Question for people that hate the excessively rich...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

And I thought I made pretty fucking clear that I don't give a shit who has money and who doesn't.

Actually, you've claimed that several times. That doesn't mean I believe you.

You're walking like a duck, you're talking like a duck, seems pretty silly to bitch if someone covers you in duck sauce.

[Autumn]

Right, so a person can't have an interest in how the economic system in his country works without being envious of the rich, got it. And I suppose the only reason you have your opinions is because you idolize the rich and want to kiss their ass. Glad we solved this thread. Next!

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, you've claimed that several times. That doesn't mean I believe you.

You're walking like a duck, you're talking like a duck, seems pretty silly to bitch if someone covers you in duck sauce.

Or rather I should say, when you're really excited about going duck hunting it's not surprising if you call that heron you flushed a duck.

I'm sure we can find you some ducks, if you really want.

[Galaxy]

So Autumn,

What DO you want?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Or rather I should say, when you're really excited about going duck hunting it's not surprising if you call that heron you flushed a duck.

I'm sure we can find you some ducks, if you really want.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So Autumn,

What DO you want?

*sigh*. I don't want anything. I believe I started in here by contesting Molson's claims about the nature of wealth that I thought were too simplistic. So I guess what i want is for discussion that recognizes nature of reality, but as was said before, this isn't the place for that. People come in here with their opinions and they want to leave with their opinions reinforced. I actually enjoy having my assumptions challenged, and there's a lot of people around here with a lot of knowledge and thought capable of doing that.

[Autumn]

See! That was easy.

[Autumn]

Actually, JIMGA, I'm surprised that you don't agree with me. My understanding is that you have an interest in authoritarianism. With the incredible economic growth our country has gone through since the '50s, the amount of new wealth and new wealthy that have been generated, don't you think it's inevitable that those who have produced and gathered this wealth have used their financial, and subsequently political, power to change the system in their favor? Isn't that pretty much how human nature, the nature of government and power works. That's basically my point, that it would be naive to think that the ultra rich are not benefiting greatly from a system that has had 60+ years to be gamed in their favor.

This isn't right or wrong, just facts. Or rather a supposition, but I would have to rethink my views on human nature if it turned out to be false.

[SportsDino]

I'd say the gaming has gotten to point of being blatantly obvious.

I think Autumn's position may not be too different from mine (in theory). We both agree the economy is complex (I promote free market but I'll be the first to say it is not as simple as let loose the dogs of fortune!). We both agree a lot of corruption is occurring.

Where we might start to diverge is that I know regulation does not create wealth, it can merely prevent uncompetitive abuses. The accumulation of wealth itself is not an abuse, the problem is most of the regulations that get thrown around are exactly that. Which is why the more conservative element gets (rightly IMHO) pissed off. We should not make it a crime to become a billionaire, but we should not let crime be the surest/quickest/easiest path to becoming a billionaire.

Where I start to diverge with everyone else is that it seems there is an opinion that you cannot stop such crime. I call bullshit on that, if we stopped with all the favoritism and actually implemented less babysitting and more simpler but stronger regulation we could make a good deal of progress rooting out the Madoffs, the Kenneth Lays, Stanfords, etc... They rely on and prey upon the 'dual books' thinking prevalent in our society, and the general apathy towards fighting white collar crime.

I do not think a regulatory vacuum succeeds either, we are seeing the result of that right now. The big boys have a vacuum, everyone else has a giant nightmare, works great for the established interests but slows economic growth.

-----

On the subject of which tax, I'd prefer the 0.25% income tax over a 5% sales with all else stable. I don't believe that tax rate should apply only to 1 or 2 people, so yes it would be on the 'higher brackets' which is considerably less than a billion dollars (I would qualify). On the subject of fairness, I would similarly approve a 0.25% across the board hike to all tax brackets including the poor over a 5% sales tax. Even though that would be proportionately higher to the lower classes than the upper class (going from 15 to 15.25 is a bigger jump than 35 to 35.25 in terms of percentage), it is not on the same magnitude as the 5% sales tax.

I believe the sales tax is more damaging to economic growth than the income tax. It also does a lot more damage to the lower classes which are usually less capable of adapting.

I personally am not a big fan of estate or gift taxes. I think if the money has already been taxed as income it should not be taxed again. At the same time I'm interested in the loopholes related to all that junk to be ripped out of the code, if you make money and you transfer it somewhere else it shouldn't matter, you made the money, and even if you hid it off the radar somehow you should pay for it. I'm for a simpler tax code, but not necessarilly a simpler tax rate (e.g. the flat taxers). Instead of loopholes, I'd much rather we just cut the rates to begin with, not encourage/punish specific types of consumption (for instance houses versus alcohol)... overall I think that would also shift more tax burden onto the rich, but clean up the path for people building up to that level in the first place (bigger base = more revenue and ironically in government, less spending!!! since the well off decrease the drain on public goods).

If I had to choose, I would kill the loopholes first before I started removing the wealth taxes. This is economic surgery I'm proposing, gotta triage the patients in the order that least damages the machine.

Now I'm sure this post will cause a lot of uproar with people spouting off historical precedents and nonsensical logic such as 'there has always been a housing exception in the tax code, you cannot remove it!', never mind if my intent is to cut your taxes by more than the amount you pay in taxes for your mortgage anyway, people don't think in numbers or equations they think in silly taglines. I welcome the battle, but ask that we have a little less group mob think on differing opinions. Both sides (and probably myself too) seem to resort to a blanket simple statement that they know does not accurately describe reality. I don't think anyone is spouting off the 'I envy the rich' position so its really just noise to keep bringing it up. We need more spouting of 'I hate the rich!'. To encourage that end maybe I should think up more upper middle class examples of why you should hate the rich (if you were upper middle class and lost your job recently because of the ripples from the banks margin call of 08, congratulations, you may or at least should hate the rich!).

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I find it amazing that people in this country actually think wealth is some finite amount and too much of it is being hoarded.

This is America. In this country, if you work hard and make smart choices you will be wealthy. Sure you may have to make sacrifices, your choices may be between the lesser of two evils but everyone here is given the same opportunity to make something of their lives. No one is born into bondage in this country anymore. If you want to run a huge Fortune 100 company, you can...if you have the courage to work for it.

It disappoints and saddens me that people would rather take from those who do have the courage under some misguided sense of "fairness" and "protection those from being exploited", rather than encourage people to work hard and make smart choices.

I guess it's just easier to take.

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I have to agree with Farrah here on this.

There is no one holding anyone back from attaining the 'wealth' that you want other than yourself. Sure, being born into a well to do family helps, but, if you're an idiot and blow all of the money, what good does that do? One of my dads best friends started out as the janitor for a company over 30 years ago...he retired as the president of the company and now is very very well off. Yeah, it took a few years, but, he earned it. It can be done, but, it isn't something that's going to happen over night.

I think there is too much of a 'I want it now' attitude or 'how come they get to but I don't?' whining in this country. "Everybody" wants to be rich, but, not "everybody" wants to put the blood, sweat and tears to get it and they just want it handed to them instead. Nope, instead, they want to penalize the people who are rich (in the monetary sense) because of really, no more of an argument than, "It's not fair." The whaambulance is on its way to pick you up.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

OK, I had to stop reading here and post. This is utter bullshit. Those born into poverty have a VERY LOW CHANCE of becoming wealthy. It is not easy, and it does not merely require work. The situation they are born into, and factors beyond their control, keep them poor, uneducated, and largely destined for poverty. If they're lucky they can maybe move into the lower middle class, and on rare occasion bring themselves into wealth. But to claim that "all it takes is hard work" is bullshit. It takes a lot more than that.

[flere-imsaho]

I find the contention that anyone who wants to, and works hard enough, can end up running a Fortune 100 company a little hard to believe, to be honest, given that there are clearly a number of other factors besides hard work that put someone in a position to be CEO of a Fortune 100 company.

[SportsDino]

The bad news is a person can do hard work and still not make it because of a variety of barriers. We should target those barriers. Redistribution is a cop out that does not solve the problem long term.

But I don't think we can molly coddle everyone on the low end either, I've seen a lot of people in the lower brackets that have had the options to pull themselves up but deny it out of laziness. Those people you can't make wealthy, unless you give the money to them, and that is where you get the lotto winner loser stories from. People that can't find a way to live on a 50 million or more jackpot because they are simply too intellectually weak. That is why redistribution fails, you can give a man a fish, but if you don't teach him anything at all he'll be back to starving tomorrow.

For people that can't work hard, I do think we need a social support system. It is the ethical and efficient thing to do (the 'I wish I had someone looking out for me if I get crippled somehow' factor). But a social support system by itself is not an economy, it is a house of cards waiting to fail.

[Autumn]

It's certainly possible to do, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. But as others have pointed out, social mobility is actually higher in many other countries in Europe. The tale of the hard working rugged individual is part of what we identify with as American, but it actually happens a lot less than we imagine. It's great that it's possible here, but we should be working on how to make it more possible, not just patting ourselves on the back.

[SportsDino]

Dola, not everyone can run a massive company, there is competition at play here. 100 companies and 6 billion people means about 5.9 billion + who didn't achieve that goal.

But if all of them are trying for that goal, I bet we have a slightly higher fraction of people beyond the poverty line, than if they wait around for someone to take care of them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

This is utter bullshit. Those born into poverty have a VERY LOW CHANCE of becoming wealthy.

Everybody has a pretty low chance of becoming wealthy, unless you're already wealthy to start with.

But if you're brilliant, and talented, and work hard, you can get a free ride to college in this country. If you're brilliant, and talented there, you can make a living.

It's obviously easier for the upper-middle class to get through that than the very poor - but so what, what's the alternative to that? Eliminate the right of inheritence? Unless you're advocating that we eliminate inheritence rights, those kinds of complaints are just sour grapes.

And obviously, it takes more than hard work, though that's probably the most important thing. You all need talent and aptitude. If you don't have those things, you're don't contribute as much, and you don't succeed. Not to say we shouldn't care of those people too, but I don't think the system is wrong because they don't become CEOs.

[Autumn]

Someone posted a thread in here a while ago, I think, about the class on Justice at Harvard being available on the Web. I liked one of the things the professor does there, he has all the first-born kids in class raise their hands. He says in his Harvard classes it's always almost 80% of the class with their hands up. It's just an exercise to show that while we always feel like we make our fate, there are lots of factors we don't consider.

And no, Molson, I'm not suggesting we create a birth order quota system for Harvard ;-)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

Everybody has a pretty low chance of becoming wealthy, unless you're already wealthy to start with.

But if you're brilliant, and talented, and work hard, you can get a free ride to college in this country. If you're brilliant, and talented there, you can make a living.

It's obviously easier for the upper-middle class to get through that than the very poor - but so what, what's the alternative to that? Eliminate the right of inheritence? Unless you're advocating that we eliminate inheritence rights, those kinds of complaints are just sour grapes.

And obviously, it takes more than hard work, though that's probably the most important thing. You all need talent and aptitude. If you don't have those things, you're don't contribute as much, and you don't succeed. Not to say we shouldn't care of those people too, but I don't think the system is wrong because they don't become CEOs.

Hey, whoah.. I'm not on the rich hater side here. I was just railing at Farrah and Jedi for saying that all it takes is a little hard work and some sacrifices to become wealthy.

[Kodos]

I dislike the modestly rich.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Hey, whoah.. I'm not on the rich hater side here. I was just railing at Farrah and Jedi for saying that all it takes is a little hard work and some sacrifices to become wealthy.

I sure don't have any grand hopes that hard work will result in a million dollar salary. I could work 24/7/365 and not get anywhere near $1M in the near future. What I do know is that my hard work in the last few years has improved my overall financial situation and it is all me and the wife's hard work that paid off. All together I probably work 80+ hours a week at essentially 2 jobs. I could work 40-45 hours and live comfortable, but for me to generate any wealth, I have to work at it.

On the flip side, I have 2 people I know that have sub 20K salaries that, in my eyes, each have opportunities to increase their overall wealth.

1. Person I know cleans apartments. As a result, many times they are cleaning homes of people that have been evicted or just left and they leaving stuff behind such as furniture. We have suggested to her that she rent a storage unit, haul the items away and just sell them on craigslist or have a garage sale. All she would have to do is put a little effort at cleaning some of the stuff up and selling it.

2. Someone I know is out of work, they are good at doing customization work of certain items that sell for a pretty penny on Ebay. I've shown him samples compared to what he has done, showed him backing data and I've offered to help out since the earnings potentially is around 50K+ a year, but it has been a lukewarm result. (He gets gung ho for a week and then it fizzles)

In each of these cases, a definite lack of hard work is driving their current situations

[lordscarlet]

I guess I'm wrong then. All it takes is a little hard work to be wealthy. Sorry.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I guess I'm wrong then. All it takes is a little hard work to be wealthy. Sorry.

Did you read what I wrote or just jump straight to the sarcasm? You need to define what you think is wealthy.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Did you read what I wrote or just jump straight to the sarcasm? You need to define what you think is wealthy.

I just came in here to delete the post but you had already replied.

The whole logic just pisses me off. Not from you, but from the others. The whole thread, really.

Are there people that coudl be in better situations if they worked harder? Certainly. Can everyone be wealthy if they work hard? Absolutely not. This is logic, IMO, used by people that have no interest in helping society. They want to horde all of their money for themselves and use the logic that anyone can make anything of themselves if they just try. The reality is they can't. There are individuals in situations they can't control that prevent them from succeeding.

As for "wealthy," I am not the one that threw the word out there in the first place. However, wealthy to me means that someone lives beyond a "comfortable" level and is able to build up sufficient savings for retirment/large purchases/etc.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Are there people that coudl be in better situations if they worked harder? Certainly. Can everyone be wealthy if they work hard? Absolutely not. This is logic, IMO, used by people that have no interest in helping society. They want to horde all of their money for themselves and use the logic that anyone can make anything of themselves if they just try. The reality is they can't. There are individuals in situations they can't control that prevent them from succeeding.

Since you're calling bullshit....I'm going to ask you to back it up. Could you kindly give me an example of a situation a person can't control which prevents them from succeeding? Because the only one I can think of involves genetic diseases that leave people physically and/or mentally disabled.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Can everyone be wealthy if they work hard? Absolutely not.

Total strawman argument. Everyone can't be wealthy, duh. Wealthy implies "more". You can't have a more without a "less". If everyone works hard, we still have poverty. There has to be poor. Nobody's guaranteed to be a CEO of a company if they work hard, and I'd love to hear the economic model that can guarantee such a thing.

So are you wealthy? Do you hoard money beyond your basic needs? It seems like most people define "wealthy" as something somewhat beyond themselves. You know, so they don't feel guilty. I still think everyone here is obscenely wealthy. But there's always someone with more.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Since you're calling bullshit....I'm going to ask you to back it up. Could you kindly give me an example of a situation a person can't control which prevents them from succeeding? Because the only one I can think of involves genetic diseases that leave people physically and/or mentally disabled.

I don't know what to tell you if you don't believe that being born into poverty makes it significantly harder for you to succeed. The education you receive is likely to be worse. The homelife you are brought up in is less likely to foster a healthy mind and body. It's just harder. I'm sorry that I'm not versed in the subject to give you specific examples, but it takes more than a little hard work. Sometimes it's luck. Sometimes it's someone in better circumstances pulling you up. Sometimes your genes can manage to pull you through the muck and make you a success. However, someone with a moderate IQ getting a poor education can't become "wealthy" on hard work alone IMO.

[Galaxy]

Being born into poverty is a whole other argument (parents shouldn't be having kids they can't afford). How is the fault of those who make smarter decisions?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I

On the subject of which tax, I'd prefer the 0.25% income tax over a 5% sales with all else stable. I don't believe that tax rate should apply only to 1 or 2 people, so yes it would be on the 'higher brackets' which is considerably less than a billion dollars (I would qualify). On the subject of fairness, I would similarly approve a 0.25% across the board hike to all tax brackets including the poor over a 5% sales tax. Even though that would be proportionately higher to the lower classes than the upper class (going from 15 to 15.25 is a bigger jump than 35 to 35.25 in terms of percentage), it is not on the same magnitude as the 5% sales tax.

I believe the sales tax is more damaging to economic growth than the income tax. It also does a lot more damage to the lower classes which are usually less capable of adapting.

I personally am not a big fan of estate or gift taxes. I think if the money has already been taxed as income it should not be taxed again. At the same time I'm interested in the loopholes related to all that junk to be ripped out of the code, if you make money and you transfer it somewhere else it shouldn't matter, you made the money, and even if you hid it off the radar somehow you should pay for it. I'm for a simpler tax code, but not necessarilly a simpler tax rate (e.g. the flat taxers). Instead of loopholes, I'd much rather we just cut the rates to begin with, not encourage/punish specific types of consumption (for instance houses versus alcohol)... overall I think that would also shift more tax burden onto the rich, but clean up the path for people building up to that level in the first place (bigger base = more revenue and ironically in government, less spending!!! since the well off decrease the drain on public goods).

If I had to choose, I would kill the loopholes first before I started removing the wealth taxes. This is economic surgery I'm proposing, gotta triage the patients in the order that least damages the machine.

Now I'm sure this post will cause a lot of uproar with people spouting off historical precedents and nonsensical logic such as 'there has always been a housing exception in the tax code, you cannot remove it!', never mind if my intent is to cut your taxes by more than the amount you pay in taxes for your mortgage anyway, people don't think in numbers or equations they think in silly taglines. I welcome the battle, but ask that we have a little less group mob think on differing opinions. Both sides (and probably myself too) seem to resort to a blanket simple statement that they know does not accurately describe reality. I don't think anyone is spouting off the 'I envy the rich' position so its really just noise to keep bringing it up. We need more spouting of 'I hate the rich!'. To encourage that end maybe I should think up more upper middle class examples of why you should hate the rich (if you were upper middle class and lost your job recently because of the ripples from the banks margin call of 08, congratulations, you may or at least should hate the rich!).

While I don't agree with you on the sales vs. income tax, I do appreciate your views. As for moving more of the burden to the rich, how much more do they need? If you look at the stats from the IRS, I think they have enough of the burden. That's just me.

I would love to see the gift and estate taxes done away with.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

While I don't agree with you on the sales vs. income tax, I do appreciate your views. As for moving more of the burden to the rich, how much more do they need? If you look at the stats from the IRS, I think they have enough of the burden. That's just me.

I would love to see the gift and estate taxes done away with.

The wealthy are paying an historically low percentage of their income in federal taxes.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I don't know what to tell you if you don't believe that being born into poverty makes it significantly harder for you to succeed. The education you receive is likely to be worse. The homelife you are brought up in is less likely to foster a healthy mind and body. It's just harder. I'm sorry that I'm not versed in the subject to give you specific examples, but it takes more than a little hard work. Sometimes it's luck. Sometimes it's someone in better circumstances pulling you up. Sometimes your genes can manage to pull you through the muck and make you a success.

I never said it was easy. I said it was possible.

Someone born into extreme poverty has more obstacles to overcome, yes. They have to claw their way up through the consequences of their parents choices. They're going to have to work harder than most, make tougher choices and sacrifice more. Absolutely. But if they do that, they will absolutely be successful.

I mean, look at the president. That's big news today, yes? Born to a single mom, on welfare and food stamps...and now he's president. I vehemently disagree with just about everything the man does and believes. But I do not doubt he worked his ass off to get where he is.

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

However, someone with a moderate IQ getting a poor education can't become "wealthy" on hard work alone IMO.

Have you watched any reality television lately?

Seriously though...I will agree genetic factors such as IQ or leaning ability will inhibit success. However, I think using "poor education" as an excuse for not succeeding is a cop out.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

Total strawman argument. Everyone can't be wealthy, duh. Wealthy implies "more". You can't have a more without a "less". If everyone works hard, we still have poverty. There has to be poor. Nobody's guaranteed to be a CEO of a company if they work hard, and I'd love to hear the economic model that can guarantee such a thing.

So are you wealthy? Do you hoard money beyond your basic needs? It seems like most people define "wealthy" as something somewhat beyond themselves. You know, so they don't feel guilty. I still think everyone here is obscenely wealthy. But there's always someone with more.

Again, I'm not the one that started using the term "wealthy."

Am I wealthy? Borderline at least I suppose. Nowhere near rich, though. I max out my 401k. My wife maxes out her 401k. We maxed out our Roth IRAs before that until our income became too high to allow it. We have facilitated getting there by living well within our means. If either of us lost our jobs we could still pay our mortgage without stress. I haven't had a car payment for 5 years and she hasn't ever (still drives the car her parents bought her in high school -- that, her education, and our wedding are the only major money her parents have given her, fwiw). We have over a year's worth of expenses in savings. We give about 1.5% (a very small amount, if you ask me) to charity every year.

My wife and I both grew up in lower middle class to middle class families. We went to some of the best public schools in the country. We went to fantastic public universities. I have not worked as hard as I could have to get where I am, but circumstances have worked out. Is there anything else you would like to know?

I'm not sure where people think I lie in this argument, but for the ones that I can think of that are going on here:

I don't believe in estate taxes
I do believe in social programs to at least some extent
I do believe in gradated (still not sure if that's the right word) taxes
I do claim all exemptions I am aware of on my taxes
I am happy to pay more taxes as I earn more money
I believe some people are unable to become "Wealthy" based on the starting point of their lives - the best they can do is move up a notch or two and hope their children have better lives

And, just for the record, I'm not trying to be snarky or rude or anything with this post (perhaps it doesn't come off that way at all, but just in case). I just like to make sure people know where I am coming from and I spend a lot of time rambling in an attempt to make sure I fully get out what I'm trying to say.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

OK, I had to stop reading here and post. This is utter bullshit. Those born into poverty have a VERY LOW CHANCE of becoming wealthy. It is not easy, and it does not merely require work. The situation they are born into, and factors beyond their control, keep them poor, uneducated, and largely destined for poverty. If they're lucky they can maybe move into the lower middle class, and on rare occasion bring themselves into wealth. But to claim that "all it takes is hard work" is bullshit. It takes a lot more than that.

I think you underestimate their chances. I think the general problem is, the poor come from poor families, continue to be poor because that's all they know. This isn't Victorian England (not sure if that's the right time period, but work with me here) where if you are born into poverty, the only thing to look forward to no matter how hard you work, is getting cut up by Jack the Ripper or being some scurvy ridden sailor.

If you are able bodied and of able mind and you have any kind of desire to succeed, eventually you will.

[SportsDino]

Well my position is that policy (cutting loopholes, and an across the board small hike) will certainly increase the tax burden on the rich. If they have 90% of the trillion dollar pie, than an across the board hike means they pay 90% of the hike in terms of counting dollars, but percentage wise everyone is equally screwed (arguably the poor are more screwed since the relative jump is higher).

My concern is that the hike should be to reach a budget goal, and should not be overly colored by class warfare. If we need 2.5 billion to balance what we need, I'd rather the entire trillion dollar pie pay 0.25% rather than tax just the bottom 10% of the pie at 2.5%, or tax consumption which is a different pie altogether where the ratios are all flipped (of consumption I'm sure the bottom 90% of population pays more than the 10% of the wealth pie they own, if we know that number we can backcalculate the consumption tax required and then calculate the equivalent income tax rate effect being applied across the brackets. What you would see if that the lower brackets are contributing a multi point jump, and the top brackets would have a jump far less than 0.25 points. I consider this bad for a consumption driven economy, granted I think consumption driven economies are bad too!)

If the ultimate end game is a lower tax burden on the rich, I think they actually get there faster by not shifting the tax burden to the lower and middle brackets right now. The short term and long term optimal strategies are entirely different, and if the rich are supposed to be good at anything, it is at being capable of investing in the long term. Not saying they should be butchered short term, but they need to reign in the excesses before they bleed the golden goat dry entirely! Increasingly depressed consumer confidence will kill this little stock rally they are enjoying a lot faster than the schemers think (the problem with schemers is they think they are too smart too fail, and we just had a whole group of them caught with their pants down and they still act and think that way because the nanny government Bush and Obama saved them).

[SportsDino]

I think there is a major case for the 'difficulty to claw your way up' discussion. This economic crisis has made many people experience first hand what is basically the story of my mother's life. You work your ass off trying to make better for yourself and your kids, but a company dies off or downsizes and all your best laid plans and hard work is knocked for a loop. Not everyone can or should have to found their own business just to maintain a steady income stream, we need an economy that rewards stable growth and companies and hard work. We do not have that now.

Some would account this to personal luck, I say we need business minds that don't leave the entire economy up to luck. If we get out of boom/bust models and look for sustainable economics (think like sustainable ecology, inputs/outputs/balance) then we will have an environment where people will feel empowered to claw their way up a notch at a time until they get to a point they are comfortable in life. I'd argue the people at the top notches would be wealthier than they already are with all of their anti-competitive and exploitative strategies they are employing now, they are just too petty to understand it.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think you underestimate their chances. I think the general problem is, the poor come from poor families, continue to be poor because that's all they know. This isn't Victorian England (not sure if that's the right time period, but work with me here) where if you are born into poverty, the only thing to look forward to no matter how hard you work, is getting cut up by Jack the Ripper or being some scurvy ridden sailor.

If you are able bodied and of able mind and you have any kind of desire to succeed, eventually you will.

I'm not saying that those in poverty are set against making themselves better. I would agree that through hard work and sacrifice the large majority of those in poverty (without serious illness, basically) can improve their lives. However, I see quite a distance between somoen ein poverty moving into the middle class and becoming "wealthy." I would say that this is a case of semantics, but Farrah clearly said that someone in poverty can run a fortune 100 company with hard work and sacrifice. I think we can all agree that someone who "runs" (presumably a CEO) a Fortune 100 company is well into everyone's definition of "wealthy" under most circumstances.

I'm not sure what your definition of "success" is, though, so it's hard to say. But Farrah's definition is rather far-fetched. I'm not trying to put the word "easy" in her mouth (although I may have used it, I didn't intend to), but IMO it is near impossible to go from poverty to running a Fortune 100 company. It would take a rare combination of effort, sacrifice, intelligence and circumstances for that to happen.

[Autumn]

I do think that "circumstances" need to be considered more in the sense of people clawing their way out of poverty. Those who have success stories also have a set of circumstances that aligned right. Others did all the right things and maybe were talented enough and hard working enough but had circumstances work the wrong way, or just never turned the right way to run into an opportunity that would help them up. We don't like to think that "luck" for lack of a better word has much to do with our lives, but I can think of many small decisions I've made in my life that if I had just gone a different direction things would be totally different. People who find their way to the top had some of those things go just right, to go along with their talent and work. Would they have made it without working? No way. But is it possible they could have gotten stumped along the way? Sure.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I'm not saying that those in poverty are set against making themselves better. I would agree that through hard work and sacrifice the large majority of those in poverty (without serious illness, basically) can improve their lives. However, I see quite a distance between somoen ein poverty moving into the middle class and becoming "wealthy." I would say that this is a case of semantics, but Farrah clearly said that someone in poverty can run a fortune 100 company with hard work and sacrifice. I think we can all agree that someone who "runs" (presumably a CEO) a Fortune 100 company is well into everyone's definition of "wealthy" under most circumstances.

I'm not sure what your definition of "success" is, though, so it's hard to say. But Farrah's definition is rather far-fetched. I'm not trying to put the word "easy" in her mouth (although I may have used it, I didn't intend to), but IMO it is near impossible to go from poverty to running a Fortune 100 company. It would take a rare combination of effort, sacrifice, intelligence and circumstances for that to happen.

I have to agree with a lot of what you said here and Farrah has some good points too. I think wealthy is a rather relavent term as with the word success.

As far as digging someone's way out of poverty, this is where my opinion kicks in. There are many resources someone in poverty can persue to get out of poverty. Easy? Nope, but, it is possible. Today it's even harder, no doubt about it. I think the main things are attitude and desire. I applaud people who try and make their lives better and am more than willing to help them any way I can, but, I refuse to lift a finger for those who are just plain lazy.

I'd say in this context, success is achieving goals that you have set for yourself and wealthy would be (if I had to specify a number) more along the lines of making around 300K a year and up, based on living in California.

As for the Fortune 100 companies, I'm a bit synical of the CEOs these places hire, since most of them are still in the 'Good ol Boy' network and there's really not much of chance for anyone at any level of society to get in unless they start their own company and it takes off, filthy rich, or are a former vice president who invented teh innernets (I kid about the last one!). For example, look at Ford, I think that's the company, Ed Whitacre was the CEO of SBC for many many years and then retired a few years ago. Now he's the new CEO of Ford, instead of getting some new blood in there that is not boxed in by old ways of thinking and management styles. So yes, someone that is poor has very little chance of achieving something like that, but they have no less of a chance than me or anyone else (that isn't already "in"), in my opinion.

I don't know if that made any sense, but, it did to me.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The wealthy are paying an historically low percentage of their income in federal taxes.

It's a tricky question because we have several types of taxes. Income taxes max out at 35% right now. Right now, around half of Americans do not pay a cent, or even receive more money back than they put in, in federal income taxes once they do all of the deductions. Capital gains tax and dividends are at 15% (5% if you are in the 15% of lower tax bracket). Municipal bonds are tax-free.

[JPhillips]

No, it's not tricky. The IRS computes total effective tax rate for different income levels. We can look back on those numbers and see the effective tax rate(the percentage actually paid) over time. I can't find the graph that's been posted here before, but look at these numbers for effective federal tax rate.

1979
Top 20% 27.5%
Top 10% 29.6%
Top 5% 31.8%
Top 1% 37.0%

Now look at 2006(the latest year I can find)

Top 20% 25.8%
Top 10% 27.5%
Top 5% 29.0%
Top 1% 31.2%

All the numbers have gone down over the past thirty years.

[SportsDino]

Whitacre is at GM, and I'm not convinced they have been doing anything all that awesome at all since bankruptcy. Nothing unexpected so far (and continuing decline, yay!).

[Mr. Sparkle]

I hate excessively rich douchebags. Does that count?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, it's not tricky. The IRS computes total effective tax rate for different income levels. We can look back on those numbers and see the effective tax rate(the percentage actually paid) over time. I can't find the graph that's been posted here before, but look at these numbers for effective federal tax rate.

1979
Top 20% 27.5%
Top 10% 29.6%
Top 5% 31.8%
Top 1% 37.0%

Now look at 2006(the latest year I can find)

Top 20% 25.8%
Top 10% 27.5%
Top 5% 29.0%
Top 1% 31.2%

All the numbers have gone down over the past thirty years.

I don't think bumping us up to 1979 levels would eliminate the wealth disparity in the U.S. I know that you're not expressly claiming otherwise, but that's kind of the spirit behind the comments, right - that the rich have too much, aren't paying their fair share. 1979 levels would create new tax revenue, at the expense of some overall wealth growth. I don't know if we'd end up in the black after that or not, but I don't think we'd see any major differences with the wealth disparity issues people keep harping about.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, it's not tricky. The IRS computes total effective tax rate for different income levels. We can look back on those numbers and see the effective tax rate(the percentage actually paid) over time. I can't find the graph that's been posted here before, but look at these numbers for effective federal tax rate.

1979
Top 20% 27.5%
Top 10% 29.6%
Top 5% 31.8%
Top 1% 37.0%

Now look at 2006(the latest year I can find)

Top 20% 25.8%
Top 10% 27.5%
Top 5% 29.0%
Top 1% 31.2%

All the numbers have gone down over the past thirty years.

It is tricky. A lot of wealthy guys make more money out of investments and bonds (which are taxed as capital gains taxes and even tax-free in municipal bonds).

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...133521,00.html

[JPhillips]

The numbers I posted are for total federal tax burden. It includes all forms of federal taxation.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think bumping us up to 1979 levels would eliminate the wealth disparity in the U.S. I know that you're not expressly claiming otherwise, but that's kind of the spirit behind the comments, right - that the rich have too much, aren't paying their fair share. 1979 levels would create new tax revenue, at the expense of some overall wealth growth. I don't know if we'd end up in the black after that or not, but I don't think we'd see any major differences with the wealth disparity issues people keep harping about.

All I'm trying to point out is that the idea that the tax burden has increased on the wealthy is not true.

I don't think there's a way to fix income disparity with a single fix. I'd like to return to the Clinton tax rates as that is the only way to come close to balancing the budget, but that may or may not do anything about income disparity. I agree with almost everything SD said and that will likely help reduce disparity. I'd like to see more power given to shareholders to vote down excessive compensation. I'd like to see new rules on cross pollination of corporate boards. I'd like to see more unions, but with less overall power to help balance the power in negotiations. My big dream would be to rework the tax code and remove almost every deduction/exemption/credit, but I'm not foolish enough to think that will ever happen.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think bumping us up to 1979 levels would eliminate the wealth disparity in the U.S. I know that you're not expressly claiming otherwise, but that's kind of the spirit behind the comments, right - that the rich have too much, aren't paying their fair share. 1979 levels would create new tax revenue, at the expense of some overall wealth growth. I don't know if we'd end up in the black after that or not, but I don't think we'd see any major differences with the wealth disparity issues people keep harping about.

Im not sure what measures we've been looking at in here, but this made me think that wealth is usually measured in total assets, not yearly income. Whereas taxes are an annual burden. So consider that raising tax rates has a cumulative effect over time which would have a more dramatic effect on wealth than it might seem.

I however have not sat down and looked at numbers and calculated to see how that might come out. Just something to think about.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The numbers I posted are for total federal tax burden. It includes all forms of federal taxation.

If your numbers include all forms of federal taxation, then those numbers do get tricky with capital gains and dividends taxes. The numbers you posted include things income, capital gains tax, dividends tax, and other investment tools like municipal bonds (which are tax-free); all which serve a purpose and are taxed at lower rates in comparsion to the tax rate brackets.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

I hate excessively rich douchebags. Does that count?

Does Donald Trump count?