Do The Rich Need Saving?

Boo Radley said:

No one is saying that. In a pr\ogressive tax system the thinking is those who benefit more, pay more. It has nothing to with what you're saying.

Click to expand...

For most, those benefits are indirect. You don't charge truck drivers more in gas taxes at the pump because they benefit more from having public highways.

Cephus said:

For most, those benefits are indirect. You don't charge truck drivers more in gas taxes at the pump because they benefit more from having public highways.

Click to expand...

Not sure of your point, is an indirect benefit not a benefit? Again, the fact is both indirct and sometimes directly (corporate welfare) those with the most, benefit the most. So paying more has little to do with envy, but fair share.

Boo Radley said:

Not sure of your point, is an indirect benefit not a benefit? Again, the fact is both indirct and sometimes directly (corporate welfare) those with the most, benefit the most. So paying more has little to do with envy, but fair share.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'll be the first to say we ought to cut corporate welfare. However, you're talking about individuals, not corporations. Not everyone who has lots of money has anything to do with corporate welfare. Why should they get fleeced?

Cephus said:

There's no suffering allowed by the system

Click to expand...

Really? :doh

Cephus said:

Don't like being poor? Get an education, get a job, be good at it, get promoted, get paid lots of money.

Click to expand...

I agree, however without equal opportunity, healthy taxes and fair wages, this is simply not possible for the vast majority of those in poverty

Cephus said:

That's not the fault of the system

Click to expand...

Actually, in a system that creates large separations between classes and low mobility between classes, it is partially due to errors in the system

MusicAdventurer said:

Really? :doh

Click to expand...

Yes, really.

I agree, however without equal opportunity, healthy taxes and fair wages, this is simply not possible for the vast majority of those in poverty

Click to expand...

Everyone has equal opportunity, what you're looking for is equal outcome. Everyone in this country has access to a public school education. Many do not take advantage of it. That's their fault. We can look at lots of cases of people who have gotten out of poverty because they cared more about education and a work ethic than they did about the idiotic culture they grew up in. Everyone has a choice. It's not my fault lots of them make the wrong ones.

Actually, in a system that creates large separations between classes and low mobility between classes, it is partially due to errors in the system

Click to expand...

No it's not. Those who work hard can move up just fine. I started off working, 35 years ago or so, at minimum wage. Now I make nowhere near that. I earned my way up the ladder. I made something of myself. Nobody helped me and nobody paid my way but me.

I have no sympathy for those who refuse to do the same.

Cephus said:

Hey, I'll be the first to say we ought to cut corporate welfare. However, you're talking about individuals, not corporations. Not everyone who has lots of money has anything to do with corporate welfare. Why should they get fleeced?

Click to expand...

We're actually talking about both. And no one is getting fleeced. The tax rate has been quite low, historically low, and rasing a few percentage points is not fleecing. Nor is there any lines for the wealthy wanting to give their money and status up. Again, you have the framing of this all wrong.

tessaesque said:

His company, which is why he is rich, benefits the economy. I'm pretty sure that's obvious (and was also mentioned in my post).

Click to expand...

Really? Gates invented computers and software??? They wouldn't have been invented without him or Jobs??? Amazing. Did they invent the internet too? How about Snapple?

And here we all thought the Federal government paid for the research that led to all that, and the universities, and the employees training, protected the markets they're sold in, the shipping lanes, the interstate highways making the markets accessible, patent law protections, etc., etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum that made them possible, or conceivable in the first place.

But, no, it was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!!!

And Reagan! We wouldn't have a computer industry if the Grenadans hadn't been driven back in the very nick of time.

Thanks Ron, and Bill, and Steve!

Boo Radley said:

We're actually talking about both. And no one is getting fleeced. The tax rate has been quite low, historically low, and rasing a few percentage points is not fleecing. Nor is there any lines for the wealthy wanting to give their money and status up. Again, you have the framing of this all wrong.

Click to expand...

With ideologies, strawmen to knock down are an absolute necessity; ideologies rarely address reality, or even mimic it, and therefore can't be expected to address real life problems on it's own terms. It just wouldn't be fair.

Oberon said:

Really? Gates invented computers and software??? They wouldn't have been invented without him or Jobs??? Amazing. Did they invent the internet too? How about Snapple?

And here we all thought the Federal government paid for the research that led to all that, and the universities, and the employees training, protected the markets they're sold in, the shipping lanes, the interstate highways making the markets accessible, patent law protections, etc., etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum that made them possible, or conceivable in the first place.

But, no, it was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs!!!

And Reagan! We wouldn't have a computer industry if the Grenadans hadn't been driven back in the very nick of time.

Thanks Ron, and Bill, and Steve!

Click to expand...

The government is not the economy, first of all. Secondly, does it matter if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs invented it? They are rich men who own companies that benefit the country. Period. The rest is pretty much inconsequential and your argument sucks.

tessaesque said:

The government is not the economy,

Click to expand...

Ah, so your real problem is you don't know what you're talking about. Okay. Thanks for the heads up.

Oberon said:

Ah, so your real problem is you don't know what you're talking about. Okay. Thanks for the heads up.

Click to expand...

What is with today, today? I seriously must have fallen through a blackhole or something.

My original (and only) point was that rich people are not automatically worthless "drains" on society, and that some (or even many) of them founded, own, or operate companies that greatly benefit the "little man" in this country. Bill Gates owns a multi-billion dollar company which employs millions of people and sells millions of products each year. That benefits every single aspect of the U.S. economy. Therefore, Bill Gates founding and ownership of a company makes him valuable as a "rich person".

Your argument was idiotic. I'm very sorry if it's hard to admit that. It's okay, though. You can try again next time.

This current mad rash of threads about the rich are idiotic and fail to address certain obvious facts

1) the rich pay a huge share of the income tax

2) the definition of rich is not defined and many want to use what billionaires do or can do to justify jacking up taxes on those whose income place them much closer-if not actually in-the middle class. Certainly many of those in the top 2% are far more like those makingn 85-200K a year than they are to those making 200 million a year yet their tax rates are the same as billionaires or mega millionaires

3) using the attitude of many in these threads as a guide, one can justify taxing anyone to the point that they have no more left than the "average" or increasing taxes more and more as long as there is at least ONE american who doesn't have everything the left believes they should have. what is to stop with the rich being limited to two houses? the mentality of some on this thread is that if someone is homeless or living in a substandard apartment its unfair that others are living in even one large spacious house.

Envy permeates many of the posts on these threads and everyone who is honest understands that. when someone can prove that most poor people are poor due to the direct and intentional actions of the rich, then maybe this nonsense will have some value. But one should remember the rich are hardly monolithic in their politics-the dems have as many or more millionaire senators and congressmen as the GOP

Cephus said:

Everyone has equal opportunity, what you're looking for is equal outcome.

Click to expand...

Please, I've mentioned this to others as well; people need to stop assuming they know what other people "are looking for", what other people mean, what they want, etc. If you are not that person, such accusations are completely founded on your opinion and are rude, pathetic tactics to avoid the crux of the argument

Cephus said:

Everyone in this country has access to a public school education.

Click to expand...

Only as far as grade 12, most poor can't afford to go to college without scholarships, not everyone is able to preform well enough in school (sometimes due to environmental situations, e.g. a disruptive home environment), and those poor that are aren't guaranteed a scholarship. So here we definitely do not see equal opportunity.

Cephus said:

We can look at lots of cases of people who have gotten out of poverty because they cared more about education and a work ethic than they did about the idiotic culture they grew up in

Click to expand...

I've heard this argument time and time again ... many is a subjective word and the accurate word is few (relatively speaking) ... so again, we see too little upward socioeconomic mobility due to a lack of equal opportunity

Cephus said:

It's not my fault lots of them make the wrong ones.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is implying that it is your fault

Cephus said:

I started off working, 35 years ago or so, at minimum wage. Now I make nowhere near that. I earned my way up the ladder. I made something of myself. Nobody helped me and nobody paid my way but me.

Click to expand...

That is good, you should be very proud of yourself, you are among the few that can do that. I will avoid asking you what socioeconomic class you were brought up in and simply say ... regardless of what class you were brought up in, you likely had more help than you realize. This is the one thing I do not understand about American ideology ... that is the obsessive tendency for those to value independence rather than acknowledging how much others help each other and that its not a crime to help or be helped. In my opinion, teamwork is more admirable than suborn independence.

TurtleDude said:

This current mad rash of threads about the rich are idiotic and fail to address certain obvious facts

1) the rich pay a huge share of the income tax

2) the definition of rich is not defined and many want to use what billionaires do or can do to justify jacking up taxes on those whose income place them much closer-if not actually in-the middle class. Certainly many of those in the top 2% are far more like those makingn 85-200K a year than they are to those making 200 million a year yet their tax rates are the same as billionaires or mega millionaires

3) using the attitude of many in these threads as a guide, one can justify taxing anyone to the point that they have no more left than the "average" or increasing taxes more and more as long as there is at least ONE american who doesn't have everything the left believes they should have. what is to stop with the rich being limited to two houses? the mentality of some on this thread is that if someone is homeless or living in a substandard apartment its unfair that others are living in even one large spacious house.

Envy permeates many of the posts on these threads and everyone who is honest understands that. when someone can prove that most poor people are poor due to the direct and intentional actions of the rich, then maybe this nonsense will have some value. But one should remember the rich are hardly monolithic in their politics-the dems have as many or more millionaire senators and congressmen as the GOP

Click to expand...

LMAO ... look who it is! Good to see you buddy! Sticking to your "lets make the rich richer" argument as usual are we?

TurtleDude said:

This current mad rash of threads about the rich are idiotic and fail to address certain obvious facts

1) the rich pay a huge share of the income tax

2) the definition of rich is not defined and many want to use what billionaires do or can do to justify jacking up taxes on those whose income place them much closer-if not actually in-the middle class. Certainly many of those in the top 2% are far more like those makingn 85-200K a year than they are to those making 200 million a year yet their tax rates are the same as billionaires or mega millionaires

3) using the attitude of many in these threads as a guide, one can justify taxing anyone to the point that they have no more left than the "average" or increasing taxes more and more as long as there is at least ONE american who doesn't have everything the left believes they should have. what is to stop with the rich being limited to two houses? the mentality of some on this thread is that if someone is homeless or living in a substandard apartment its unfair that others are living in even one large spacious house.

Envy permeates many of the posts on these threads and everyone who is honest understands that. when someone can prove that most poor people are poor due to the direct and intentional actions of the rich, then maybe this nonsense will have some value. But one should remember the rich are hardly monolithic in their politics-the dems have as many or more millionaire senators and congressmen as the GOP

Click to expand...

More false premise. No reasonable person argues all their money should be taken away or that there should be no taxes. This is about fair share. Those who benefit most should pay more. The argument is just that simple.

MusicAdventurer said:

Only as far as grade 12, most poor can't afford to go to college without scholarships, not everyone is able to preform well enough in school (sometimes due to environmental situations, e.g. a disruptive home environment), and those poor that are aren't guaranteed a scholarship. So here we definitely do not see equal opportunity.

Click to expand...

Since in many poor school districts, there is a better than 50% drop out rate in high school, we certainly can't blame inability to afford college as a factor. They had the opportunity, they squandered it. Now I will say that college can be expensive. I paid my own way 100%. I worked 2 jobs and took a full-time course load. I didn't sleep much, I had very little social life, but I did it and so can anyone else who puts their mind to it. So... equal opportunity.

I've heard this argument time and time again ... many is a subjective word and the accurate word is few (relatively speaking) ... so again, we see too little upward socioeconomic mobility due to a lack of equal opportunity

Click to expand...

No, not few. Oh, maybe only a few, relatively speaking, are willing to put in the work and avoid the pitfalls, but of those that do, many do get out just fine. Just because people are lazy doesn't mean they're incapable. It's the ones who stay out of gangs, who stay off drugs, who don't have a pile of illegitimate kids by the time they're 18, who don't party all the time, who work hard... those are the ones that make it. It's hardly my fault that the ghetto culture teaches kids not to do that. That's not a fault of the system, it's a failure of the culture.

I don't think anyone is implying that it is your fault

Click to expand...

It's not anyone's fault except the people who make the mistakes.

That is good, you should be very proud of yourself, you are among the few that can do that. I will avoid asking you what socioeconomic class you were brought up in and simply say ... regardless of what class you were brought up in, you likely had more help than you realize. This is the one thing I do not understand about American ideology ... that is the obsessive tendency for those to value independence rather than acknowledging how much others help each other and that its not a crime to help or be helped. In my opinion, teamwork is more admirable than suborn independence.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not among the few who can do it, anyone who wants to do it can do it. Ultimately, regardless of how much help one has, it's an individual decision to actually do what needs to be done. For far too many people, they demand that everything be given to them on a silver platter. If it's hard to do, they give up and claim discrimination. Teamwork is a fine thing, but only when it actually accomplishes something. For far too many, they don't mind having the team, they just don't want to do the work.

MusicAdventurer said:

LMAO ... look who it is! Good to see you buddy! Sticking to your "lets make the rich richer" argument as usual are we?

Click to expand...

the rich are rich because they are good at making money and they often do stuff that others find valuable

You seem interested in punishing them for that

Boo Radley said:

More false premise. No reasonable person argues all their money should be taken away or that there should be no taxes. This is about fair share. Those who benefit most should pay more. The argument is just that simple.

Click to expand...

well what is the limit.what is a fair share? you want a system that fair share is whatever you decide it should be

fair share-if one group makes 22% of the income they should pay 22% of the income tax? how is 40% More fair?

TurtleDude said:

well what is the limit.what is a fair share? you want a system that fair share is whatever you decide it should be

fair share-if one group makes 22% of the income they should pay 22% of the income tax? how is 40% More fair?

Click to expand...

A moving target, but certainly, with rates as low as they are, historically low, a return to the pre Bush tax cuts would not be an excessive burden. And yes, we as a society can agree on what is reasonably fair. Neither you or I alone can do this however.

Boo Radley said:

A moving target, but certainly, with rates as low as they are, historically low, a return to the pre Bush tax cuts would not be an excessive burden. And yes, we as a society can agree on what is reasonably fair. Neither you or I alone can do this however.

Click to expand...

so if you restore the clinton rates (which involves raising dividend taxes from 15% to almost 40%) without restoring the clinton rates on everyone else the top one percent will be paying even more than 40% of the income tax

why is that fair? You prove you cannot come up with an objective model and that is why we need a system were no one group can have their taxes raised without everyone else getting a hike as well (and why would you oppose that?)

Boo Radley said:

More false premise. No reasonable person argues all their money should be taken away or that there should be no taxes. This is about fair share. Those who benefit most should pay more. The argument is just that simple.

Click to expand...

So how will those on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, school lunch voucher programs, and section 8 housing vouchers pay more, exactly?

Or do you mean those who are more successful should pay more?

TurtleDude said:

so if you restore the clinton rates (which involves raising dividend taxes from 15% to almost 40%) without restoring the clinton rates on everyone else the top one percent will be paying even more than 40% of the income tax

why is that fair? You prove you cannot come up with an objective model and that is why we need a system were no one group can have their taxes raised without everyone else getting a hike as well (and why would you oppose that?)

Click to expand...

Hell, they benefit more than that. A good deal more. That's why they are running around bemoaning being rich. No one is saying they rather be poor.

But if you follow tax history in this country, you would know that increase would not be excessive or more than has been paid before.

tessaesque said:

So how will those on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, school lunch voucher programs, and section 8 housing vouchers pay more, exactly?

Or do you mean those who are more successful should pay more?

Click to expand...

many on the left think that those who do well were GIVEN more by the government which is a lie

tessaesque said:

So how will those on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, school lunch voucher programs, and section 8 housing vouchers pay more, exactly?

Or do you mean those who are more successful should pay more?

Click to expand...

Do those people really need to pay more? They pay less than I do and you don't see me whining. Frankly, instead of whining, we should seek better ways of moving more of them up, a helping hand that teaches them to fish if you will.

Boo Radley said:

Hell, they benefit more than that. A good deal more. That's why they are running around bemoaning being rich. No one is saying they rather be poor.

But if you follow tax history in this country, you would know that increase would not be excessive or more than has been paid before.

Click to expand...

OK its worthless to discuss this more. You want to tax the rich as much as you can but you cannot come close to fashioning a rational argument and to claim that the top one percent use 40-50% of the government's service is beyond ludicrous

I will have to dig up Hatuey's comment about the matter-it was excellent. If we take the country's entire history the current taxes on the rich are higher than the average.