The Rich Get Richer

Wealth is not really a simple thing that can be objectively evaluated in isolation.

For example, Mike Tyson was a millionaire there for a short stretch until he lost it like the fool that he was and still is.

Did you envy him or his money? I sure as hell did not.

Personally, I believe that to be really wealthy, you must have built your fortune by improving society like say, Google or Apple has and not so much as some one like Al Capone or Mike Tyson did.

. . . From my perspective, how you earn your wealth is as important if not more so than how much wealth you have accumulated, robbed or stolen.

Why don't some of you admit it: You are jealous of Mitt's wealth. Originally Posted by Cobain

Hey, you both have car elevators. Life is good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8LjWDMRUbs

That is where you are wrong. They build roads for commerce and armies to protect you, they maintain courts to protect property rights, there are so many things that you do not acknowledge that you should have to burn your Atlas Shrugged and take an 8th grade Civics refresher course.... Originally Posted by WTF

Y'know, the government did THOSE things for DECADES, and spent a LOT LESS than it spends today doing those things AND A WHOLE SH*TLOAD OF *OTHER* THINGS that are arguably nowhere near as important.

Start by reading the preamble to the Constitution. You will find "provide for the common defense". That's your armies. (Note that the Founding Fathers very strongly distrusted standing armies, and went out of their way to discourage them, and make it DIFFICULT for the government to keep them standing.)

You will find "ensure domestic tranquility". That's your courts and police.

Now, show me where the preamble talks about bunny inspectors. (They're real.)

That is where you are wrong. They build roads for commerce and armies to protect you, they maintain courts to protect property rights, there are so many things that you do not acknowledge that you should have to burn your Atlas Shrugged and take an 8th grade Civics refresher course.... Originally Posted by WTF

Oh, and the Interstate Highway system was NOT built for "commerce". It was a system of MILITARY roads, so that the Defense Department could move things around the country QUICKLY and EASILY when and if they needed to do so. Long before he was elected to the Presidency, long before the Interstate Highways were built, Ike commanded a convoy, hauling a bunch of stuff across the country. The roads at the time made it a VERY difficult job. Ike remembered that experience, and, when he got a chance, he FIXED that problem.

Why don't some of you admit it: You are jealous of Mitt's wealth. Originally Posted by Cobain

There are fewer in here who are jealous of his wealth than there are those in here who think they'll someday be as wealthy as him.....as soon as we liberals get out of the way.

Bet you're one of 'em.

There are fewer in here who are jealous of his wealth than there are those in here who think they'll someday be as wealthy as him.....as soon as we liberals get out of the way.

Bet you're one of 'em. Originally Posted by Doove

We could have more rich people if we had fewer liberals. That would be a good thing. Poverty isn't caused by having too many rich people. It's not a zero sum game. That's just something the Dimo's tell their moron constituents.

• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
• You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
• And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

William Boetcker

Where in the world did you get a foolish notion that wealth is inversely related to the number of liberals?

You might as well try to relate wealth to sea shells and get as scientific a correlation.

Further, no one is trying to discourage thrift, by pointing out that the rich somehow manage to pay only 13% income tax while many honest people making much less pay a much higher percentage of their income.

Finding loopholes to lower your taxes is not thrift, it is dishonesty.

Neither is anyone advocating tearing down the rich, just point out that they must pay their fair share of taxes.

. . . If the rich happen to be running for high office, then they should expect to be scrutinized even closer. Plain and simple.

We could have more rich people if we had fewer liberals. That would be a good thing. Poverty isn't caused by having too many rich people. It's not a zero sum game. That's just something the Dimo's tell their moron constituents.

• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
• You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
• And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

William Boetcker Originally Posted by joe bloe

Where in the world did you get a foolish notion that wealth is inversely related to the number of liberals?

You might as well try to relate wealth to sea shells and get as scientific a correlation.

Further, no one is trying to discourage thrift, by pointing out that the rich somehow manage to pay only 13% income tax while many honest people making much less pay a much higher percentage of their income.

Finding loopholes to lower your taxes is not thrift, it is dishonesty.

Neither is anyone advocating tearing down the rich, just point out that they must pay their fair share of taxes.

. . . If the rich happen to be running for high office, then they should expect to be scrutinized even closer. Plain and simple. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Yes there would be more rich people if we had fewer liberals. Liberals vote to support the social welfare state. The social welfare state is funded by the redistribution of wealth, from the productive to the non-productive. The money that is redistributed is obtained with a confiscatory progressive income tax. The progressive income tax causes the country to have fewer rich people because it penalizes people for working harder and rewards people for working less or not at all.

A flat income tax, or a national sales tax replacing the income tax, would stimulate the economy and allow more people to get rich. This type of tax system is being blocked by liberals because of their desire to punish rich people, who they view as evil. In the warped view of liberals, it's better that we should all be poor, rather than having some people rich and some people poor.

Barack Obama told Charlie Gibson of ABC News, that he would support increasing the capital gains tax, even if it didn't increase revenue, "for purposes of fairness." He is saying that, if by increasing the capital gains tax, we did nothing but make rich people less rich, without increasing tax revenue to the government, that it would be desirable, simply because it made the rich people less rich; that's pure class warfare.

Here's Obama telling Charlie Gibson, that he wants to raise the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. Obama makes the comment at 1:00 in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8

Yeah, that Obama quote about capital gains is stupider than most Biden and Palin quotes combined.

Yeah, that Obama quote about capital gains is stupider than most Biden and Palin quotes combined. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Rudy Giuliani said that when he heard it, his jaw dropped. I don't think you can overstate the significance of the comment. He's actually admitting that equalizing wealth, even if no other benefit is achieved, is desirable.

Supposedly, if you put crabs in a bucket, and one of the crabs tries to crawl out, the other crabs will pull it back in. That's the mentality that underlies class envy. If I can't be successful, I don't want anyone else to be either. Misery loves company. Gore Vidal once said that it's not just important to succeed, it's also important that your friends fail.

Barack Obama told Charlie Gibson of ABC News, that he would support increasing the capital gains tax, even if it didn't increase revenue, "for purposes of fairness." He is saying that, if by increasing the capital gains tax, we did nothing but make rich people less rich, without increasing tax revenue to the government, that it would be desirable, simply because it made the rich people less rich; that's pure class warfare.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8 Originally Posted by joe bloe

Just because you have no understanding on the destruction of income inequity does not mean that folks that do not get force fed their news from Fox do not. I really do not care to here your take on the below view.

I would like to hear from someone like CaptainMidnight who actually knows wtf he is talking about and is not just a parrot.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/bo...pagewanted=all


Stiglitz succinctly summarized his own argument in a recent online column: “Inequality leads to lower growth and less efficiency. Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset — its people — is not being fully used. Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education and technology, impeding the engines of growth. . . . Most importantly, America’s inequality is undermining its values and identity. With inequality reaching such extremes, it is not surprising that its effects are manifest in every public decision, from the conduct of monetary policy to budgetary allocations. America has become a country not ‘with justice for all,’ but rather with favoritism for the rich and justice for those who can afford it — so evident in the foreclosure crisis, in which the big banks believed that they were too big not only to fail, but also to be held accountable.”

Although there are plenty of reasons to criticize Romney and to feel that he's not going to suitably address the most critical issues if he's elected president, his personal effective tax rate is not one of them.

Further, no one is trying to discourage thrift, by pointing out that the rich somehow manage to pay only 13% income tax while many honest people making much less pay a much higher percentage of their income.


Finding loopholes to lower your taxes is not thrift, it is dishonesty. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Bullshit!

We went through all this earlier. What part of our previous discussion of the different categories of "income" do you still not understand?

I asked this before: Can you point to anyone, of any political persuasion, who instructed his CPAs and tax counsel that he wanted to ignore the tax code and pay the full 35% rate on everything, even if it obviously qualifies for lower rates of taxation -- because failing to so would be "unpatriotic?"

And look again at the case of Obama supporter Warren Buffett, who famously calls for higher taxation on the wealthy, but as I described earlier just so happens to utilize a particular type of shelter that would shield his wealth accumulation from any significant degree of additional taxation even if rates were raised substantially.

If you don't like the tax code, reserve your criticism for those who write the laws, not those of us who invest in businesses, equities, and commercial real estate properties.

It's asinine and insulting to call anyone who simply complies with the law as it was written "dishonest."

I am not concerned about becoming more wealthy, I would have to be wealthy to worry about that.
I am more concerned about the government intruding into my personal life and the resultant cost of doing so. The larger the government grows them ore food it needs to survive and the only food the government eats is money. If the liberals cannot do the math and see that facts of the cost of what our government has become VS the amount of potential tax dollars available, then they are truly idiots. For our government to take on more burden of responsibility for the individual without slashing government across the board in all other areas is lunacy. Oh but we have seen it done to an extent with Obama stealing money for Medicare, not to fund Obmacare, but to make it look less costly than it really is.

You idiots are pissing and moaning over a candidate that has done a great job as an individual within the rules of the system and support a candidate like Obama who has thwarted the system all along the way to get what he wants. If you cant see the damage that Obama is doing to our way of life an our government you are in fact idiots. I do not think that Romney is the best answer for this nation but compared to Obama and what he is doing and has done ANYONE would be better.

It's asinine and insulting to call anyone who simply complies with the law as it was written "dishonest."
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That is correct but the discussion I would like to have and I suspect Team Obama also is why the hell is that rate taxed so low?

Team Obama want to the average Joe Blow to understand that we have this huge income disparity and want to make that an election issue.

What is not asinine is to call attention tpo special interests tax breaks and how these come about.

I think Stiglitz nails it.

Just because you have no understanding on the destruction of income inequity does not mean that folks that do not get force fed their news from Fox do not. I really do not care to here your take on the below view. [/I][/B] Originally Posted by WTF

Here's a problem. The tax code should be a method of raising the necessary funds to run a limited government. You want to use the tax code (as do many others) as a means of social engineering, and as a way to "get back" at those more successful than you. You also think it is a way to redistribute wealth.

That is not what a tax code is for, which is why we must eliminate the income tax. Because that is all it is. It fosters class warfare, and crony capitalism.

You want a more fair distribution of wealth? Get government out of the system so they can't issue perks and privileges to their cronies at the expense of their cronies competitors. The free market is the best distributor of wealth ever invented. It's not perfect, but it is a damn sight better than what we have now, and more control will only concentrate more wealth in the hands of the 1%. Why? Because this is their game. They make the rules. If the people are allowed to make the rules, as in free market choices, then the game changes.