• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

5 Ways Rich People's "Entitlements" Cheat You and Me

Why are these "entitlements" not a part of our National dialogue?

  • Total voters
    13
serato said:
I wasn't aware that you've been voted the official voice and expert on the rich.
Click to expand...

At least as much as the guy in the OP is. Probably moreso.
 
DaveFagan said:
5 Ways Rich People's "Entitlements" Cheat You and Me
[url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37608.htm[/URL]

"By Paul Buchheit
February 10, 2014 "Information Clearing House - "Alternet" - The word 'entitlement' is ambiguous. For working people it means "earned benefits." For the rich, the concept of entitlement is compatible with the Merriam-Webster definition: "The feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)." Recent studies agree, concluding that higher social class is associated with increased entitlement and narcissism."

"1. Income: Mocking Our 'Progressive' Tax System
2. Wealth: Trillions in Financial Gains, Zero Tax
3. Financial Transactions: Trillions in Speculative Purchases, Zero Tax
4. Subsidies: Alms for the Rich

"Cheated

 There's more. A regressive payroll tax, an almost nonexistent estate tax, the lower capital gains rate on carried interest for investment managers, trillions socked away in tax havens -- all involve tax avoidance by wealthy Americans who feel entitled to their privileged positions.

Entitlements for the rich mean cuts in safety net programs for children, women, retirees, and low-income families. They threaten Social Security. They redirect money from infrastructure repair, education, and job creation.

And the more the super-rich take from us, the greater their belief that they're entitled to the wealth we all helped to create."

This is a view of entitlements of the rich, not the average retired or disabled or poor.

Entitlement seems to be a paradigm that can't be rectified by optics.

In truth, the taxpayer provided infrastructure does enable the wealthy.
​

Poll questions because I have lost the access to post them

Why are these "entitlements" not a part of our National dialogue?

Options:

Political pressure from the wealthy.

Ignorance of the non-wealthy.

It's simply not true.

Other.
Click to expand...

They are painting Social Security based on what they want to hear rather than on facts. Alternet sees Social Security as cash for its agenda, regardless of the history of the program.

Facts : Social Security is one of the most progressive systems of any government programs. The high-wage earner collects as little as 1/5th what a low wage worker collects on a per dollar contributed basis. That is before means-tests are applied to the high-wage earner, and the tax credits given to low-wage workers to offset the 'high cost of Social Security'. Calling Social Security regressive is simply laughable.

Social Security is not part of a 'safety-net'. There are more than 2200 rules in the system, and not one of the pays a penny of benefit based on need. Millions are even eligible and no amount of need changes that.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Our tax code is a mess. I doubt too many people would argue that it isn't. It's been used as social engineering, fixing the economy, buying votes, and a host of other things for which it is a poor substitute for real change.

To say, "Entitlements for working people are earned benefits" is an oxymoron. The tax code is the tax code. Blame Congress. Entitlements are something else . . . for which you can also blame Congress.

Estate tax? Why should there even be a tax on my money when I die? Why?? I've paid tax on every dollar I have* . . . why should those net leftovers be subject to a confiscatory estate tax at all??

*Or certainly treated them the way the tax code says they must be treated.
Click to expand...

Because you had the gall to die, I mean how dare you die and not pay the government for the privilege.
 
DaveFagan said:
5 Ways Rich People's "Entitlements" Cheat You and Me
5 Ways Rich People's "Entitlements" Cheat You and Me

By Paul BuchheitFebruary 10, 2014 "Alternet" -The word 'entitlement' is ambiguous. For working people it means "earned benefits." For the rich, the concept of entitlement is compatible with the Merriam-Webster definition: "The feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)." Recent studies agree, concluding that higher social class is associated with increased entitlement and narcissism."

"1. Income: Mocking Our 'Progressive' Tax System
2. Wealth: Trillions in Financial Gains, Zero Tax
3. Financial Transactions: Trillions in Speculative Purchases, Zero Tax
4. Subsidies: Alms for the Rich

"Cheated

[/B] There's more. A regressive payroll tax, an almost nonexistent estate tax, the lower capital gains rate on carried interest for investment managers, trillions socked away in tax havens -- all involve tax avoidance by wealthy Americans who feel entitled to their privileged positions.

Entitlements for the rich mean cuts in safety net programs for children, women, retirees, and low-income families. They threaten Social Security. They redirect money from infrastructure repair, education, and job creation.

And the more the super-rich take from us, the greater their belief that they're entitled to the wealth we all helped to create."

This is a view of entitlements of the rich, not the average retired or disabled or poor.

Entitlement seems to be a paradigm that can't be rectified by optics.

In truth, the taxpayer provided infrastructure does enable the wealthy.

Poll questions because I have lost the access to post them

Why are these "entitlements" not a part of our National dialogue?

Options:

Political pressure from the wealthy.

Ignorance of the non-wealthy.

It's simply not true.

Other.
Click to expand...


How dare those rich people not want to pay taxes on money that already had taxes paid on them and how dare they suggest that people should pay close to the same percentage.Oh the humanity.Oh and damn those E-VILE rich people for taken advantage of tax breaks that many people take advantage of.How dare they want to keep most of the money they earned.What the **** country do they think this is??America??
 
jamesrage said:
How dare those rich people not want to pay taxes on money that already had taxes paid on them and how dare they suggest that people should pay close to the same percentage.Oh the humanity.Oh and damn those E-VILE rich people for taken advantage of tax breaks that many people take advantage of.How dare they want to keep most of the money they earned.What the **** country do they think this is??America??
Click to expand...

How dare they? Nuke power subsidies. Energy subsidies, Bank subsidies.

Jim Hightower | The Mobsters of Wall Street

JIM HIGHTOWER ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

"Assume that you ran a business that was found guilty of bribery, forgery, perjury, defrauding homeowners, fleecing investors, swindling consumers, cheating credit card holders, violating U.S. trade laws and bilking American soldiers. Can you even imagine the kind of punishment you'd get?
How about zero? Nada. Nothing. Zilch. No jail time. Not even a fine. Plus, you still get to stay on as boss, you get to keep all the loot you gained from the crime spree, and you even get an $8.5 million pay raise!
Of course, you and I would never get such outrageous, absurd, kid-glove pampering by legal authorities. But, then, we're not the capo of JPMorgan Chase, America's biggest bank and a crime syndicate that apparently is too big to jail.
Jamie Dimon is the slick, vainglorious, silver-haired boss of the JPMorgan house of banksters. This CEO has fostered a culture of thievery during his years as a top executive at JPMorgan, leading to a shameful litany of crime. Yet, federal prosecutors have bowed to the politically connected Wall Streeter, refusing to ruffle his feathers with even a single criminal charge.
Meanwhile, one of the scams that Dimon directly supervised produced a $6 billion loss for shareholders in 2012. And his reign of mismanagement and illegalities cost the bank's shareholders another $20 billion in federal fines last year, resulting in a 16 percent drop in profits. You might think the bank's board of directors would at least slap Jamie's wrist for the loss of those billions of dollars, but no — in January, they rewarded him, raising his pay by some 70 percent to a sweet $20 million!
The New York Times noted that, "To ordinary Americans," such a reward for poor performance "may seem curious." Curious? Uh-uh.
Try incomprehensible, insane and immoral. Wall Street's haughty elites continue to demonstrate that they're common mobsters — only not so ethical.
That's the funny thing about Wall Street mobsters (or as I like to call them: Banksters) is that they make a killing by defrauding millions of homeowners, customers, investors and taxpayers — then, when caught, they wonder why we don't love them.
That's "funny" as in "bizarre," not as in "ha-ha."
You would think that after racking up a record level of regulatory fines for the recidivist criminal operation overseen by the boss, a little self-reproachment might have done Dimon some good. But he chose a funny way (again meaning bizarre) to express remorse: He's been running a feel-sorry-for-me campaign, claiming that he's the victim of this sordid story!
Never mind his long rap sheet of malfeasance and incompetence, which cost so many so much, Jamie wails that everything from Wall Street's bailout to the pay of top bank executives have made people envious of bankers' success. Thus, he moans, an anti-Wall Street sentiment has spread through the public, prompting politicians and regulators to pander to this populist anger by persecuting enterprising bankers like him. He called the whole thing "unfair."
Good grief. This guy builds bank profits through rip-offs, piles billions of dollars in fines on the backs of shareholders, pockets $20 million in personal pay for one year's work — and he wants us to weep for him? Being a Wall Street boss, you see, means never having to say you're sorry, for it's always someone else's fault.
Only 25 years ago, more than a thousand bankers were prosecuted for this sort of malfeasance during the savings & loan scandal. Let's return to the ethical accountability of those days. Or maybe We the People should send our own message to today's banksters by rolling a guillotine down the center of Wall Street."
 
whining about a few crooks to demonize the rich is like blaming the Jews for Bernie Madoff or Clowns for John Wayne Gacy
 
TurtleDude said:
whining about a few crooks to demonize the rich is like blaming the Jews for Bernie Madoff or Clowns for John Wayne Gacy
Click to expand...

It's customary to present an example. One banker among thousands, just as guilty. One Nuke executive among thousands, just as guilty. One Energy executive among thousands, just as guilty. Where's the indictments resulting from Fukushima? How about W. Virginia? How about Duke Energy and the Dan River where the $100,000 fine is a lot less than current disposal methods and you should expect more coal ash spills, because it is the lowest cost method to get rid of the ash. Crooks and Con Men, like the CIA's favorite bank, BCCI.
 
DaveFagan said:
It's customary to present an example. One banker among thousands, just as guilty. One Nuke executive among thousands, just as guilty. One Energy executive among thousands, just as guilty. Where's the indictments resulting from Fukushima? How about W. Virginia? How about Duke Energy and the Dan River where the $100,000 fine is a lot less than current disposal methods and you should expect more coal ash spills, because it is the lowest cost method to get rid of the ash. Crooks and Con Men, like the CIA's favorite bank, BCCI.
Click to expand...

wrong forum

conspiracy section
 
DaveFagan said:
How dare they? Nuke power subsidies. Energy subsidies, Bank subsidies.

Jim Hightower | The Mobsters of Wall Street

JIM HIGHTOWER ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

"Assume that you ran a business that was found guilty of bribery, forgery, perjury, defrauding homeowners, fleecing investors, swindling consumers, cheating credit card holders, violating U.S. trade laws and bilking American soldiers. Can you even imagine the kind of punishment you'd get?
How about zero? Nada. Nothing. Zilch. No jail time. Not even a fine. Plus, you still get to stay on as boss, you get to keep all the loot you gained from the crime spree, and you even get an $8.5 million pay raise!
Of course, you and I would never get such outrageous, absurd, kid-glove pampering by legal authorities. But, then, we're not the capo of JPMorgan Chase, America's biggest bank and a crime syndicate that apparently is too big to jail.
Jamie Dimon is the slick, vainglorious, silver-haired boss of the JPMorgan house of banksters. This CEO has fostered a culture of thievery during his years as a top executive at JPMorgan, leading to a shameful litany of crime. Yet, federal prosecutors have bowed to the politically connected Wall Streeter, refusing to ruffle his feathers with even a single criminal charge.
Meanwhile, one of the scams that Dimon directly supervised produced a $6 billion loss for shareholders in 2012. And his reign of mismanagement and illegalities cost the bank's shareholders another $20 billion in federal fines last year, resulting in a 16 percent drop in profits. You might think the bank's board of directors would at least slap Jamie's wrist for the loss of those billions of dollars, but no — in January, they rewarded him, raising his pay by some 70 percent to a sweet $20 million!
The New York Times noted that, "To ordinary Americans," such a reward for poor performance "may seem curious." Curious? Uh-uh.
Try incomprehensible, insane and immoral. Wall Street's haughty elites continue to demonstrate that they're common mobsters — only not so ethical.
That's the funny thing about Wall Street mobsters (or as I like to call them: Banksters) is that they make a killing by defrauding millions of homeowners, customers, investors and taxpayers — then, when caught, they wonder why we don't love them.
That's "funny" as in "bizarre," not as in "ha-ha."
You would think that after racking up a record level of regulatory fines for the recidivist criminal operation overseen by the boss, a little self-reproachment might have done Dimon some good. But he chose a funny way (again meaning bizarre) to express remorse: He's been running a feel-sorry-for-me campaign, claiming that he's the victim of this sordid story!
Never mind his long rap sheet of malfeasance and incompetence, which cost so many so much, Jamie wails that everything from Wall Street's bailout to the pay of top bank executives have made people envious of bankers' success. Thus, he moans, an anti-Wall Street sentiment has spread through the public, prompting politicians and regulators to pander to this populist anger by persecuting enterprising bankers like him. He called the whole thing "unfair."
Good grief. This guy builds bank profits through rip-offs, piles billions of dollars in fines on the backs of shareholders, pockets $20 million in personal pay for one year's work — and he wants us to weep for him? Being a Wall Street boss, you see, means never having to say you're sorry, for it's always someone else's fault.
Only 25 years ago, more than a thousand bankers were prosecuted for this sort of malfeasance during the savings & loan scandal. Let's return to the ethical accountability of those days. Or maybe We the People should send our own message to today's banksters by rolling a guillotine down the center of Wall Street."
Click to expand...

You are right man, Cuz all those richy rich mutha ****as do that **** man.We should like hang the rich and charge a 75% tax on the rich like France's president tried doing and stuff.Who cares if this is America.
 
DaveFagan said:
It's customary to present an example. One banker among thousands, just as guilty. One Nuke executive among thousands, just as guilty. One Energy executive among thousands, just as guilty. Where's the indictments resulting from Fukushima? How about W. Virginia? How about Duke Energy and the Dan River where the $100,000 fine is a lot less than current disposal methods and you should expect more coal ash spills, because it is the lowest cost method to get rid of the ash. Crooks and Con Men, like the CIA's favorite bank, BCCI.
Click to expand...

And exactly what is accomplished by "going after" and prosecuting these ...one in a thousand ....crooks ??
Do the people really benefit ?
Its my contention that we need more tolerance and forgiveness in our society.
But, since the ""one-in-a-thousand"" do exist, we need regulations, more strict enforced rules.
 
MaggieD said:
Estate tax? Why should there even be a tax on my money when I die? Why?? I've paid tax on every dollar I have* . . . why should those net leftovers be subject to a confiscatory estate tax at all??
Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of the money that is passed on in an estate was never taxed

For example, imagine you're rich. You don't want to stick your millions in a savings acct and earn a measly 1% interest, so you invest in the stock market. You buy $10million worth of stocks and hold on to it. Eventually, the value increases to $20 million and then you die.

Your heir(s) inherit $20 million but $10 million of that money was never taxed because the gain of $10 million was never recognized as income because you never sold the shares.
 
I think the Op should have had larger text and more color
 
sangha said:
Actually, a lot of the money that is passed on in an estate was never taxed

For example, imagine you're rich. You don't want to stick your millions in a savings acct and earn a measly 1% interest, so you invest in the stock market. You buy $10million worth of stocks and hold on to it. Eventually, the value increases to $20 million and then you die.

Your heir(s) inherit $20 million but $10 million of that money was never taxed because the gain of $10 million was never recognized as income because you never sold the shares.
Click to expand...

Uh the proper solution is for them to be taxed on the capital gains based on the basis at which the stocks was bought at versus the sale price

its the sale of property that should trigger taxes

what is idiotic is what happens with lots of old money families-your grandparents own an expensive painting. When your father inherited it-a hefty tax was paid on it. Then you inherit it and another hefty tax is paid it even though the value of the painting might still be the 5 million your grandfather paid for it with already taxed dollars. So 5 million that was after tax dollars is taxed again twice

that is the thing death tax advocates never want to talk about
 
TurtleDude said:
Uh the proper solution is for them to be taxed on the capital gains based on the basis at which the stocks was bought at versus the sale price

its the sale of property that should trigger taxes

what is idiotic is what happens with lots of old money families-your grandparents own an expensive painting. When your father inherited it-a hefty tax was paid on it. Then you inherit it and another hefty tax is paid it even though the value of the painting might still be the 5 million your grandfather paid for it with already taxed dollars. So 5 million that was after tax dollars is taxed again twice

that is the thing death tax advocates never want to talk about
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the transfer of ownership that should trigger the tax assessment

But I agree that taxes should only be assessed on the gain and not the total value of the asset
 
sangha said:
Actually, a lot of the money that is passed on in an estate was never taxed

For example, imagine you're rich. You don't want to stick your millions in a savings acct and earn a measly 1% interest, so you invest in the stock market. You buy $10million worth of stocks and hold on to it. Eventually, the value increases to $20 million and then you die.

Your heir(s) inherit $20 million but $10 million of that money was never taxed because the gain of $10 million was never recognized as income because you never sold the shares.
Click to expand...

Then change THAT. I'm not even sure that's true, actually. If it is? Then the deceased final tax return should address that, no? Wouldn't that be more fair than what can amount to a confiscatory estate tax?

The reason I'm not sure if it's true is that I handled the estate of a millionaire about three years ago. She had countless annuities. Those annuities were taxed on her final return. Stocks may well be different. But if they are, I would say THAT tax law should be changed. It would be more fair and easier to defend.
 
sangha said:
Actually, a lot of the money that is passed on in an estate was never taxed

For example, imagine you're rich. You don't want to stick your millions in a savings acct and earn a measly 1% interest, so you invest in the stock market. You buy $10million worth of stocks and hold on to it. Eventually, the value increases to $20 million and then you die.

Your heir(s) inherit $20 million but $10 million of that money was never taxed because the gain of $10 million was never recognized as income because you never sold the shares.
Click to expand...

Your 10 million buck investment in the stock market is one of the things that makes capitalism work. Incentives to invest are a good thing all in all.
 
MaggieD said:
Then change THAT. I'm not even sure that's true, actually. If it is? Then the deceased final tax return should address that, no? Wouldn't that be more fair than what can amount to a confiscatory estate tax?
Click to expand...

I agree. I was just addressing your claim that all of that money had already been taxed. It's a common misconception people make because all of the money *they* have has been taxed. However, the rich have ways of deferring the taxation of a lot of their income.

The reason I'm not sure if it's true is that I handled the estate of a millionaire about three years ago. She had countless annuities. Those annuities were taxed on her final return. Stocks may well be different. But if they are, I would say THAT tax law should be changed. It would be more fair and easier to defend.
Click to expand...

Annuities aren't income AFAIK. If I buy an annuity with my money (which presumably, has already been taxed), the money I receive from the annuity is just a distribution of my already taxed money.

ANd yes, the stock holdings (and other capital assets) should be examined to determine what portion of them have already been taxed.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Your 10 million buck investment in the stock market is one of the things that makes capitalism work. Incentives to invest are a good thing all in all.
Click to expand...

So is the labor of people who work for a living, but that doesn't make labor exempt from taxation
 
earthworm said:
And exactly what is accomplished by "going after" and prosecuting these ...one in a thousand ....crooks ??
Do the people really benefit ?
Its my contention that we need more tolerance and forgiveness in our society.
But, since the ""one-in-a-thousand"" do exist, we need regulations, more strict enforced rules.
Click to expand...

Well, the USA has more citizens in jail, per capita, than any other Nation. Replace those marijuana smokers in jail with bankers and society will benefit greatly. Sow some fear of prosecution in the banking community and perhaps the business community and the situation might resolve itself. Don't ignore the Military/Industrial/Corporate siphon hoses to the taxpayer wallets. They'd look good in stripes, orange jump suits, pink underwear and buttcovers with three stars so everybody will know how important they are.
 
sangha said:
So is the labor of people who work for a living, but that doesn't make labor exempt from taxation
Click to expand...

Your incentive to work is for a paycheck, Your incentive to invest and risk losing your money is tax benefits. The tax "dodge" is one of the things that makes the risk more palatable.
 
sangha said:
Annuities aren't income AFAIK. If I buy an annuity with my money (which presumably, has already been taxed), the money I receive from the annuity is just a distribution of my already taxed money.

ANd yes, the stock holdings (and other capital assets) should be examined to determine what portion of them have already been taxed.
Click to expand...

No. Generally, after-tax money purchases the annuity. The income earned from that annuity is tax-deferred. That can, believe me, be a sizeable chunk of change. As an example, this woman purchased an annuity 30-some years ago (that and many others, by the way). When she died, the annuity cashed out at over $120,000...$100,000 was taxed on her final tax return.
 
sangha said:
So is the labor of people who work for a living, but that doesn't make labor exempt from taxation
Click to expand...

The first peace-time income tax in the United States was a flat 2% on incomes over $4,000. Fewer than 10% paid any tax at all. That $4,000, inflation adjusted from 1913, would be $108,000 today.

Let's go back to the good old days!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom