributing anything useful to society,
and those who do need a helping hand, because they can't fend for themselves...the disabled, the elderly, the ill.
Many rich talk a good talk, yes, the lip service Philanthropist. Of hand, Kerry (i.e. his yacht) and the Kennedys come to mind when I think of those who find loophole after loophole to avoid paying their fair share, while generously willing to give away other people's money. other evil rich simply contribute steadily to society, by creating jobs, by employing a large number of people here in country.
If we want more for those in need, lets start cleaning up from the ground up, all the way to the top.
Let the market do what the market does best, make it fair and equal for everyone, rich or poor.
The able bodied must work, the evil rich make jobs available in large enough numbers to make a difference, small business owners do their share.
If we decrease the need for entitlements by employing the able, taxes can be decreased, employers will hire more, everyone wins
Then, and only then do we have enough to go around to help those in need.
All else is needless fingerpointing
Also, be aware that the "top 400 families" in a nation of this size and wealth is a ridiculous measure. The top 400 will always be disproportionate. A much more sensible measure is quintiles --- and as you can see, the rate for the top quintile is higher than 16. I think THIS graph is what tessaesque was referring to when she said that top earners pay 30%. And essentially, she's right.
Last edited by Jeezy; 07-20-11 at 12:56 PM.
Originally Posted by Josie
I've never been someone who felt the need to acquire vast quantities of material wealth. I am content with what I have. My possessions do not own me and they aren't a burden to manage. I can't imagine what it must be like to spend most of your life managing assets. What a distraction.
In any case... I can't speak for the average person, but I can speak for me. I am not jealous or envious of the extremely wealthy. My problem is when wealth, power, and business intertwines with elected government in such a way that the voices of millions of people are cancelled out due to precision lobbying.
I also have a problem with the way the tax code is enforced. If played correctly, the rich pay a lesser percentage of their earnings to taxes than people in lower economic brackets, despite the so-called progressive tax. Not to mention, corporate empires write off hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and activities under "business". You can live your entire life in the tax haven shadow of your company if you know what you're doing; and since corporations are now "people" with constitutional rights, your company itself can exploit similar loopholes.
The problem has never been that people are extremely wealthy. The problem is the system that permits them to never pay up like the rest of us do.
Again, it's not that I disagree or agree with what you are saying, I am just asking for source cited data using appropriate statistical measurements. There's nothing wrong with including several statistics in one post, e.g. average, mode, median etc. ... just try to avoid using only one measurement, as that can often lead to misleading conclusions.
It's blurry but the bottom left corner says CBO.
I avoided setting a definition because there is none. No one agrees as to precisely what the middle class is. That being said, calling the median an "unreliable" measure is pushing it.
Last edited by Jeezy; 07-20-11 at 01:11 PM.
Originally Posted by Josie
Yeah, posters on the right make this accusation all the time. They often try to paint it as though liberals are poor people who hate the rich and want to take their money from them for themselves.
Obviously it is ridiculous. What policy people think is the most sensible isn't necessarily a function of their own self interest. I have worked as a dishwasher and bus boy in a small town and as the director of a department in a software company in silicon valley, but I've supported the same tax policy throughout.
As far as the notion that it is about hating rich people, that is just as silly. It isn't like paying fair taxes would hurt the wealthy. It wouldn't have much any impact on them at all. Certainly much less of an impact than taxes have on middle class people. Besides, the wealthy currently pay much LOWER tax rates than the rest of us, so even if it did hurt them, it would just be them taking on the same sort of pain the rest of us have to accept.
Instead of hate for the rich it is about love for the country as a whole. Our current tax scheme where the rich pay such absurdly low tax rates compared to everybody else is bad for the country. It hurts many, many, people. We have had to cut our safety back to smaller than what any other first world country has, but we're still running a huge deficits. We're getting screwed on both ends- we aren't getting as much back from government as people in other countries do, but we're taking on more debt than people on other countries have to to pay for it. Anybody who cares about the well being of the country as a whole should oppose that, right? Well, the solution is to fix the inexplicable special tax breaks the uberwealthy get.
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton