Question for people that hate the excessively rich...

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

That's fair - I don't think any of the bad stuff is really at the root of the intended message of either party as a whole, but it's very, very easy to use the bad stuff to get people riled up for the wrong reason.

This was why I thought the whole "hate" thing a little ridiculous. It's kind of like Democrats calling Republicans racist because they're against affirmative action/busing plans.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

That's fair - I don't think any of the bad stuff is really at the root of the intended message of either party as a whole, but it's very, very easy to use the bad stuff to get people riled up for the wrong reason.

Absolutely. In fact, one could argue that it's not just "very easy" to use this stuff, it's basically required in order to secure electoral victory. In short, electoral strategy in the U.S. today has generally done away with the concept of presenting your ideas as better than those of your opponent, and now relies on the concept of characterizing your opponent as negatively as possible, which is why these techniques are front and center.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Absolutely. In fact, one could argue that it's not just "very easy" to use this stuff, it's basically required in order to secure electoral victory. In short, electoral strategy in the U.S. today has generally done away with the concept of presenting your ideas as better than those of your opponent, and now relies on the concept of characterizing your opponent as negatively as possible, which is why these techniques are front and center.

That's the way it's always been. Look at the Jefferson vs. Adams campaign. It's almost always easier to motivate against something than for something.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, fair enough.

Edit: I just think we're going through a specific cycle where the actors in this electoral game are particularly unconcerned about their use of sweeping mis-characterizations and over-generalizations to achieve victory. I'd argue that in the past (and, again, it goes in cycles) there would be a little more self-awareness of the fraudulence of this kind of activity but the operators who ushered in the current cycle (and yes, let's pick on Karl Rove specifically) have seem to done away with this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's almost always easier to motivate against something than for something.

+1

Not only could I probably more easily quickly name 10 things I'm against than that I'm for, a significant part of the things I'm for would be perceived as against something.

Read that slow enough & it should make sense.

edit to add: To some extent, that kind of highlights the adversarial relationships that exist with most positions, sort of like Carlin's explanation of the difference between my stuff and your shit.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by panerd

This guy works the tax code with a fine tooth comb. He takes every possible tax break he can and always says "Damn right I want my money back".

....and this is why I have fired every last Democratic or left leaning client I had.

I'm not interested in helping someone pay less in tax when they want me to pay more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

....and this is why I have fired every last Democratic or left leaning client I had.

Oddly enough, I'm looking at taking a different approach to left-leaning clients. The way I figure it, better I make a profit off them & use it for good instead of letting them hand it to a kindred spirit that will use it for evil.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not only could I probably more easily quickly name 10 things I'm against than that I'm for, a significant part of the things I'm for would be perceived as against something.

Read that slow enough & it should make sense.

I understood it just fine at the first pass.

Having said that, I think this too is a function of where we've gotten to as a nation and culture. Everyone's so conditioned to be reactive instead of proactive these days that when asked how we would change something we tend to focus on correcting the negative elements first, instead of starting by drawing a picture of the ideal state and figuring out how to get there.

It's probably a reflection of political reality. Sweeping change is no longer realistically possible, so all we're left with is incremental (and heavily compromised) change.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I, for one, welcome our ultra-rich overlords.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I understood it just fine at the first pass.

Good, 'cause by the time I was finished typing I wasn't sure if I even understood it anymore

instead of starting by drawing a picture of the ideal state and figuring out how to get there.

Now that one is totally not me. I know what I want & I'm pretty far along the plan required to get there. Just not sure whether there's enough enlightened people to pitch in to get 'er done.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I, for one, welcome our ultra-rich overlords.

I suppose you gave these guys the key to the city too, eh?

[Young Drachma]

The state is the problem.

[Autumn]

Which state? Because if you're thinking North Dakota, I'm with you there.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

In my opinion it is all well and good to make a billion dollar fortune and live like a king AND NEVER GIVE A DIME TO CHARITY. In fact, I can guarantee if I made a billion dollars or even a trillion dollars, I would probably not donate any sort of noticeable fraction of it to charity. I would, and have, volunteered my time to causes I am interested in, and I was the annoying guy working twice as fast as everyone else and taking on all the dirty/hard jobs while everyone else was chit-chatting and feeling good at themselves for showing up. But I don't believe in giving money away, and while I think people need and deserve help, and shouldn't be left to the wolves, if I'm not directly doing the work myself I do not care to give a few hundred or a few million to some organization and pat myself on the back as a good person.

I'd be the opposite. I'd figure out what I needed to live comfortably on, what I could put away for the next couple generations, and the rest would go to causes I feel important.

Sure it's everyone's right to hoard the money, but what's the point? It's not going to be used and comes across more like a "it's my ball and no one else can play with it". At some point, you just have too much money to ever spend in the next 100 lifetimes.

[JediKooter]

If I was rich, I'd build a moat around my house and put aligators in it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If I was rich, I'd build a moat around my house and put aligators in it.

I'd buy my own island, and then surround it with an electric fence with a remote control.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If I was rich, I'd build a moat around my house and put aligators in it.

I wonder how much money that would even take. I bet if you set your mind to it, you could accomplish this goal.

[aran]

People who have power over others should be under severe skepticism. Constantly.

A reason why self-made rich people are disliked is that in order to attain extreme wealth, you need to sell your soul. You need to trample other human beings who are less fortunate (read: not less skilled, less intelligent, or less worthy, but less lucky in their birth and other matters entirely out of their control). Trampling the inherently weak is uncooperative behavior and most people think it tends to hurt a bourgeois society. It is perceived as unfair behavior.

Being privileged from birth generally engenders a lot of negative personality traits, and so is perceived negatively (but envied, because you, with your positive traits, would be a worthier recipient of the fortune than they would).

Also, when you reach a certain wealth level (probably a few million dollars), the marginal utility of each dollar drops significantly as you become wealthier. Ideally, everyone should have a similar marginal utility for their next dollar when balanced against their contribution to society. Currently, this balance is WAY off. Only in smaller, more homogeneous societies is it different (Sweden, perhaps).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If I was rich, I'd build a moat around my house and put aligators in it.

I'd train monkeys to ride the alligators and shoot arrows at all potential intruders.

And I'd get some of those fainting goats. Just because.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If I was rich, I'd build a moat around my house and put aligators in it.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'd buy my own island, and then surround it with an electric fence with a remote control.

I would just have both.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I'd also say that a lot of money isn't borne out of hard work, but rather nepotism. I can't necessarily fault some tycoon for leaving his/her earned wealth to his own flesh and blood. It's the nature of the system we live in. You work hard, make money, and leave it to your children, and your children's children. It doesn't make those inheriting the riches evil. It also doesn't promise that they will be hardworking and looking out for the welfare of the rest of the people.

I don't know about anybody else, but I like driving on paved roads. I like going to schools that can afford decent teachers. I like going to visit parks. I like having qualified law enforcement and firefighters that possess top of the line training and equipment. I realize that people with much more money than me pay for a lot of those things through taxes. I chip in my share, however little that may be at this point in my life. If I accumulate some sort of wealth, then I would be willing to pay more in taxes. It's really the dirty work of philanthropy, and it separates those that are just in it for good publicity from those who actually do give a shit. That's not to say all wealthy people who front charitable causes are phonies, but being eager to pay more in taxes says more about philanthropic desire, because you aren't going to get your name in the paper for it. You aren't going have a tidbit added to your Wikipedia, or your obituary, saying what tax rate you paid. That means something to me. It's patriotic at its core.

You can still give to the United Way, and pay more tax. I'm assuming that those I'm talking about aren't living a reckless life of luxury and decadence.

I would disagree that a lot of wealth today is old money, but instead it is new money. In most cases, the new money is worth a lot more than the old money crowd.

Wanted to add, I just wonder what the "fair" share is. I don't see that right now through our federal income tax code.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'd buy my own island, and then surround it with an electric fence with a remote control.

How does this work? Does the fence go in the water, where it would short out? Or does it go on the beach, which means you can't enjoy the beach?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Does Bill Gates bitch about taxes? (Honest question)

I believe that the IRS has a special computer just to do his taxes.
IRS Computers Can't Handle Gates' Taxes - Forbes.com

I think it gets tricky with Bill Gates. Bill and Warren Buffett are fighting to keep the estate/death tax, but they've are giving all their wealth to charity (which would avoid the death tax). Through their annual donations and with the ability to deduct charitable donations, it would be interesting to see how much they pay (I'm not a hate-the-rich person).

[Logan]

There's only one person that I consider to be excessively rich: Wade Redden. And I definitely hate that fucker.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

How does this work? Does the fence go in the water, where it would short out? Or does it go on the beach, which means you can't enjoy the beach?

Fence goes on an artificial reef which circles the island.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

At some point, you just have too much money to ever spend in the next 100 lifetimes.

Eh, one of my wife's favorite sayings is about how "money only lasts three generations". I've seen that prove out often enough to consider it a decent rule of thumb. Sultans and a few mega-moguls might stretch it further than that but overall it does seem to hold up pretty good best I've been able to tell.

Ain't no such thing as too much money.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Fence goes on an artificial reef which circles the island.

OK, that's pretty sweet.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, one of my wife's favorite sayings is about how "money only lasts three generations". I've seen that prove out often enough to consider it a decent rule of thumb. Sultans and a few mega-moguls might stretch it further than that but overall it does seem to hold up pretty good best I've been able to tell.

Ain't no such thing as too much money.

I don't know man. If you put a billion in the bank and your next 3 generations blow through it, they deserve to be broke.

I mean a horrible 3% return on a billion is $30 million a year to live off of without touching the principal. Maybe I'm just someone who doesn't need much, but even if I had unlmiited financial resources, there's only so much shit I would want.

[Logan]

Or build a stadium.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know man. If you put a billion in the bank and your next 3 generations blow through it, they deserve to be broke.

I didn't say they didn't often bring it on themselves, now did I?

The failings usually lie in either not putting money back into the pile (i.e. just totally doing nothing with the assets), bad decisions (divorce settlements can trim a pile, multiple settlements can trim it quite a bit), bad investments and/or bad business decisions. The other can be having too many kids & dividing the pile into too many smaller piles (my son's favorite reason for being an only child is knowing that he won't be splitting any inheritance).

Often enough in subsequent generations, one or more of those things happen & you end up with a generation starting somewhere between Baltic Ave and Oriental Ave instead of being up in at least the green spaces.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think it gets tricky with Bill Gates. Bill and Warren Buffett are fighting to keep the estate/death tax, but they've are giving all their wealth to charity (which would avoid the death tax). Through their annual donations and with the ability to deduct charitable donations, it would be interesting to see how much they pay (I'm not a hate-the-rich person).

If their planning was done properly, and I suspect it was, they won't pay a dime in estate tax. What I've read of their plans, and general knowledge of how these things are structured, the only way the IRS can really get any sort of tax on the estate is by challenging his gift and gst exclusions..which means nothing to all of you, but suffice it to say it will be difficult. I am quite sure the IRS will put their best people on it though, considering the size of the estates.

Personally I'm fascinated with the Michael Jackson estate. The disposition of which is controlled by a trust document and those are generally not public, but these court proceedings are giving little glimpses. Man, did he hate his father.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And I'd get some of those fainting goats. Just because.

I'd want that narcoleptic wiener dog, to hang out with the fainting goats.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

...(my son's favorite reason for being an only child is knowing that he won't be splitting any inheritance).

Watch your back, man. Oh, and check the brakes on your car before driving it. Seriously.

[RomaGoth]

How to lose your money 101.

Lottery Winner Loses $114 Million In Four Years - Plus A Look At The The Biggest Winners Of All Time | Karemar

[RomaGoth]

Dola

Another good story. Granted these are lottery winnings, but the end result is the same and the means of getting there is bad advice, greedy friends/relatives, and stupidity.

Teenage Lottery Winner Callie Rogers Says She's Broke

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I didn't say they didn't often bring it on themselves, now did I?

The failings usually lie in either not putting money back into the pile (i.e. just totally doing nothing with the assets), bad decisions (divorce settlements can trim a pile, multiple settlements can trim it quite a bit), bad investments and/or bad business decisions. The other can be having too many kids & dividing the pile into too many smaller piles (my son's favorite reason for being an only child is knowing that he won't be splitting any inheritance).

Often enough in subsequent generations, one or more of those things happen & you end up with a generation starting somewhere between Baltic Ave and Oriental Ave instead of being up in at least the green spaces.

What you said. Throw in the estate tax as well (federal and state).

One thing that drives me nuts is a lot of people don't understand assets vs. cash. Just because a guy or girl may be worth $200 million or $2 billion, it doesn't mean they have that in cash. It's what the businesses and other assets are worth.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

If their planning was done properly, and I suspect it was, they won't pay a dime in estate tax. What I've read of their plans, and general knowledge of how these things are structured, the only way the IRS can really get any sort of tax on the estate is by challenging his gift and gst exclusions..which means nothing to all of you, but suffice it to say it will be difficult. I am quite sure the IRS will put their best people on it though, considering the size of the estates.

Personally I'm fascinated with the Michael Jackson estate. The disposition of which is controlled by a trust document and those are generally not public, but these court proceedings are giving little glimpses. Man, did he hate his father.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

I always thought you could structure it so you can extend not paying on it (such as setting up trusts that won't tax it until your spouse dies), but you still get hit.

What about the large debts in the Jackson estate? How does that work?

[RomaGoth]

Eventually the government will get theirs. This is a fact. (or a well constructed opinion based upon the ridiculous methods the government extracts our hard-earned money from us in the name of taxes)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

How to lose your money 101.

Lottery Winner Loses $114 Million In Four Years - Plus A Look At The The Biggest Winners Of All Time | Karemar

from the article:

In August of 2003, while spending over one hundred thousand dollars at the Pink Pony strip club in Cross Lanes West Virginia, thieves stole $545,000 in cash from his car.

That's where I stopped reading.

[Oilers9911]

I admire the excessively rich, especially the people that are entirely responsible for their own riches. Not those that were born into it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I always thought you could structure it so you can extend not paying on it (such as setting up trusts that won't tax it until your spouse dies), but you still get hit.

What about the large debts in the Jackson estate? How does that work?

It all depends where the assets end up as to when/where they are taxed. You're thinking of something like this:

If Bill Gates were to die tomorrow and leave everything to his wife, none of those assets would be taxed when he dies under the marital exemption. They would be taxed when she dies (but taxed on the value they were when he died), assuming she does no estate planning on her own.

This is a very simple example. And very inefficient one. There are ways to better structure the estate in order to eliminate estate tax liability at both his death and hers.

As far as debts go...it depends. If it's a debt secured by an asset, say like a mortgage, it is possible to have the debt follow the asset. So a beneficiary who was left the house could get the house, but also be liable for the remaining debt. In the Jackson estate, it is more likely assets will be sold out of the estate to settle his debts. In most trust documents, the trustee has powers to do so without court or beneficiary approval.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Radii

from the article:

That's where I stopped reading.

Funny, that's where I became interested. In any case, this guy was beyond irresponsible with his money, and deserved to lose it all, at least in my opinion.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'd buy my own island, and then surround it with an electric fence with a remote control.

Oh heck yea. An island with an electric fence and then a moat with aligators with monkees shooting arrows and as each arrow is slung, a goat woud faint for no apparent reason. There would also be miles of underground tunnels to hide from zombies in the off chance they breach through the main perimiter and you HAVE to assume that they will break through or your plans are doomed to fail.

This of course would cost millions, if not billions of dollars due to the high cost of R&D, finding the right contract labor, scouting for the best location, sparing no expense just like old family friend John Hammond, and of course the retainers for only the best top notch lawyers money can buy.

[lordscarlet]

I'm not really sure what's wrong with thinking the rich should pay more in taxes and trying to get everything you can out of the tax code. I also agree with whoever said that people say "If I had millions of dollars I wouldn't mind giving more in taxes." I do disagree that there are a lot of people out there that say such things, but it is certainly said.

So, anyway, to continue my rambling.. I have no problem with a gradated(is that the right word?) tax system. However, if I can get a few bucks back by claiming everything I can on my taxes, I'm going to do it. I think lungs's example is perfect -- he doesn't believe in farm subsidies, but if they're there, he's going to use them. You work within the system you live in. Hypothetical person Jim believes that the rich should have higher taxes. Jim makes $200k per year (which, btw, is not "rich" nor the "rich" that "liberals" want to raise taxes on) and believes the rich should be taxed higher. Hell, he believes those that make $200k per year should be taxed higher. However, he lives in the United States, and if he pays a mortgage he can claim the interest. I don't see anything wrong or hypocritical with that.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Funny, that's where I became interested. In any case, this guy was beyond irresponsible with his money, and deserved to lose it all, at least in my opinion.

I'm not sure it's possible to have another opinion.

[CamEdwards]

I'm pretty sure Lotto-Dude could've bought the Pink Pony strip club in Cross Lanes, WV for $100,000.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I'm not really sure what's wrong with thinking the rich should pay more in taxes and trying to get everything you can out of the tax code. I also agree with whoever said that people say "If I had millions of dollars I wouldn't mind giving more in taxes." I do disagree that there are a lot of people out there that say such things, but it is certainly said.

My problem is when you look at the stats of the federal income taxes (the fact that nearly 50% of taxpayers don't pay a cent, or even receive money back, once they take their credits). Then people think the rich should pay even more.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

In the U.S, there's dozens or more firefighter association charities that assist with things like funerals, labor negotiations, etc.

I couldn't have said it better myself though you don't seem to realise the argument you've just made.

That families of men who put their lives on the line for the benefit of the community then have to go cap in hand to charity for funds for such basis human needs as funerals is appalling.

Capitalism works far, far, better if people are charitable. Charity fills the gap of the parts of capitalism that feel "unfair". The great thing is, its up to the people, not the government, to decide where those pockets of unfairness are. The answer isn't always "raise taxes!". A dollar to a good charity will go further than any dollar to the government.

Unfortunately "a dollar" doesn't do the job. Charity simply can't raise enough money. Only government can raise the amounts needed. It's because you rely on charity that 50 million people in the world's richest country have no worthwhile health cover!!!!!

It doesn't make much sense for a government to pay a firefighter 5 times what they need to have a fire department, when there's so many other pressing needs.

That is indeed the market argument.

But it is not unreasonable to expect that contribution to the community should play some role in determining the remuneration for that contribution - at least in a community that cares something for its citizens. Markets are a cold, heartless economic measure that care nothing for citizens and need at times to be tempered by a touch of humanity if you are to avoid a soulless society where dog eat dog is the only game in town.

Somebody brought up the salaries of athletes as some kind of injustice, but isn't that a sign of progress? Years ago, the owners just kept all the money. Now, the players fought back, and are finally fairly compenstated for their contributions to the business of sports. Firefighters have made a lot of gains in recent years too, some places more than others.

Are you suggesting that there is some similarity in the gains made by the two - athletes and firefighters? The best of the first can pick up a million dollars a game and the best of the second may now be able to pay for his mothers funeral himself?

Which illustrates my point perfectly that markets generate enormous distortions in remuneration that leads to complaints about the rich that are not solely envy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Which illustrates my point perfectly that markets generate enormous distortions in remuneration that leads to complaints about the rich that are not solely envy.

So what's the alternative - make it solely up to the few in power to decide the "worth" of various professions? How do we know that firefighters will be the ones valued? I'm sure that they wouldn't be.

Capitalism, if properly regulated at least has a neutrality to it. What alternative government pays firefighters whatever Mac Howard personally thinks they deserve - only a dictatorship run by you, presumably.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

So what's the alternative - make it solely up to the few in power to decide the "worth" of various professions? How do we know that firefighters will be the ones valued? I'm sure that they wouldn't be.

Capitalism, if properly regulated at least has a neutrality to it. What alternative government pays firefighters whatever Mac Howard personally thinks they deserve - only a dictatorship run by you, presumably.

You're not reading what I've written, molsen. I have said nothing about government control over wages. I'm pointing out that there are reasons beyond envy for complaints about the rich or, to be more exact, the system that creates these enormous distortions. You cannot reasonably put down all complaints about the rich as being motivated by envy alone. The system generates many reasons of a different kind.