# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Profits  How much is too much?

## rbaker

Profits  How much is too much?

I have noted many posters on OptiBoard seem to feel that business and personal profit is a bad thing. Just search for profit on OptiBoard and you will find tons of comments condemning the economic system in the US. Now, I am not referring to Enron etc. That was not profit, that was larceny. And, if you want to discuss larceny, we can take up taxes in another thread.

Do you feel that some individuals and businesses have too much and should be forced to give to those who have less?

----------


## Spexvet

> Profits  How much is too much?
> 
> I have noted many posters on OptiBoard seem to feel that business and personal profit is a bad thing. Just search for profit on OptiBoard and you will find tons of comments condemning the economic system in the US. Now, I am not referring to Enron etc. That was not profit, that was larceny. And, if you want to discuss larceny, we can take up taxes in another thread.
> 
> Do you feel that some individuals and businesses have too much and should be forced to give to those who have less?


Profit is not a "bad thing", and no one should be "forced" to give to those who have less. I believe that it would be a better world if the disparity between the very rich and the middle class was not as wide as it is now. Some posters complain about taxes and "entitlements" (by the way, I work in an affluent area, and rich folks beleive they are the ones who are "entitled") - if the workers were paid more, there would be no need for welfare, social security, etc. But the "haves" are never satisfied. Like pigs at a trough, they gorge themselves on profit. I have no problem with someone living comfortably, but when they have air conditioned doghouses and both an inddor and outdoor pool in both of their homes (on Central Park and on Aruba), I think it's time for them to voluntarily improve the standard of living of the folks who actually create their wealth. Instead of complaining about people on welfare, pay them enough that they can afford to support their family with a place to live, food, clothing, healthcare, childcare, and some niceties (phone, TV, car, life insurance). Unfortunately, that means the profit gluttons might have to give up that Ferrari Testarosa that they had their eye on. Let's not forget the folks in Africa that live in mud huts in an AIDS infested area, and make a subsistence living. The price of a Ferrari would probably provide healthcare for the entire village for a year.

I've asked the question before, and have been ignored, gotten a smart-alec answer, or an answer that is just plain wrong (IMHO):

*Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*

----------


## chip anderson

Thiers is too much, ours is too little.

----------


## Glock

Profit = good

----------


## chm2023

Like all economic ideas, "profit" is morally neutral.  In a business sense, profit is of course to be desired.

One of the problems a lot of people, well me!, have is that the "free market" model, today is not "free" in the original sense of unfettered, purely driven by economic principles.  

The idea that a free market will regulate itself and that competition will drive the cream to the top and all will be right with the world is great, but simply not what happens in practice.  Special interests pay for the better part of an increasingly uneven playing field.  Halliburton is a great example--no bid contracts?  How is this an example of competition driving the best price and best products/services?   Tobacco subsidies?  The recently debuted Rx drug program where the federal government as the BUYER does not exercise its power to drive down prices?  It's ok for Walmart to do so, but not the government?  Why?  Well, my answer is that the pharma companies spend big bucks getting folks elected and the great unwashed public does not--again, not something Adam Smith et al factored into their theories.

Rant complete....

----------


## rinselberg

> Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????


Are there any other countries around the world where your ideas about some wealth-redistribution policies are working particularly well?

I don't follow world economics very closely.


_OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._

----------


## Spexvet

> Are there any other countries around the world where your ideas about some wealth-redistribution policies are working particularly well?


Don't know, don't care. Do you have an answer?

----------


## chm2023

> Are there any other countries around the world where your ideas about some wealth-redistribution policies are working particularly well?
> 
> I don't follow world economics very closely.
> 
> 
> _OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._


What do you mean by "working particularly well?"

----------


## rinselberg

> Don't know, don't care. Do you have an answer?


Not a very precise one. But if the super-rich stop buying Ferraris, what would happen to all the workers at the Ferrari factory, and all the other workers who supply parts, materials or other services to that factory? Just not sure where you're headed with this.


_OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._

----------


## Spexvet

> Not a very precise one. But if the super-rich stop buying Ferraris, what would happen to all the workers at the Ferrari factory, and all the other workers who supply parts, materials or other services to that factory? Just not sure where you're headed with this.


The front line workers would be able to buy more refridgerators (as an example), and the unemployed Ferrari workers would be hired to make refridgerators. This may even create more jobs than those needed to make Ferraris.

----------


## rinselberg

> I have no problem with someone living comfortably, but when they have air conditioned doghouses and both an inddor and outdoor pool in both of their homes (on Central Park and on Aruba), I think it's time for them to voluntarily improve the standard of living of the folks who actually create their wealth.


Well, _they_ have to pay for all the parts, materials and services that are needed to construct and maintain their home on Central Park and the other one on Aruba. They're paying someone to service and maintain their swimming pools. Unless _they_ happen to read and be moved in some direction by your posts, what do you think the net result of "I think it's time for _them..._" is likely to be? You use the word "voluntarily", but I have the nagging feeling that underlying your posts is a desire for a more centrally planned and regulated national economy. In a word: Socialism.


_OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._

----------


## shanbaum

Wow, we went from _noblesse oblige_ to socialism without so much as a wink at progressive taxation.

----------


## Spexvet

> Well, _they_ have to pay for all the parts, materials and services that are needed to construct and maintain their home on Central Park and the other one on Aruba. They're paying someone to service and maintain their swimming pools. Unless _they_ happen to read and be moved in some direction by your posts, what do you think the net result of "I think it's time for _them..._" is likely to be? You use the word "voluntarily", but I have the nagging feeling that underlying your posts is a desire for a more centrally planned and regulated national economy. In a word: Socialism.


What you call it, whether it works anywhere else, whether it's likely, who creates the jobs (very very rich or middle class) is immaterial and not my point. Please answer the question:




> *Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*

----------


## rinselberg

> What you call it, whether it works anywhere else, whether it's likely, who creates the jobs (very very rich or middle class) is immaterial and not my point. Please answer the question:


It probably would be better if the wealth could be redistributed as you indicate.

More progressive tax rates? I'm not going to come out hard against it. But a cautionary note: Keep an eye out for the possible side effects that may be incurred in whatever movement would be undertaken towards this end. It sounds like the bottom line here is vote Democratic. What about their total package - what does it add, subtract or modify in addition to more progressive tax rates?

Maybe some of those many forum lurkers and less frequent posters would like to step forward here...


_OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._

----------


## chm2023

> It probably would be better if the wealth could be redistributed as you indicate.
> 
> More progressive tax rates? I'm not going to come out hard against it. But a cautionary note: Keep an eye out for the possible side effects that may be incurred in whatever movement would be undertaken towards this end. It sounds like the bottom line here is vote Democratic. What about their total package - what does it add, subtract or modify in addition to more progressive tax rates?
> 
> *Maybe some of those many forum lurkers and less frequent posters would like to step forward here...*
> 
> 
> _OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._


Are "forum lurkers" a common phenom?  I have a hard time imagining there are that many sad souls out there.

----------


## chip anderson

Seems to me that "redistribution of wealth" is what Karl Marx, Lennin and Joe Stalin sold.  Didn't work well for anyone but Joe and it sure didn't work for his people.

----------


## rinselberg

> Are "forum lurkers" a common phenom?  I have a hard time imagining there are that many sad souls out there.


There are currently 5147 registered OptiBoard members. But it seems to me that we have pretty much the same rather limited set of "voices" every day on these convo threads. I guess it would be chaos if everybody started posting, but I often wonder what the _quieter_ members might have to say about these topics. Members who don't post or only post in a blue moon would be "lurkers" - more or less.


_OptiBoard. Come for the optics, stay for the convo ..._

----------


## Spexvet

> It probably would be better if the wealth could be redistributed as you indicate.


 Thank you for an answer, Rinnsey.:cheers: 



> More progressive tax rates? I'm not going to come out hard against it. But a cautionary note: Keep an eye out for the possible side effects that may be incurred in whatever movement would be undertaken towards this end. It sounds like the bottom line here is vote Democratic. What about their total package - what does it add, subtract or modify in addition to more progressive tax rates?
> _ ..._


I didn't suggest more progressive tax rates.
In another thread, I said:



> How about taxing discretionary income? The dollar amount it takes to be clothed, fed, sheltered, and even some creature comforts can be quantified, more or less. Taxes can be applied to any income over and above that level.


And Robert improved the concept by saying:



> I think you mean _not_ taxing _non-_discretionary income; taxing people who earn below a certain amount strikes me as adding insult to injury.


I'm not especially for more progressive tax rates. I DO think it needs to be acknowledged that the amount of income that it takes just to "live" should not be taxed. It's disposable income that needs to be taxed. I also believe in eliminating "tax shelters" and other techniques that wealthy people use to avoid paying taxes on their disposable income.

----------


## shanbaum

> Seems to me that "redistribution of wealth" is what Karl Marx, Lennin and Joe Stalin sold.


Amongst others:

"'When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap into the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest: you shall leave them for the poor, and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God.'" Leviticus 23:22.

----------


## chip anderson

Shanebaum:  We already have charity contributions,  we have the lower income people paying *no* taxes, we have the "rich" paying 90% of all taxes.   How much more can be done to make things "fair?"    The rich and the productive are not going to bother to do things that accumulate wealth or remain productive it the burden of taxes becomes higher and they get to keep even less of thier hard earned productivity.

And you will note even gleaners had to harvest thier own dole, todays "entitled" don't even want to pick thier free harvest.

Chip

----------


## shanbaum

> Shanebaum: We already have charity contributions, we have the lower income people paying *no* taxes, we have the "rich" paying 90% of all taxes. How much more can be done to make things "fair?" The rich and the productive are not going to bother to do things that accumulate wealth or remain productive it the burden of taxes becomes higher and they get to keep even less of thier hard earned productivity.
> 
> And you will note even gleaners had to harvest thier own dole, todays "entitled" don't even want to pick thier free harvest.
> 
> Chip


Well, I don't know what qualifies as "rich" in your mind, but I do know that as of a few years ago, _before_ the Bush tax changes, the top 2% of earners paid 27% of all taxes, and earned 25% of all income; that's a pretty good indicator of progressivity (i.e., 2%).  At this point, I suspect that our tax system is somewhat regressive at the top end (that is, I bet that the top 2% of earners now pay a lower percentage of total tax than they earn as a percentage of total income.

Your other point is belied by the fact that we have a historical record that demonstrates no apparent correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth (as opposed to the inverse correlation you claim).  I posted a chart that shows this a while back.

As for your unsupported but incorrigible belief that the poor are cheating the rest of us, I give up.

----------


## Spexvet

> The rich and the productive are not going to bother to do things that accumulate wealth or remain productive it the burden of taxes becomes higher and they get to keep even less of thier hard earned productivity.
> 
> Chip


Chip, what are they going to do? Not work? Not earn a living? And if they foolishly choose not to work, that leaves the door open for someone of moderate income to do whatever that rich person stopped doing, and make money for him/herself. So the job gets done, the money is earned, it just doesn't go into the already rich person's pocket! That's a good thing, isn't it?

----------


## QDO1

remember comunisim (in its purest form)?

----------


## chip anderson

Spex if they were capable and inclined to do that rich person's job, they wouldn't need taxpayer assistance.  I have been supporting myself since I was 14, since that time I have been out of work for 3 days. I got fired on a Friday and we had a Hurricaine (Carla) on Saturday so it took me til Wednesday to get another job.   I have had times in my life where I worked 4 jobs (Oh Lord, I was taking employment away from three worthless bums).   I don't understand why any able bodied person with a half sound mind should need help from anyone finding a job or from working.

Chip

I see a lot of one eyed patients who are on or trying to get on "disablility".  The man (Vernon Lamb) who taught me how to paint artificial eyes, rode bulls, flew airplanes, fished hunted, ran a contact lens manufactureing company, chased women, made artificial eyes, ran an optical shop and did everything you would think a West Texas cowboy would do.  And he had only one eye.

Now that I think about it, I have done all that at one time or another I have done all this myself albeit binocularly.

----------


## fjpod

I'm generally to the left of center, but consider this:

If we took a town somewhere in "middle America" (or anywhere else for that matter), and gave every head of household 1 million dollars on next Monday, by Tuesday there would be rich people and poor people.

Redistributing the wealth isn't a perfect solution.

----------


## spartus

> I don't understand why any able bodied person with a half sound mind should need help from anyone finding a job or from working.


Diverting very slightly off the main topic, I'd amend that question a bit--why should any able-bodied person with a half-sound mind not be able to make a decent living working a single job an acceptable (40ish) number of hours a week? National minimum wage is $5.15. 40 hours at that rate is $206.00. Figuring that...12% (6.2% SSI, 5.8% Fed/State/Local taxes) is taken out of the check, that's a take-home weekly check of $181.28, or roughly $725.00 a month. 

Can you reasonably expect someone to live in any acceptable manner on pay like that? Of course not. 

Anyway. As far the original post, I object to rbaker's use of the word "force". That's like saying rich people are "forced" to make a lot of money. Roads aren't free, the fire department doesn't run on fairy dust, and wars certainly don't come cheap. If we had anything approaching a rational society when it came to public financing and taxation, rather than the anti-tax jihad the right wing's been engaged in for the last generation-plus, perhaps attitudes would be different. Of course, only half of their strategy has been anti-tax, the other half has been "the government screws everything up", which completes Average Joe's opposition: "They're taking my money away from me and just *wasting* it on junk! $600 toilet seats!" And so on. 

Yes, the government does screw a tremendous amount of things up, but in my more cynical moments I almost think it's by design, in order to keep making the anti-tax movement keep going. It also does things amazingly right--the military, by and large, is a pretty impressive outfit, though the $2.3 trillion they can't account for is kind of a negative. The Interstate system, for those of you who've taken any long road trips, is a pretty effective network of roads. 

What the system--any system, really--needs is accountability. The voters are the ones who, in a democracy, should provide that check, but since I'm quite sure a majority of Americans could more readily tell you what Angelina Jolie is up to this week than they could name their Congressman/woman, or even one of their Senators, I'm not hopeful that'll work. The public's disengaged and convinced they're all corrupt, even while non-corrupt people might be available as an alternative. A large majority, I'm sure, vote R or D, based on factors that they may or may not have thought about in any depth and the machine rolls on.

Sooo...taxes. Yeah.

P.S. This is interesting.

----------


## rep

> As for your unsupported but incorrigible belief that the poor are cheating the rest of us, I give up.


of Chips position regarding the poor - then you should give up. 

Katrina Investigation

The two audits found that up to 900,000 of the 2.5 million applicants who received aid under FEMAs emergency cash assistance program  which included the $2,000 debit cards given to evacuees  were based on duplicate or invalid Social Security numbers, or false addresses and names.

The audits included these findings:
The $2,000 debit cards issued to hurricane evacuees for emergency supplies were often used for purchases unrelated to disaster aid, including: adult entertainment, gambling, a $450 tattoo, a .45-caliber handgun for $1,300 and a diamond engagement ring for $1,100.
There was little or no verification of the names, addresses or Social Security numbers of applicants registering by phone or the Internet for the $2,000 in aid, resulting in thousands of checks issued to those with duplicate or bogus information.Duplicate payments were made to about 5,000 of the nearly 11,000 debit card recipients who received Katrina aid, first with debit cards and then again via electronic bank transfer.But there is hope - today I caught this from N. O. 

NEW ORLEANS -- Public housing residents who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina are not welcome to return to the city unless they are willing to work, three members of the New Orleans City Council have said. 

At a meeting of the council's housing committee on Monday, City Council President Oliver Thomas said that for too long government programs and agencies have "pampered" rather than improved lives. 

Consequently, former residents who don't want "to roll up their sleeves" are better off staying away, he said. 

"We don't need soap opera watchers right now," Thomas said. "We're going to target the people who are going to work. It's not that I'm fed up, but that at some point there has to be a whole new level of motivation, and people have got to stop blaming the government for something they ought to do." 

When he finished, Councilwomen Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson and Renee Gill Pratt said they backed Thomas' position. Clarkson said preference in public housing should be given to occupants who verify an intention to work. 

The remarks were confined to permanent public housing and had no bearing on efforts to get thousands of displaced residents into trailers scattered about the city, officials said. 

Several public housing complexes were flooded during Hurricane Katrina, and no decision has been made on whether all will reopen. 

But those that gradually are accepting residents again, such as the Iberville complex, are instituting a series of steps to regulate who can return, said Nadine Jarmon, the appointed chief of the Housing Authority of New Orleans, which has been under federal control for several years because of chronic management problems. 

"Sometimes you have to not do what's politically correct, you have to do what's right," Jarmon said. 

___ 

Information from: The Times-Picayune, http://www.timespicayune.com


It seems even those in N. O. have found out that their old democratically run local and state governments were not working and are looking for better alternatives. The era of big government may becoming to and end because it just is not working anywhere. 

Rep

----------


## Judy Canty

> It seems even those in N. O. have found out that their old democratically run local and state governments were not working and are looking for better alternatives. The era of big government may becoming to and end because it just is not working anywhere. 
> 
> Rep


Did you mean Democratic or democratic?  It's just that I thought we still lived in a democracy.

----------


## spartus

> It seems even those in N. O. have found out that their old democratically run local and state governments were not working and are looking for better alternatives. The era of big government may becoming to and end because it just is not working anywhere.


Wow. Think for yourself much?

(And all I started out doing was Googling to find a source for rep [and Rush] quoting Bill Clinton.)

----------


## rep

> Wow. Think for yourself much?
> 
> (And all I started out doing was Googling to find a source for rep [and Rush] quoting Bill Clinton.)


For instance your "analysis" on minimum wage is bogus . No one making minimum wage pays federal or state taxes other than FICA. 

As usual, you are fast and loose with the facts and treat them as trivial when you are stating your "opinions" as fact. 

Shanbaum posted Chip's position was "unsuported". Not so in this case. Multiple national news reports on the audit were much more detailed than the one I chose. 

It still does not change the facts that the poor, in this particular case, and many others, are cheating the rest of us. 

No it's not interesting

In their own words - Your website of choice is Bias

*A word about bias*



Of course, the task of describing the world would be unmanageable without a filter, and the filter adapted here is that of modern, left-of-center political liberalism informed by Enlightenment values. Interested individuals will then be able to spend more time learning about the issues and making their own educated judgments. It is hoped that by emphasizing description and keeping any bias open and honest, TruthAndPolitics.org will help improve the quality of political discourse, and, by maintaining a course of integrity, gain the respect of thinkers on all sides of any particular debate. Thus, TruthAndPolitics.org is an "index to political knowledge." I created it because of my desire to improve the quality of political debate in the United States. More specifically, I want to increase the circulation of informed liberal viewpoints. I believe "the Left" and the liberal community would benefit if more energy were spent on the twin goals of presenting the merits of liberal/left viewpoints and organizing people to further liberal political ends and less energy on emotional, partisan appeals. 

all I had to do was go to the referenced web site and look at their own mission statement - to support the liberal view - At least they were honest. 


Rep

----------


## Judy Canty

Having worked for minimum wage in my lifetime, all the normal tax deductions are taken, but returned when income tax forms are filed.  Basically, someone working at or more likely below the poverty level is providing the government with an interest-free loan every pay period.  Since there are arguably more low- to middle-income earners in this country than high-income earners, the burden of government appears to ride on their backs.

----------


## rep

> Having worked for minimum wage in my lifetime, all the normal tax deductions are taken, but returned when income tax forms are filed. Basically, someone working at or more likely below the poverty level is providing the government with an interest-free loan every pay period. Since there are arguably more low- to middle-income earners in this country than high-income earners, the burden of government appears to ride on their backs.


Which most of the poor have learned NEVER to do, so that they receive the maximum paycheck. Many claim on their employment enrollment for dependents they do not even have. 

Sorry you chose to do otherwise. 

Rep

----------


## Judy Canty

I'm sorry?  You're sorry I chose to work?  What would the Opti-world have been without me?

----------


## shanbaum

Rep, were you to actually read the GAO report (which you can find here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...raud&Abuse.pdf) you might realize that while it's yet another compelling and sweeping indictment of the incompetence of the Bush administration, it says absolutely nothing about the _poor._ Perhaps you were confusing "the poor" with "the victims (real and fraudulent) of Hurricane Katrina".

----------


## Spexvet

> I'm generally to the left of center, but consider this:
> 
> If we took a town somewhere in "middle America" (or anywhere else for that matter), and gave every head of household 1 million dollars on next Monday, by Tuesday there would be rich people and poor people.
> 
> Redistributing the wealth isn't a perfect solution.


I know it's not. But is increasing the MIDDLE CLASS not better than the system we have now?




> Spex if they were capable and inclined to do that rich person's job, they wouldn't need taxpayer assistance...





> ...And if they foolishly choose not to work, that leaves the door open for someone of *moderate income* to do whatever that rich person stopped doing, and make money for him/herself. So the job gets done, the money is earned, it just doesn't go into the already rich person's pocket! That's a good thing, isn't it?


Those who cannot work will always be given a subsistence standard of living. That's what a civilized society does. I'm talking about making it worthwhile for everybody who _can_ work, _to_ work. If a family makes out better NOT working, they won't work. If they have a minimum wage job that, after paying for housing, food, clothing, healthcare, etc, leaves them with a lower standard of living, what's their incentive to work? If those who have more than enough (whatever "enough" is) give up a little of their excess, so that folks on welfare will be better off getting off of welfare, don't the middle class and those previously on welfare win?

----------


## chm2023

> Shanebaum: We already have charity contributions, we have the lower income people paying *no* taxes, we have the "rich" paying 90% of all taxes. How much more can be done to make things "fair?" The rich and the productive are not going to bother to do things that accumulate wealth or remain productive it the burden of taxes becomes higher and they get to keep even less of thier hard earned productivity.
> 
> And you will note even gleaners had to harvest thier own dole, todays "entitled" don't even want to pick thier free harvest.
> 
> Chip


I believe Social Security is imposed on dollar one, so I don't see how "lower income people pay *no* taxes?"

Other than that, I get your point:  poor people have too damned much money.

----------


## rep

> For instance your "analysis" on minimum wage is bogus . No one making minimum wage pays federal or state taxes other than FICA.


Surely you know that. (*Federal Insurance Contributions Act) Social Security and Medicare which is 7.65%*

Rep

----------


## shanbaum

Actually, FICA is Social Security, and Medicare is separate.  The latter is not capped, while the former is (which is what makes it profoundly regressive). 

What's important to understand, however, is that a substantial portion of "Social Security" taxes have been used (about three trillion dollars since 1983) to fund the general expenses of the government.  

What that means is that the Reagan "tax cuts" were really "tax shifts" - from high earners (whose rates were cut dramatically) to everyone else (whose rates went up, by increasing FICA rates in the name of "saving social security", and then using the money for general expenses).

----------


## Spexvet

> Rep, were you to actually read the GAO report (which you can find here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...raud&Abuse.pdf) you might realize that while it's yet another compelling and sweeping indictment of the incompetence of the Bush administration, it says absolutely nothing about the _poor._ Perhaps you were confusing "the poor" with "the victims (real and fraudulent) of Hurricane Katrina".


I noticed that, too. My guess is that those lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs did not "misuse" the money. When you don't have food, clothing, and shelter, you don't buy a gun or jewelry. "Victim" and "poor" don't mean "stupid".

----------


## chm2023

> Rep, were you to actually read the GAO report (which you can find here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...raud&Abuse.pdf) you might realize that while it's yet another compelling and sweeping indictment of the incompetence of the Bush administration, it says absolutely nothing about the _poor._ Perhaps you were confusing "the poor" with "the victims (real and fraudulent) of Hurricane Katrina".


And yet, you have to hand it to the Bushies.  They have managed to convince the very people they are screwing (everyone except the very rich) that they are on their side.  It's sleight of hand stuff--look at how we share your "values" re gay marriage, reproductive rights, flag waving;  ignore the fact we have ****** away a huge budget surplus, we put people in charge of FEMA who couldn't find their butts with both hands, we got ourselves entangled in a no-win situation in Iraq, we have no immigration policy, the quality of our medical system continues to erode, we have taken executive privelege beyond the pale and we are shrinking the middle class--_we are on your side because we flatter you that you are the real Americans. _ This is what it all comes down to--everyone needs to feel they are somehow superior to at least some other people.  As so eloquently illustrated by this thread, if that's poor folks, well, at least we got that Pa!!!!

The mind boggles.

----------


## spartus

> For instance your "analysis" on minimum wage is bogus . No one making minimum wage pays federal or state taxes other than FICA. 
> 
> As usual, you are fast and loose with the facts and treat them as trivial when you are stating your "opinions" as fact. 
> 
> Shanbaum posted Chip's position was "unsuported". Not so in this case. Multiple national news reports on the audit were much more detailed than the one I chose. 
> 
> It still does not change the facts that the poor, in this particular case, and many others, are cheating the rest of us. 
> 
> No it's not interesting
> ...


See that thing receding in the distance? It's my point, and hoo boy, you missed it.

----------


## For-Life

Example of profits being too high:  A company that had a 15 percent return last year lays off 1000 workers or moves its production overseas to gain an 18 percent return.

But saying that, in most cases profits are kept in control by competition (ie our industry).  There are a few strong oligopolies that get around it like Canadian Chartered Banks and large oil companies.

----------


## Spexvet

> I've asked the question before, and have been ignored, gotten a smart-alec answer, or an answer that is just plain wrong (IMHO):
> 
> *Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*


See?

----------


## chip anderson

Spex:  It would make me very, very happy to have you donate half your income to some worth cause to alieviate the problem.  If all liberals did this perhaps the problem would go away.

It's odd though the leading state on charitable donations per captita per income is poor old impoverished Mississippi.

If you would check the charitable donations of the leading democrats, Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and the other screamers you will find them to be almost non-existant.
Bleeding hearts bleed for other people to finance thier endevors.

----------


## spartus

> It's odd though the leading state on charitable donations per captita per income is poor old impoverished Mississippi.


I'd like to see a source for this, since a few minutes' Googling turned up squat. Interesting methodology if what you state is the way they spun it: "Per capita per income". I mean, you'd think it was one or the other--average donation per person _or_ average percentage of income donated. 

If we can cite stats like that, I'm the highest per capita per household donor in the history of humanity, since I just chucked a penny out the window. Sample timeframe and size: The last five minutes, and me.

And I hardly see Shooter Cheney or Moneybags Bill Frist on this list. The Reagan Library's listed, though. As a recipient.

----------


## shanbaum

Spartus, strange as it may seem, I think Chip's right.

I mean, it's not so strange that it's true (if you think about it), it's just so strange for Chip to be right...

----------


## spartus

He may well be, I just wanted to see some figures. Specifically, I wonder if donations to churches, for instance, are included in the numbers they crunched.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex: It would make me very, very happy to have you donate half your income to some worth cause to alieviate the problem.


I have not that anyone should _donate_ anything to anybody, have I? I will pledge, right now that I will never accept more than $500,000 annual income. If offered more, or if I own a company that generates more, I will take steps to ensure that additional monies go to the working folks of my company that need it more than I will, at that point.




> If all liberals did this perhaps the problem would go away.
> 
> It's odd though the leading state on charitable donations per captita per income is poor old impoverished Mississippi.
> 
> If you would check the charitable donations of the leading democrats, Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and the other screamers you will find them to be almost non-existant.
> Bleeding hearts bleed for other people to finance thier endevors.


So you're saying that bleeding heart liberals don't donate to charities. Hogwash!

If money pigs weren't such gluttons, this problem would go away. So, chip, *Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*

----------


## For-Life

The problem with a nation that leaves the poor behind is that it also leaves profits behind.  When the poor of a nation are better of the businesses tend to do better because of that.

I mean the automobile industry as a whole will do better if everyone house has at least two cars instead of at least one.

----------


## chip anderson

Spex:       What is taxing and "redistributing wealth" other than forced donation?

Why wait until your "company income" is $500, 000?  This sounds like a lot of church people I know that put off titheing until "my income is high enough".  Of course it is never high enough.   If sure if you and all those who claim to be like minded would start contributing half your income (or even half after taxes) reguardless of how low your present income, you could bring complete relief to the improverished of the nation, perhaps the world.  Start today, the problem won't go away without immediate help.

Chip

----------


## rbaker

*Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*

If you will allow me to simplify your query into a single question:

*Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?*

I think I can take a shot at it.

Businesses hire people. Poor people dont.
Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people dont. 
Businesses generate wealth. Poor people dont.
Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people dont.
Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people dont.
Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people dont.
Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people dont.
Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people dont.
Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people dont.
Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people dont.
Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people dont.

----------


## For-Life

> *Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?*





How is this an either/or thread?  The real question is if the nation is better have a large seperation of rich and poor or a smaller.  Honestly, a large and a small one are both bad situations.  You need a seperation, but once it gets too big you are in trouble.  Why?

I think I can take a shot at it.

Businesses hire people. Poor people dont.Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people dont. Businesses generate wealth. Poor people dont.Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people dont.Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people dont.Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people dont.Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people dont.Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people dont.Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people dont.Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people dont.Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people dont.

----------


## spartus

> Businesses hire people. Poor people don’t.
> Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people don’t. 
> Businesses generate wealth. Poor people don’t.
> Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people don’t.
> Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people don’t.
> Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people don’t.
> Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people don’t.
> Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people don’t.
> Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people don’t.
> ...


Same planet, different worlds.

----------


## Jubilee

Have any of you been "poor?" or Spent time with and or studied "the poor?"

While I am not for socialism in its purest form, I do think that there need to be changes to the welfare system to encourage people to get out! When people WHO WANT TO WORK can't because it means they loose health care coverage for their children, food stamps,  and any money there were receiving from state.. which is better for the family? Working a minimum wage job or two when you can't spend any time with your kids and are paying half of your income to day care providers... or taking the state/federal assistance and be called a dead beat, but you can provide, food, clothing, shelter, and medical care while staying at home and raising the children! If the system actually scaled worth a hoot, then the more people could get out.

My son used to attend a school that had 80% of the children on free lunch programs. That means that the people were poor. When volunteering as an aid to the school, it was rough to see what some of these kids were having to deal with. Some of them never saw one or both of their parents. Some of them had parents who wanted to be involved, but couldn't due to work. Work that bearly provided enough for them to have school supplies and dinner at home. I worked with one family that was homeless, mom was sick, and daddy left..couldn't stay with her sister who lived on the other side of town.. it was a heartwrenching.

The rich can afford to buy quailty. They can purchase the Toyota, Chrysler, etc that is a car that will last. The poor buy used or Cheap (Kia) that cost more for repairs and the like. Clothing, do you think that clothes from Walmart last just as long as something from Sears or Nordstrom? Shoes? Do those 4/$100 tires come with the same warranty and mileage as the Goodyear Radials? When you have to replace items quicker, due to wear, over time it costs more than buying the intially more expensive items that last years...

When it comes to being poor in America, a mindset comes in. I don't have money, I will never have money, so what is the point of saving? Inheritances, tax refunds, etc are all "found money" that is meant to be uesd to buy happiness. Cars, TVs, Stereos, Games etc give that fix and are bought instead. Money buys happiness and gets rid of the depression...

When I have more time, I will go through my sociology text books and my own personal experience...

Cassandra

----------


## Judy Canty

> Have any of you been "poor?"


Yes, I have and while the system is a mess and difficult to navigate, much less control, it's the system that's in place. Getting rid of it isn't the solution, nor is privatizing. Having the will and compassion to change mindsets is the real solution.

People who have spent a lifetime in that system, or families who have spent generations in that system simply see it as a way of life. Not a future, because there is no future, just the same thing every day. Do some break out of it? Sure, but not often and certainly not without the support of someone who can afford the time, patience and expense.

My stay in the system was blessedly short, about 5 years, and I moved forward because I knew I could.

----------


## chip anderson

I've been very poor but I have never accepted or asked for a handout from the taxpayers or anyone else.


Chip

----------


## Judy Canty

Good for you Chip.  I didn't have that luxury.  My first job at a wholsale optical lab, netted me $69.02 per week.  I had to lie to qualifiy for a federally assisted apartment for me and my 2 year old daughter, but my portion of the rent was still $112 per month.  I hated food stamps, because it usually cost me a day from work to sit and wait to get them.  I needed the daycare assistance to get to work and medicaid to pay for our very basic medical needs.  (My ex-husband, from a fairly wealthy California family managed to avoid the $100 per month support by moving in with his parents and remaining unemployed.)  The state of Virginia didn't allow me to have a car, but a social worker friend from my church simply ignored what was in my parking space when she made her visits.  I survived because I was not raised in poverty and because I had a good education and a few people along the way who cared.

----------


## rep

> Rep, were you to actually read the GAO report (which you can find here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...raud&Abuse.pdf) you might realize that while it's yet another compelling and sweeping indictment of the incompetence of the Bush administration, it says absolutely nothing about the _poor._ Perhaps you were confusing "the poor" with "the victims (real and fraudulent) of Hurricane Katrina".


Those wealthy,  working?, but living in government housing,  former residents of New Orleanes who spent their disaster assistance money on booze, condoms and adult entertainment. 

These individuals will remain in their current financial status because they continue to do the things that keep them in their current financial status. 
No amount of "assistance" will ever change that status. The "rich" will continue to remian in their current financial status because they continue to do the things that keep them in their current financial status. 

Yes I did read the report and it lays the blame exactly where it should be blamed - state and local officials.  Here is one summary that is right on point by Neal Boortz

"According to the report, Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin waited until too late to evacuate the city.  They had warnings 56 hours before landfall of what might happen, yet chose to wait until 19 hours before the hurricane hit to tell everybody to get out.  So who deserves most of the blame?

Blanco and Nagin.  Why? First of all, because disaster response has traditionally been a state, not a federal matter.  In 2004 there were about four hurricanes that hit Florida.  Florida responded.  That is as it should have been in Louisiana.  Question:  Did the failure to move trailers into the area immediately cause deaths?  No.  Did the failure to get food and supplies into the survivors within hours cause deaths?  There's no evidence of that.  The deaths were caused because people didn't get out.  That's a local issue, not a federal one.    Had the governor and mayor ordered the evacuation much earlier, many more people would have lived.  Did anyone die because it took supplies longer to get there than it should have?  Maybe a few.  But nothing like the more than 1,300 people who are dead...mostly because they didn't leave the city."

But you and your liberal buddy's had rather "Blame Bush" than make an honest evaluation of where the real problems existed in N. O. 

Granted the follow up was lousy, but the real problem started locally long before the storm hit. The Democratically run administration  of New Orleans and LA failed totally. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> I'm sorry? You're sorry I chose to work? What would the Opti-world have been without me?


I am sorry you chose to allow the government to have your money for a year and then received a refund instead of claiming the maximum number of deductions you were entitled. 

Congratulations Judy you made it out. But your inferrence that you made it out because you came from a wealth family, in my opinion, is bogus. 

Many people come to this country with nothing and accumulate wealth through hard work, education and dedication and they have for years. I laugh ever time I hear the left moanin that the American dream is dead. Look around,  it's as alive as it has ever been, but fewer are taking advantage of it and had rather receive Democratically supported handouts. 


Rep

----------


## shanbaum

With these, you confuse "businesses" and "poor people":

Businesses hire people. Poor people dont.
Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people dont. _(OK, this one's just false as well. Of course poor people purchase goods and services)._
Businesses generate wealth. Poor people dont.

These can all be summed up as, "rich people have money, and poor people don't":

Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people dont.
Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people dont.
Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people dont.
Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people dont.

This one is laughable (the rich avoid social welfare programs? Oh, you mean, paying for them?):

Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people dont.

This one is demonstrably false (see Chip's mention above of which state is the most charitable. Hint: the poorest):

Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people dont.

And these are examples of ignorance and prejudice (I'll wager that you have no knowledge of the first, assuming that it actually means something, and if the second were true, how would you explain George Bush and Dick Cheney?):

Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people dont.
Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people dont.

----------


## shanbaum

> But you and your liberal buddy's had rather "Blame Bush" than make an honest evaluation of where the real problems existed in N. O.


Is there something about being a Republican that prevents one from reading the cover pages of reports?  (You know, like "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.")?  

This one read, "FEMA's Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government To Significant Fraud and Abuse."

I suggest you actually read the report - you obviously haven't; your rightist news source to the contrary, the report says _nothing_ about the local response to the disaster.

What the response to Katrina demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) is the extent to which the Bush administration is like a Potemkin village - while marketing itself as the protector of American security, it is vacuous; it does nothing.  Had those levees been bombed by terrorists, the federal response would have been no different (Brownie's protestations to the contrary), because it had no capacity to be different.  It still has none.  Feel _safer_?

What is perfectly clear is that these people could commit no feat of sufficient incompetence that you would not excuse them.  Honest evaluation, indeed.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Congratulations Judy you made it out. But your inferrence that you made it out because you came from a wealth family, in my opinion, is bogus.
> Rep


 
My wealthy family? You mean the school teachers in Portsmouth, VA? Whose combined salaries when I graduated from high school in 1968 was $17,000? That wealthy family? They must have been holding out on me. 

My late *ex*-husband's family was wealthy enough to help him elude child support payments for 10 years until I remarried and Keith adopted Heather.

----------


## Jubilee

Rep,

I may not be "poor" now, but we certainly aren't rich either. I have a family of three, and take 4 federal exemptions. Know what? I still get a refund every year federal, but I OWE on state taxes. 

The poor don't have the luxury of putting money into 401ks, IRAs, Health Savings accounts, etc.. to avoid taxes! 

The poor are a target market. Come on, I don't know where you all live, but we have PayDay loan places on just about every corner. Have you ever had need of these services? I unfortunately have, and it is highway robbery. Your car breaks down. With out your car, and having no real public transportation in this town, you have to have a car to get to work. To fix it takes more money than you have by $200-300 bucks. You go to a place, and they loan you the $300 for 2 weeks, and you pay them $360 on payday! If you can't pay it all back, you have to pay the $60 "service fee" and take out another loan for that $300, and pay that fee again. So to borrow $300 for a month till you costs $120 in fees. Plus you are short everywhere else do to the initial costs of repairs anyway.

Predatory lending. I had a friend who's car was beyond repair, and she had to buy another. She could only qualify for new (car value worth more, high risk) and they charged her 21% interest! She was paying over $350 a month on a Kia Rio. For a car that costs less than 12 thousand doallars!

Property taxes were reconfigured here in Indiana, and now instead of it being based on how much the property was purchased for, it is based upon how much it is worth. More equitable.. yes, but for the seniors who bought that property in the 40's and 50's when they were working and the cost of living was much less, and now finding out their homes bought are worth 10-20 times the amount they initially paid for when they are living on fixed incomes makes it really difficult to stay in the homes they have lived in for 60 years...

There are young families that get taken in by the easy financing of homes. Sure, we can qualifiy you, charge you a billion in points for a buy down, take advantage of zero down loans, charge you only interest up front.. and you can move in this 1800sq ft home for $545/month. Wow, that's cheaper than rent! Till next year when the interest rate goes up, along with property values, so it is $800 a month, then the next year, goes to $1200/month... and the homes get forclosed on.

Pay off your credit cards! Get a home equity loan and we will give you up to 125% of your homes worth to use to pay down your debts! Till the person doesn't control their spending habits anyway, and they can take your home...

It is insane the number of businesses there are out there to take advantage of the poor....

Cassandra

----------


## chip anderson

ShameBum: Many nationally published studies show Mississippians to contribute more of thier income (per-centage basis) toward charity than any other state. Other states contribute more money but less on a pre-centage basis. This is *TRUE*!I never knowingly lie. Many of the things I say obviously are not the answer you want to hear, and on others I may be missinformed, but I do not lie. .

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex: What is taxing and "redistributing wealth" other than forced donation?
> 
> Why wait until your "company income" is $500, 000? This sounds like a lot of church people I know that put off titheing until "my income is high enough". Of course it is never high enough. If sure if you and all those who claim to be like minded would start contributing half your income (or even half after taxes) reguardless of how low your present income, you could bring complete relief to the improverished of the nation, perhaps the world. Start today, the problem won't go away without immediate help.
> 
> Chip


As usual, you are missing the point. :hammer: 

Just answer the question.

----------


## Jubilee

Lets think about this...

$10/hr is a "great" wage. Its almost 2x the amount of minimum wage. But how far does it really go?

$10/hr x 40hrs x 52weeks a year = $20,800 

for a family of 2 this is more than what you can make to qualify for any assistance! (except maybe WIC for a child under 5)

15% of that is the bare minimun to be taken out for taxes, unless you get jeapordize having to pay state and local taxes.

Leaving $17680 - $1800 benefits (health, disability, dental) = $15,880

$15,880 - $6600 ($550/month) for an apartment. (Based upon cost of "cheap" 1 large bedroom or 2 small bedroom apt in this city.)

$8980 - $5200 daycare (avg cost of $100/wk for kindergarten or younger non-corp provider or summer) = $3780

$3780 - $1800 food ($150/mo) = $1980

$1980 - $1800 utilities (phone, Gas, Electric) = $180

We are already broke, and haven't even taken care of the car (gas, insurance, maintenance) and medical costs (copays, deductibles, etc)

This is the scenario for a single parent working a "decent" job that pays more than minimum wage! And doesn't qualify for assistance in my fine city...

You tell me who's crazier, the person working, or the one staying at home?

Cassandra

----------


## Spexvet

> Those wealthy, working?, but living in government housing, former residents of New Orleanes who spent their disaster assistance money on booze, condoms and adult entertainment. 
> ...
> Rep


Please post anything that supports that the abuse was by poor people and ONLY poor people.

----------


## rbaker

Jubilee  One thing is missing from your scenario. Where is tuition and books at your local state college? Without that vital education your scenario will be your biography.

----------


## chm2023

> *Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*
> 
> If you will allow me to simplify your query into a single question:
> 
> *Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?*
> 
> .


Well if it were so, maybe.  There are very few who are truly rich--let's say net worth in excess of $10Million;  _lots_ more who are poor--zero or negative net worth.

----------


## shanbaum

> ShameBum: Many nationally published studies show Mississippians to contribute more of thier income (per-centage basis) toward charity than any other state. Other states contribute more money but less on a pre-centage basis. This is *TRUE*!I never knowingly lie. Many of the things I say obviously are not the answer you want to hear, and on others I may be missinformed, but I do not lie. .


Uh, Chip, I know; I was defending your statement.  And I'm sure you don't lie; lying requires the intent to misstate facts.

----------


## chm2023

> Spex: It would make me very, very happy to have you donate half your income to some worth cause to alieviate the problem. If all liberals did this perhaps the problem would go away.
> 
> *It's odd though the leading state on charitable donations per captita per income is poor old impoverished Mississippi.*
> 
> If you would check the charitable donations of the leading democrats, Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and the other screamers you will find them to be almost non-existant.
> Bleeding hearts bleed for other people to finance thier endevors
> 			
> 		
> 
>  .


Mississippi is also the state with highest percent of Afro-Americans if I am not mistaken.

----------


## Spexvet

Chip has hijacked this thread into a welfare thread. It isn't. My idea is that when a wealthy person has an opulent standard of living, they should voluntarily, as a moral obligation (the Christian thing to do) stop accepting additional income and do something with the income they don't accept. They could pay their employees more or increase their employee's benefits, they could improve the quality of their product or service, but not raise the price to the consumer, the could reduce the price of their product or service, etc. 

I agree with Jubilee that it is disgusting that an American can work a full-time job at $10.00/hr and only have a subsitence standard of living. Conservatives talk about family values and the moral high ground, yet here is an example that our minimum wage interferes with family life. 




> *Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*
> 
> If you will allow me to simplify your query into a single question:
> 
> *Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?*




That is absolutely not a simplification of the question, so I will not allow you to do it. Oops, too late, I guess. Your "simplification" assumes that the wealthy lose their money, but that it doesn't go anywhere. That's not the case. Any wealth lost by the rich will be gained by the middle class or lower class. Like the law of conservation of matter and energy, wealth doesn't disappear, it merely changes state or hands.




> Businesses hire people. Poor people dont.



If poor people had more money, they would be the ones who hire people, or they would buy more products/services, causing a demand for others to hire people.



> Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people dont.



Sure they do. As much as they can afford. If poor people didn't buy goods and services, why would businesses need to buy goods and services?



> Businesses generate wealth. Poor people dont.



Sure they do. Sometime it's only $5.15 /hr, but they do the work that generates the wealth for the business. Let's see the COE of McDonalds generate wealth without teenagers to work the counter and fry cooker.



> Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people dont.



If poor people had more money...



> Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people dont.



If poor people had more money...



> Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people dont.



They don't buy lots of stuff because they don't have lots of money.



> Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people dont.



Poor people don't have the money to pay lots of taxes. I assert that rich people avoid paying their share. Please show me evidence that this is not true.



> Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people dont.



Social welfare programs like the Chrysler bail-out and the airline industry bail-out. Or the ones like the oil industry and tobacco subsidies? How about the pension programs that the government has had to take over because business SCREWED its employees? 



> Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people dont.



So it's businesses who send those checks to Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson, and that ilk? It's business that supports my children's PTA? I'll bet that if business paid the working poor enough that they had some disposable income, business would find that its employees would endow charities. Right Chip? Kinda like "if you didn't tax me so much, I could use the money to feed the poor".



> Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people dont.



That sounds bigoted to me. And most rich people are rich because they come from rich. Their family can afford to send them to best schools, so they get the best education ( a competitive edge against the poor community-college-educated person) and has clear skin, straight teeth, expensive clothing, a $100 haircut, etc., that makes them more attractive in the job market. They also associate with rich people who own businesses and have an "in" with those who hire people "oh, you went to Yale, too? You must be smart and gotten a great education"..."no, I got in because my Daddy and his Daddy were US senators, and my Daddy was willing to pay full price. My grades show that I didn't get a great education, but I sure did party alot"



> Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people dont.


Sure, Ken Lay pled guilty in the Enron case, didn't he? Ted Kennedy took responsibility, as did OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake. All innocent. Their wealth did not allow them to shirk responsibility for their actions, did it? :Rolleyes:

----------


## Spexvet

> Jubilee  One thing is missing from your scenario. Where is tuition and books at your local state college? ...


She couldn't afford them. :Cool:

----------


## Jubilee

> Jubilee  One thing is missing from your scenario. Where is tuition and books at your local state college? Without that vital education your scenario will be your biography.


Close!

I did manage to go to college, and amassed a huge debt doing so. I do believe it was well worth it though. Obviously since I am acquiring more to finish my MBA so hopefully I can afford to pay off those loans!

I admit I had to have help though. During my first marriage, my husband was also in school, and I got pregnant. We had a major medical policy, but pregnancy wasn't covered. Out of pocket costs would have been over 8 grand. I also had to reduce my workload. So I had to go on Medicaid. After having the baby, it didn't pay to have my husband work, due to daycare expenses and the toll it took on his classwork. (yes he was a wuss!) So I worked full time, went to school, and tried to provide for my family and still had to take max student loans so I could pay for it all.

After the divorce, I had to pay him support during the months he would have our son, and I still had to provide everything for him while he was with me (Shared custody)

Thankfully I met a man who helped me get on my feet, and loves both me and my son. While my ex isn't completely out of the picture, even now that he has a job, he isn't in a position to pay support or anything.. except the grandparents do pay for some clothing, and school things. 

I just wished that before peope criticize the "poor" and lump them all into being freeloaders and criminals, that they take a look at what it really costs to live here, and how blessed they are...

I don't know of one single person who is happy that they are on welfare.

Cassandra

----------


## Spexvet

Ok. I think we all understand conservatives, now. You don't want to pay taxes to support lazy, deadbeat welfare cheats, the sick, infirm and mentally ill, or our retirees. We get that.

Now, would anyone care to answer the question without changing its meaning?

*Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*

I'm patient. I can wait. ;)

----------


## chm2023

Yeah, those damn poor people are sucking the country dry... :Rolleyes:  



Billionaire Gives a Big Gift but Still Gets to Invest It 
By STEPHANIE STROM
Boone Pickens, the often controversial and always colorful Texas oilman turned investor, took advantage of a temporary tax break to make a gift that propelled him into the ranks of the nation's top philanthropists last year.

But what Mr. Pickens gave away with one hand he continues to control with the other.

At the end of the year, he gave $165 million to a tiny charity set up to benefit the golf program at Oklahoma State University, reaping Mr. Pickens a tax deduction. Records show that the money spent less than an hour on Dec. 30 in the account of the university's charity, O.S.U. Cowboy Golf Inc., before it was invested in a hedge fund controlled by Mr. Pickens, BP Capital Management. 

"It's all his money, and he's on the investment committee" of Cowboy Golf, said Mike Holder, the university's athletic director and former golf coach, who is on the board. "If a person's making a gift of that size, he can stipulate what he wants it invested in."

Asked whether investing in BP Capital had been a condition of Mr. Pickens's gift, Mr. Holder said no. "That was my decision," he said. 

Lawyers said that even though Mr. Pickens still had investment power over the gift, the transaction appeared to be legal under federal law. 

"Sadly, it's another case of a rich man manipulating charity for his own benefit," said Marcus Owens, a lawyer who formerly headed the division of the I.R.S. that oversees tax-exempt groups. 

To some, the question is whether a wealthy person should get a tax break now for money that has essentially not yet been put to charitable use. By giving the money before 2005 expired, Mr. Pickens was able to take advantage of a provision in Hurricane Katrina relief legislation that allowed him a deduction for a charitable gift equal to 100 percent of his adjusted gross income, double the normal limit of 50 percent. If he does not have that much income in 2005, he can carry the deduction into future years.

Mr. Pickens, an Oklahoma State alumnus, is on the board of the university's golf charity, which had previously invested its cash with him. The charity was created to benefit the golf program, but it is now being turned into a charity to benefit athletics at large, something previously done by the university's foundation.

Bruce R. Hopkins, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mr. Pickens's position on the Cowboy Golf board looked bad. 

"It's obviously right up to the edge of what's permissible, but the fact that he's on the board of the charity that is using his company's services isn't a violation," said Mr. Hopkins, who has written several textbooks on tax-exempt law. "Is it a conflict of interest? Well, probably."

But Jay Rosser, a spokesman for Mr. Pickens and BP Capital, said, "We've waived all fees and our share of the profits on their investments, so how is it a conflict?" 

Mr. Owens, the former I.R.S. official, noted that Mr. Pickens could still reap rewards from having the money invested in his hedge fund.

"He still retains the ability to use the assets in a way that may return benefit to him, for instance by making investments at a magnitude his fund might not otherwise be able to make," Mr. Owens said. "There may very well be a dollar benefit even if no fees are being paid."

Mr. Pickens announced the gift on Jan. 10 and disclosed the investment in his fund at that time.

"We will manage the money, but don't leave here thinking that I gave it and they gave it back," he said at a news conference at the university, as reported in The Tulsa World. "I gave it, and we're investing it for them."

In a phone interview, Mr. Holder said his decision to invest the money with BP Capital was based on Cowboy Golf's previous experience. 

Cowboy Golf was split off from the O.S.U. Foundation roughly two years ago because, Mr. Holder said, he wanted greater flexibility to invest money for his golfers and assure control over the golf course, Karsten Creek, owned by the university. 

The university transferred ownership of the golf course to Cowboy Golf, along with about $6 million in cash, which Mr. Holder invested in Mr. Pickens's fund. At the time, Cowboy Golf's board was composed of Mr. Holder, Mr. Pickens and David J. Schmidly, the university president. It has since grown to nine members, and the cash Mr. Holder entrusted to BP Capital has quintupled.

"I may not be the smartest person around, but when you've invested $6 million with someone and they've turned it into $31 million, it makes you feel confident enough to have all your investments with that person," said Mr. Holder, who has also invested some of his personal wealth with Mr. Pickens.

Cowboy Golf's accountant ordered the transfer to BP Capital in an e-mail message in which "This wire must take place today" was underlined. The rush was to make sure the investment started producing returns as soon as possible, Mr. Holder said.

The charity hopes the investment will nearly double in value to the $300 million that its board intends to spend on athletics. Mr. Holder described years of neglect of the university's athletic facilities. Among other things, Mr. Pickens's gift will underwrite a new equestrian center, new track and field facilities and completion of the football stadium, which bears his name. The university's golf program was not described as a beneficiary.

Mr. Holder said lawyers were working to recast Cowboy Golf as Cowboy Athletics, supporting all the university's sports programs. He said the decision to expand was made after Mr. Pickens made his gift.

The O.S.U. Foundation, which has been raising money for the stadium, has also invested a small part of its assets in Mr. Pickens's hedge fund.

"Monkey see, monkey do," Mr. Holder said.

----------


## Spexvet

> Profits  How much is too much?


Income should be limited to $150 million over a lifetime. That's $3 million/year over an anticipated 50 year working life. Certainly more than anyone "needs" to survive. If you can make it in one year - go for it, then retire, or work merely for the satisfaction you'll get. Maybe sports ticket prices would be affordable, again. :cheers:

----------


## Spexvet

> What's troubling about the economic recovery that we've been in is that all of the traditional indicators of employment, household income and poverty levels are lagging behind prior expansions, said Jean Ross, director of the California Budget Project, an economic think tank in Sacramento.
> 
> The only indicator that is doing better than in prior expansions is corporate profits, which indicates that businesses aren't passing on what they are gaining to their workers, she said.


 http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...n24income.html

----------


## spartus

> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...n24income.html


I still maintain that the truest barometer of how the economy's doing is the financing they offer in new car commercials. If it's 72 months no interest, $1500 cash back, _and_ free gas for a year, the economy ain't doing too hot.

----------


## rinselberg

> Income should be limited to $150 million over a lifetime. That's $3 million/year over an anticipated 50 year working life. Certainly more than anyone "needs" to survive. If you can make it in one year, go for it; then retire, or work merely for the satisfaction you'll get. Maybe sports ticket prices would be affordable again.


Talk about a "modest proposal" ... I'm no economist, but I think that would be an almost unfathomably radical change to the dynamics of entrepreneurship and the control of potential venture and investment capital. We'll never see it. I can't imagine any serious national economy implementing that unilaterally. But for those who want to engage this line of thought, there was a time when the marginal income tax rate for those in the $200,000 bracket and up was 94 percent - the most progressive income tax rates in all of US history. I offer a web page authored by a published advocate of a cap on exceptionally high personal incomes:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/sha...ared_glory.php

Re: chm2023's post about T. Boone Pickens ... it wasn't his first act of philanthropy. See Johns Hopkins, Boone Pickens Professorship of Ophthalmology. Should we condemn the whole program because of one little $165 million slip-up? Does sound rather thick-headed of Congress, though, to pass legislation to encourage hurricane relief without limiting it to a list of specific recipients for the donations, like the Red Cross, etc; thick-headed of the President to sign off on it.



It's D-U-B-A-I, not D-U-B-Y-A ... rinselberg's latest OpEd post is available online at Laramy-K Optical's professional forum.

----------


## chip anderson

Where does the logic begin that limiting one man's income will somehow increase the income of another?


Chip:hammer:

----------


## chm2023

> Where does the logic begin that limiting one man's income will somehow increase the income of another?
> 
> 
> Chip:hammer:


Taxation policy can increase/decrease net income of different groups.  The administration is determined to shift wealth from the many to the few and from individuals to corporations.

----------


## chip anderson

Taxation can only decrease income, productivity and commerce.

Much as raising the minimum wage will not increase buying power for the poor, it just makes the base from which prices begin go up.

----------


## spartus

> Much as raising the minimum wage will not increase buying power for the poor, it just makes the base from which prices begin go up.


If this were still a country where things were manufactured, you'd be (I can't say "more correct", since you're not.) less wrong. 

If you look at this very simply, I could see you drawing that conclusion. But just because the minimum wage doubled doesn't mean that Sally Jones is going to buy two loaves of bread instead of one this week, thereby justifying a doubling of the price of a loaf of bread, since she clearly got by with just one before. It means that Sally Jones gets to start buying the bread that isn't full of high fructose corn syrup (ever read the ingredients on Wonder Bread?), making her children less likely to be obese. Maybe she buys a new car and can get that better job the next city over. Maybe she starts to save a little bit, so the next time she gets sick, she won't need to take out a payday loan to cover the rent. 

It's really simple. People that don't make very much money spend very near to 100% of what they make. Probably over 100%, when you factor in savings accounts (few) versus credit cards (many). People that make a lot of money spend a much lower percentage of their income, even though the dollar amount is significantly higher. This non-spent income goes toward investments, savings, retirement...whatever. It's not put directly back into the economy--some of it is, certainly--but I think we can all agree is what makes economies work is when the money is spent, putting it back into circulation. 

The simplest way to put money into circulation is to spend it. The people likeliest to spend it are those that don't currently have enough to meet their needs.

----------


## Spexvet

> Where does the logic begin that limiting one man's income will somehow increase the income of another?
> 
> 
> Chip:hammer:


It begins where your forethought stops.

Imagine that I came up with the idea of the pet rock. In three years, I make $100 million. I sell the business to you for $50 million, and max out my lifetime income. I leave the business world. Over the next three years, you make $100 million in the pet rock business, and sell the business to Dr. K., for $50 million, who makes $100 million and on down the line. After 9 years, I would have made $300 million ($100 million every three years) and Dr. K. and you would continue making what you make now, or the business would turn over three times and the three of us would each have $150 million.

Why would it be better for me to have excessive wealth and you two have moderate wealth, than for all of us to have more than enough wealth, without being profit pigs?

----------


## chip anderson

Haven't you noticed that many (other than the Kennedy's) who have _excessive_ wealth are very good about giving it away to noble causes at a rate much higher than your increased tax rates would have "redistributed" them? Not to mention without the wastefull overhead and pork that the _government_ seems hell bent to excise?

What is to make us think that the second man coming by to run this excesssive profit machine will be capable?  He may just be a T.Bone Pickens that stripps the wealth from the company and destroys it in the process so that the productivity and jobs are gone.   Bill Gates may be the perfect head of Micro-soft (and he does give away a lot of money, as well as pay a lot of taxes). Someone  else would possibly not be able to maintain his empire in a state of profitiabily and productivity.

Your logic just ain't real world.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

A wealth cap is a bad idea.  We need wealth.  Wealth improves everyones standard of living because it encourages us to try to gain that money.  It is one thing to have a progressive tax system, but to cap the wealth is a bad idea.

In contrast, there is the need for social programs, because social programs do create good business.  For instance, if everyone in the nation is guaranteed a good education and a good health care system then no one will be left behind, because as we noted, the poor cannot buy things.  

I have a businessman in town that was complaining to me about a minority group in town that will be like half of our city's population in X amount of years and since this group is poor it will kill the economy.  I then said that maybe we should be making efforts to help this group gain better education and become less dependent on the government and thus when they become half of the population they can contribute.  

The fact is most people do not like living on welfare.  IT IS TRUE.  Welfare pays poor and you do not have the resources to do anything with it.  For instance, in Ontario for a single person with no kids welfare pays $7800 a year.  But if you work full time at minimum wage you gain $15,600.  So it is better that you work than you not working.  Even right now that income bracket is taxed 15 percent the payment is $13,260.  

Now for those of you who hate a progressive tax system keep this in mind.  The idea of a flat tax system here would bring the taxes here to around 22 percent, thus $12,168.  Now there is less incentive to work and more incentive to go back to welfare, which will just raise the taxes for everyone.

I strongly believe in a mix of social programs and untapped wealth.

You have to think about it this way, sure that person may be a loser and does not contribute to society.  However, his or her kid may not and may become the next Bill Gates and we should not stop that from happening.

----------


## rep

> Is there something about being a Republican that prevents one from reading the cover pages of reports? (You know, like "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.")? 
> 
> This one read, "FEMA's Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government To Significant Fraud and Abuse."
> 
> I suggest you actually read the report - you obviously haven't; your rightist news source to the contrary, the report says _nothing_ about the local response to the disaster.
> 
> What the response to Katrina demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) is the extent to which the Bush administration is like a Potemkin village - while marketing itself as the protector of American security, it is vacuous; it does nothing. Had those levees been bombed by terrorists, the federal response would have been no different (Brownie's protestations to the contrary), because it had no capacity to be different. It still has none. Feel _safer_?
> 
> What is perfectly clear is that these people could commit no feat of sufficient incompetence that you would not excuse them. Honest evaluation, indeed.


Which is here and has the references to local officials here. http://katrina.house.gov/

I read your entire report, that's were I picked up my reference to "booze, condoms and adult entertainment". Which is pretty obvious to everyone that I did read the report, which is more than I can say for you regarding the house report. 

I also caught the summary which has none of the outrageous accusations you put forth above regarding the Bush administration.

*Conclusions*
* 
*FEMA has a substantial challenge in balancing the need to get money out quickly to those who are actually in need and sustaining public confidence in disaster programs by taking all possible steps to minimize fraud and abuse. Based on our work to date, we believe that more can be done to prevent fraud through validation of identities and damage addresses and enhanced use of automated system verification intended to prevent fraudulent disbursements. Once fraudulent registrations are made and money is disbursed, detecting and pursuing those who committed fraud in a comprehensive manner is more costly and may not result in recoveries. Further, many of those fraudulently registered in the FEMA system already received expedited assistance and will likely receive more money, as each registrant can receive as much as $26,200 per registration. 

Another key element to preventing fraud in the future is to ensure there are consequences for those that commit fraud. For the fraud cases that we are investigating, we plan to refer them to the Katrina Fraud Task Force for further investigation and, where appropriate, prosecution. We believe that prosecution of individuals who have obtained disaster relief payments through fraudulent means will send a message for future disasters 
*Vendors* 
*Location* 
*Nature of Transaction* 
*Amount*
Elliots Gun Shop 
Jefferson, LA 
.45 caliber pistol 
$1,300
D Houston 
Houston, TX 
Gentlemens club 
1,200
Friedmans Jewelers 
Plano, TX 
Diamond engagement ring 
1,100
Argosy Casino 
Baton Rouge, LA 
7 ATM withdrawals within one day at a gambling institution 
1,000
Tim Fanguy Bail Bonds 
Houma, LA 
Partial bail bond payment 
1,000
Department of Public Safety 
Baton Rouge, LA 
Payment of prior traffic violations for drivers license reinstatement 
700
Cat Tattoo 
Addison, TX 
Tattoo on arm 
450
Swedish Institute 
Irving, TX 
Massage parlor 
400
Tiger Beer and Wine 
Dallas, TX 
Alcohol beverages 
200
Condoms To Go 
Dallas, TX 
Adult erotica products 
150


I also stated in post 497 that the response after Katrina was poor. Which is, for most people of average inteligence,  affirming that the administration did a poor job. 

Now lets see if you can come up with *any post,  any where* on Optiboard where you have supported the adminstration regarding *anything.* 

If you can't then how about being more honest about who  really has blinders on and only supports one side of liberal conservative discussions. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> My wealthy family? You mean the school teachers in Portsmouth, VA? Whose combined salaries when I graduated from high school in 1968 was $17,000? That wealthy family? They must have been holding out on me. 
> 
> My late *ex*-husband's family was wealthy enough to help him elude child support payments for 10 years until I remarried and Keith adopted Heather.


"I survived because I was not raised in poverty." 

This is the quote that I questioned. What did not being raised in poverty have to do with you surviving?

Rep

----------


## rep

> Rep,
> 
> I may not be "poor" now, but we certainly aren't rich either. I have a family of three, and take 4 federal exemptions. Know what? I still get a refund every year federal, but I OWE on state taxes. 
> 
> The poor don't have the luxury of putting money into 401ks, IRAs, Health Savings accounts, etc.. to avoid taxes! 
> 
> The poor are a target market. Come on, I don't know where you all live, but we have PayDay loan places on just about every corner. Have you ever had need of these services? I unfortunately have, and it is highway robbery. Your car breaks down. With out your car, and having no real public transportation in this town, you have to have a car to get to work. To fix it takes more money than you have by $200-300 bucks. You go to a place, and they loan you the $300 for 2 weeks, and you pay them $360 on payday! If you can't pay it all back, you have to pay the $60 "service fee" and take out another loan for that $300, and pay that fee again. So to borrow $300 for a month till you costs $120 in fees. Plus you are short everywhere else do to the initial costs of repairs anyway.
> 
> Predatory lending. I had a friend who's car was beyond repair, and she had to buy another. She could only qualify for new (car value worth more, high risk) and they charged her 21% interest! She was paying over $350 a month on a Kia Rio. For a car that costs less than 12 thousand doallars!
> ...


The poor continue to do things that make them poor. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> If this were still a country where things were manufactured, you'd be (I can't say "more correct", since you're not.) less wrong. 
> 
> If you look at this very simply, I could see you drawing that conclusion. But just because the minimum wage doubled doesn't mean that Sally Jones is going to buy two loaves of bread instead of one this week, thereby justifying a doubling of the price of a loaf of bread, since she clearly got by with just one before. It means that Sally Jones gets to start buying the bread that isn't full of high fructose corn syrup (ever read the ingredients on Wonder Bread?), making her children less likely to be obese. Maybe she buys a new car and can get that better job the next city over. Maybe she starts to save a little bit, so the next time she gets sick, she won't need to take out a payday loan to cover the rent. 
> 
> It's really simple. People that don't make very much money spend very near to 100% of what they make. Probably over 100%, when you factor in savings accounts (few) versus credit cards (many). People that make a lot of money spend a much lower percentage of their income, even though the dollar amount is significantly higher. This non-spent income goes toward investments, savings, retirement...whatever. It's not put directly back into the economy--some of it is, certainly--but I think we can all agree is what makes economies work is when the money is spent, putting it back into circulation. 
> 
> The simplest way to put money into circulation is to spend it. The people likeliest to spend it are those that don't currently have enough to meet their needs.


Then how do you account for all the "Spreewells" rotating around on cars in federal housing projects and other low income housing areas. Those suckers cost a bloody fortune but you see thousands of them on Cad's, Nav's, and other pimp mobiles. 

Could it be that they do have disposable income? No Way!!


By the way you need to go back to basic economic theory - more money is made by investments than by spending. Once it is spent it is gone. If it is invested it too is spent and yet has this neat little thing called "Return on Investment. It's called the multiplier effect. 


Rep

----------


## Judy Canty

> "I survived because I was not raised in poverty." 
> 
> This is the quote that I questioned. What did not being raised in poverty have to do with you surviving?
> 
> Rep


 
Huh? First you said I came from a wealthy family and now I am guilty of not being raised in poverty? Why not slow down and read for a change? Solidly middle-class, college-educated parents, married young into a rather wealthy family, dropped out of college, started a family, grew-up and was out on my own taking care of my own the best way I could, but with the help of some friends, got out of a system designed to keep me at the poverty level because I knew I could.

Perhaps I should provide you with a bit of insight on the system as it was in the early '70s.

1. Couldn't have a car. I had a job that required a car. I lived in Portsmouth and worked in Norfolk and then the lab moved to VA. Beach. Boyfriend bought me a car (1963 TR4, got the seats for it at the junkyard and I sewed my own carpeting. Personal property taxes maxed at $4.00 per year.  Hardly a "Spreewell").
2. Couldn't have a job that paid too much without losing medical benefits and child care assistance. A delicate balance when offered a pay raise.
3. Qualified for food stamps, but needed a day off during the work week to collect them. It was an all-day process.
4. Had to lie to qualify for federally assisted housing in a new development. A friend of my father's notarized a bogus income statement so I could have a decent place to live.

Fortunately for me, there were more folks out there like my Dad's friend than there were like you.

You're cutting into my sewing time. Buh-bye.

----------


## rep

> *I survived because I was not raised in poverty* and because I had a good education and a few people along the way who cared.


Go back and look at what you posted! Post # 57 in this thread. It was a simple question as to why you felt that way? Nothing more, nothing less. 


Rep

----------


## spartus

> Huh?  First you said I came from a wealthy family and now I was raised in poverty?  Why not slow down and read for a change?  Solidly middle-class, college-educated parents, married young into a rather wealthy family, dropped out of college, started a family, grew-up and was out on my own taking care of my own the best way I could, but with the help of some friends, got out of a system designed to keep me at the poverty level because I knew I could.


Don't bother. He's clearly nuts.

----------


## rep

> Don't bother. He's clearly nuts.


the land of ____ and nuts.

----------


## Jubilee

> The poor continue to do things that make them poor. 
> 
> Rep


HOw do they do that? By borrowing money to fix a car to go to work in? How about they just not show up and get fired! That really helps them out of the system, doesn't it?

Have you ever spent anytime in the system, or working with those that are? Please tell me how the majority of the people in the system knowingly screw themselves?

Cassandra

----------


## spartus

> the land of ____ and nuts.


Classic rep! Ignore all context and distort meaninglessly! Bravo! Bra*vo*!

----------


## Spexvet

> ...
> Now for those of you who hate a progressive tax system keep this in mind. The idea of a flat tax system here would bring the taxes here to around 22 percent, thus $12,168. Now there is less incentive to work and more incentive to go back to welfare, which will just raise the taxes for everyone.
> ...


How about a flat tax for all income over $40,000, even for millionaires?

----------


## Spexvet

BTW, my proposal really has nothing to do with taxation or the welfare system, although I think a byproduct would be more - and higher paying - jobs, which would, in fact, reduce the number of welfare recipients.

----------


## For-Life

I would really have to look into the tax rates for each bracket. Therefore, I will try to get back to you on that.

However, we do have to remember that there are some regressive taxes out there.  Things like the income trust break that only benefit higher wealth individuals.  I am not saying that these are wrong, nor am I saying that they should be removed.  Just saying that they are there.

----------


## rinselberg

As far as jiggering with the tax rates, without a computer simulation to show the probable effects on the amount and distribution of tax revenues - well, you might as well be "whistlin' Dixie" (maybe with Chip..)


It's D-U-B-A-I, not D-U-B-Y-A ... rinselberg's latest OpEd post is available online at Laramy-K Optical's professional forum.

----------


## Spexvet

a flat tax would cut virtually all the government costs of the IRS, and eliminate the tax accounting industry. Unfortunately that would increase unemployment.

----------


## chm2023

> Haven't you noticed that many (other than the Kennedy's) who have _excessive_ wealth are very good about giving it away to noble causes at a rate much higher than your increased tax rates would have "redistributed" them? 
> Chip


I haven't noticed this. Perhaps some actual data? For every Bill Gates I fear there are dozens of Ken Lays.

----------


## shanbaum

> Which is here and has the references to local officials here. http://katrina.house.gov/
> 
> I read your entire report, that's were I picked up my reference to "booze, condoms and adult entertainment". Which is pretty obvious to everyone that I did read the report, which is more than I can say for you regarding the house report. 
> 
> I also caught the summary which has none of the outrageous accusations you put forth above regarding the Bush administration.


I get it, you first posted about the OMB report, and then referred to a summary by Boortz of it - well, I thought you were still referring to the same report, since you didn't mention any other until now. I figure you didn't know to which report Boortz was referring, but now you've figured it out.

I didn't say I _had_ read the House report, which I have not done - I've only read _about_ it. I may not have time to read it in the near future, but in any case, you seem to be saying that we agree, that FEMA's response was incompetent.

As far as what the OMB report actually says is concerned, the link is there, people can read it, and decide what it says to the best of their abilities. They may, unlike you, notice that while it certainly documents abuses - that's what it's all about - it doesn't say _who_ committed these abuses. Unless you believe that all of the victims of Katrina were "poor", the report does not support your initial assertion that was, you may recall, that the poor are defrauding us (as opposed to, for example, the colorable position that "at least some of the victims of Hurricane Katrina defrauded us"). 

Of course you have supported this quite effectively by other means, namely in making us aware of this: 

_Then how do you account for all the "Spreewells" rotating around on cars in federal housing projects and other low income housing areas. Those suckers cost a bloody fortune but you see thousands of them on Cad's, Nav's, and other pimp mobiles._ 


I guess I'm going to have to spend more time scrutinizing low income areas. I had no idea they were overflowing with thousands of Cad's and Nav's sporting "Spreewells". (Actually, I don't know what these are; maybe that's why I'm so poorly informed).

As far as my incessant criticism of the Bush Administration is concerned, I'm content to let the readers of your posts, and mine, decide whose criticism is well-founded, and whose is based on hyperbole, anecdote, and repetition of misinformation spread by the right-wing propaganda machine.

Speaking of which, should you think that last bit excessive, let me relate to you an observation I made just yesterday. Steven Hadley (the National Security Adviser) appeared on Face the Nation. In trying to put a positive spin on the bombing of the Al'Asqiya Mosque, he said that he thought this could actually turn out to be a positive development, as the violent response would cause all Iraqis to "peer into the abyss" of all-out (as opposed to limited, he did not add) civil war, and back away.

One half-hour later, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) appeared on Meet the Press to express, together with several other Republicans, dismay at the Administration's _incompetence_ in handling the Dubai/ports issue. I nearly dislocated my jaw when, in response to a question about Iraq, he used _exactly the same words as Hadley_ - "peer into the abyss," etc. - to try to put a positive spin on the Mosque bombing.

I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories, but it's clear that somewhere, there is a person (Karl Rove?), or some number of persons (Karl Rove and Karen Hughes?), who are disseminating the very words that these people are compelled to use.

That the Republicans in Congress would disseminate such talking points amongst themselves doesn't surprise me (although I find the practice disgusting, as it is intended to substitute sloganeering for public debate). But it shocks me to find the National Security Adviser literally on the same page.

So, there you are: an instance of Bush Admiinistration competence. They know how to sell a message. That's also known as "marketing".

Too bad it has nothing to do with "governing".

----------


## chm2023

Shanbaum: read a review of Paul Bremer's book, forget the title. In it he (according to the review) reveals that during his tenure in Iraq both his and Gen Sanchez's (sp?) requests for additional troops were repeatedly turned back by the White House. From their position they readily saw that the troop level was woefully inadequate to secure the country. This of course fell into that increasiningly broad category of "stuff Bush doesn't want to hear", so it was ignored.

I suspect this (Bremer's book) is the beginning of a number of insider folks who will be calling out the administration on their bush league (pun intended) handling of this whole mess. 

The question that Bremer needs to answer is of course, why didn't he speak out at the time. 

This "peering into the abyss" thing is so typical. Bush gave a short interview on-board AF One re the UAE deal and was asked for his reaction to the current situation in Iraq. You will be pleased to know he remains "optimistic". Which is a very reasonable reaction to "staring into the abyss" as any fool knows.

Saints preserve us.....

There's a really funny, really devastating piece on W in this month's Vanity Fair. Talks about how he uses the military as staging--e.g dressing up in Members Only "military" jackets and making policy speeches on bases and military academies. (Kinda ****** off folks at the Naval Academy, where he directly attacked the democrats for criticizing his policy--this is a big no-no. Any military person would know this--oh wait, I get it....)

The dress up thing is especially telling, the article compares Bush to presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Bush I--folks with actual military bona vides--who bent over backwards NOT to assume any military accoutrements. 

Actually, now that you brought it up, I do have that peering into the abyss feeling...... :Eek:

----------


## rinselberg

> Rep. Peter King (R-NY) appeared on Meet the Press to express, together with several other Republicans, dismay at the Administration's _incompetence_ in handling the Dubai/ports issue ...


Colin Powell - a name that's been brandished from time to time by some of the administration's sharpest critics onOptiBoard - sounded pretty upbeat to me about the DP World contract - on the Tonight Show. Looks like a done deal to me.

----------


## Spexvet

> At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case. 
> 
> But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover. 
> 
> "We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.


http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...3-051657-4981r

So here we have another case of the administration doing something secretly, scoffing at American laws, showing a lack of good judgement, and warping the interpretation of laws. More of the same.

----------


## Happylady

I know I am coming into this thread late, but it seems to me that the basic premise of this thread is faulty. I think this country has a large middle class with a smaller amount of poor people and rich people.

----------


## shanbaum

I have found two articles of interest with regard to the ports issue. I don't know if the TNR article is viewable to non-subscribers, but it explains the deal in a way that it is, at least, intelligible (hint: it's actually all about airplanes).

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060220&s=judis022506


And in today's NYT, there's a brief but excellent analysis and proposal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/op...html?th&emc=th

One thing I notice in that article: those who have been taking the "don't worry, the Coast Guard and Customs Service are in charge of security" will no doubt find comfort in the observation that these agencies have _one hundred_ of their top men on the job.

----------


## Spexvet

Chip,

Aren't you concerned about the immortal soul of these people who take more and more from those less fortunate, even though they have alot already? :Confused:  

*



Sinopsis 

What it is: Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Why you do it: Because you were weaned improperly as an infant.

Your punishment in Hell will be: You'll be force-fed rats, toads, and snakes


One of the seven deadly sins.




			
				 gluttony
			
		






Pronunciation: 'gl&t-nE, 'gl&-t&n-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ton·ies
1 : excess in eating or drinking
2 : greedy or excessive indulgence 
			
		

* </H2>Gluttony is NOT just about eating! :hammer:

----------


## chip anderson

I am not thier judge.  Don't know why they have nots or the have a littles feel they should be.


I do feel that we will all face judgement on our acts (no I don't believe in grace alone or last minite redemption) but the judgement will not be mine.

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> I am not thier judge. Don't know why they have nots or the have a littles feel they should be.
> 
> 
> I do feel that we will all face judgement on our acts (no I don't believe in grace alone or last minite redemption) but the judgement will not be mine.
> 
> Chip


And yet you feel compelled to judge the have-nots, convicting them of laziness and fraud.

----------


## chip anderson

No convicting them of wanting what the haves have to the point of dictating by taxation what they should do with thier money, or how much they should be allowed to earn.

----------


## Spexvet

> I am not thier judge. Don't know why they have nots or the have a littles feel they should be.
> 
> 
> I do feel that we will all face judgement on our acts (no I don't believe in grace alone or last minite redemption) but the judgement will not be mine.
> 
> Chip
> ...
> 
> No convicting them of wanting what the haves have to the point of dictating by taxation what they should do with thier money, or how much they should be allowed to earn.


Ok, so you judge poor folks, not the filthy rich. That's brave, yet somehow touching.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## spartus

> Ok, so you judge poor folks, not the filthy rich. That's brave, yet somehow touching.


No, what they're actually saying is that since those with no money are lazy, giving them more money will make them even lazier. But on the other hand, giving the wealthy more money makes them more "productive".

----------


## chm2023

> The net worth of the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. families rose to a median $924,100 in 2004 from $887,900 three years earlier, a 4 percent rise, the report showed. Net worth for the poorest 20 percent of the population fell 11 percent to $7,500. Those in the next highest income group saw net wealth fall 13.4 percent, to $34,300.


 source:  Bloomberg.com quoting a Federal Reserve report



You know those surveys you see all the time where the numbers show a majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction?

----------


## chip anderson

Look those living in the "poverty level" in the U.S. live higher than most of Europe and Asia's population that is concidered reasonably affluent.   If they are not starving, have two color T.V.s and at least one car why do we need bleeding hearts for them?

Do I feel a little jealousy for those with Yachts, very high priced cars, estates, etc?  Yea a little but if I take things like this away from them, you can bet they are not going to bust thier chops just to provide me with things.

You did notice that Marxism(Socialism) Didn't work in the Soviet Union, Germany, Cuba, or any other company with a we should all be equal policy did you not?


Chip

----------


## chip anderson

SpexVet:  A flat tax would put a lot of accountants and tax collectors, etc. out of work.  This would not necessarily increase unemployment.  These people could be employed in actual _productive_ occupations as opposed to bean counting.  They could actually make things.  They could stop watering at the government t***.

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> SpexVet: A flat tax would put a lot of accountants and tax collectors, etc. out of work. This would not necessarily increase unemployment. These people could be employed in actual _productive_ occupations as opposed to bean counting. They could actually make things. They could stop watering at the government t***.
> 
> Chip


Chip, this is my federal tax plan (subject to revision), and I'll implement it if you elect me king of the world.
Deduct the cost of supporting yourself and your family from your household income. Whatever your adjusted income is, as a percent of all incomes in the whole entire country (including business) should be your percent of the national tax buden. 
Example:
My portion of income is .0000000004%. The annual federal budget is $8 trillion. $8,000,000,000,000 * .0000000004% is $3,200

----------


## For-Life

> Chip, this is my federal tax plan (subject to revision), and I'll implement it if you elect me king of the world.
> Deduct the cost of supporting yourself and your family from your household income. Whatever your adjusted income is, as a percent of all incomes in the whole entire country (including business) should be your percent of the national tax buden. 
> Example:
> My portion of income is .0000000004%. The annual federal budget is $8 trillion. $8,000,000,000,000 * .0000000004% is $3,200


 
good way to scare business people out of the nation.

That is a little too progressive.

----------


## Spexvet

> You did notice that Marxism(Socialism) Didn't work in the Soviet Union, Germany, Cuba, or any other company with a we should all be equal policy did you not?
> 
> 
> Chip


Chip, Why do you feel so threatened? What are you afraid of? I suggest that $150 million more than anybody needs (not wants, but needs) for an entire lifetime. I suggest that income in excess of that be VOLUNTARILY distributed in some other way. I specifically did not recommend that it go to the government, I did not mention welfare, I did not espouse communism. And you make all these leaps as though I was taking your wallet from you and giving it to the unemployed minority drug addict down the street. How do you get from what I said to your response?

----------


## Spexvet

> good way to scare business people out of the nation.
> 
> That is a little too progressive.


Which is saying that they don't want to pay their fair share, right?

----------


## For-Life

> Which is saying that they don't want to pay their fair share, right?


No, it is saying that they can get it for cheaper somewhere else.

----------


## rinselberg

> Chip, Why do you feel so threatened? What are you afraid of? I suggest that $150 million more than anybody needs (not wants, but needs) for an entire lifetime. I suggest that income in excess of that be VOLUNTARILY distributed in some other way. I specifically did not recommend that it go to the government, I did not mention welfare, I did not espouse communism. And you make all these leaps as though I was taking your wallet from you and giving it to the unemployed minority drug addict down the street. How do you get from what I said to your response?


Maybe it's because Chip has read so many of your OTHER posts.

I hardly need to speak for Chip, and I would not presume to, but let me speak for myself. I don't feel threatened by your ideas - but I must admit to being thoroughly puzzled by the "nature of your game" here. You don't strike me as "dense" or "slow to catch on" - anything but. And yet, for every smart post you make, I can go to your OptiBoard Profile, summon up the list of all of your previous posts, and find any number that are as dumb (or dumber) than your latest post is smart.

You're like a promising politician who's running for office (again), but can never quite escape his "baggage" of bungles and screwups all across his previous record(s).

Since I don't understand the nature of your game here, I can only speculate on what motivates you to post - but you might consider whether making only smart posts would be more in line with your (mysterious) objectives.

A word of advice to all who may be newly arrived on these fog-shrouded and surreal shores: Before you're tempted to respond in haste to the latest Spexvet post, consult his OptiBoard Profile and take a more carefully researched measure of the "total man".

And it's not just Spexvet - that's sage advice (if you'll pardon me complimenting myself) in the case of ALL of us here in "Opti-World".

We should always be carefully _deconstructed_ by our readers.


_Insofar as one can define existentialism, it is a movement from the abstract and the general to the particular and the concrete ..._

----------


## Spexvet

> Maybe it's because Chip has read so many of your OTHER posts.
> 
> I hardly need to speak for Chip, and I would not presume to, but let me speak for myself. I don't feel threatened by your ideas - but I must admit to being thoroughly puzzled by the "nature of your game" here. You don't strike me as "dense" or "slow to catch on" - anything but. And yet, for every smart post you make, I can go to your OptiBoard Profile, summon up the list of all of your previous posts, and find any number that are as dumb (or dumber) than your latest post is smart.
> _..._


Rinselberg, don't confuse posts with which you disagree with being dumb. Please cite where I've been innaccurate or, in your words, dumb. 

I don't have a game. Maybe that's why you're puzzled. Your game may be to promote Centcom and to warmonger, even some W idolitry, and maybe even to promote jazz music, but I am what I am.

What in my OTHER posts would lead Chip to make the leap that he did?

----------


## Spexvet

By the way, can anybody tell me...


*Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????*

----------


## chip anderson

Spexvet: What difference does it make?  Do you have a solution to the problem?

Are you willing to give enough of your  income to "the cause of the poor" to equalize the lack of income of some poor person enough to bring them to "the middle class."

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet: What difference does it make? Do you have a solution to the problem?
> 
> Are you willing to give enough of your income to "the cause of the poor" to equalize the lack of income of some poor person enough to bring them to "the middle class."
> 
> Chip


Sorry, Chip, I can't afford to. I haven't made my $150 million yet. I told you, I will not accept any income over $500,000 a year. 

You still haven't answered the question.

----------


## chip anderson

Yes, I have.  Everyone wants to cure the world's troubles with someone else's money.  Kind of like the people in church (and I used to be one of this group) that say I can't afford to tithe, but I'll make up later after I've arrived.  I just can't afford to give 10% now (and some folks think this means after tax money).

Liberals say I think those horrible tight conservative rich people ought to pay for bringing those poor (never mind that most of them would't stay out of poverty 3 months if you made them millionaires) devils out of despaire.

If you ain't willin to carry your own cross, don't ask someone else to carry it for you, that only happened once.

Chip

----------


## spartus

> Yes, I have.  Everyone wants to cure the world's troubles with someone else's money.  Kind of like the people in church (and I used to be one of this group) that say I can't afford to tithe, but I'll make up later after I've arrived.  I just can't afford to give 10% now (and some folks think this means after tax money).
> 
> Liberals say I think those horrible tight conservative rich people ought to pay for bringing those poor (never mind that most of them would't stay out of poverty 3 months if you made them millionaires) devils out of despaire.
> 
> If you ain't willin to carry your own cross, don't ask someone else to carry it for you, that only happened once.
> 
> Chip


So the question seems to be: Why can some people seem to "make it", and some people never can? Please don't say "because they're lazy", because this makes you look stupid and uninformed. Some of the hardest-up and poorest people around are working two and three jobs in order to make ends meet. My wife worked with a woman a few years ago who took a second job purely so she could afford designer clothes. Misplaced priorities? Sure, for you and I, but I guess her idea was that if she's going to work hard, she might as well have nice things to show for it. 

I don't have answer for the first question, because to me, it begs this question: If some people can do it and some can, how can we teach those people who haven't figured it out? Teach a man to fish, et cetera. 

Let me be clear, since someone will likely start talking about Welfare soon enough: I don't like Welfare either. I wish it didn't need to exist. If you could earn enough money working an honest 40-hour week to pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, childcare, and preventive healthcare with a little left to save, spend on luxuries or whatever, it hardly would need to exist, except as a program to make sure the bottom doesn't drop out on someone who's out of work for a longer period of time than they expected. Why should citizens in the richest country in the history of the world expect less? 

I mean, I know I'm asking a lot--the common conservative rallying cry seems to be that government can't do anything right, so it's no surprise when Republicans wield unprecedented federal power, they make sure that exactly that happens, which of course leads to less faith in government, and so on. But here's the thing--in a democracy, we can vote the idiots out and put people in who actually are competent. That's sort of the point. If you're going to give up and say, "Well, they're all crooked and can't do anything right," and vote for the guy with the letter behind his name that matches your voter registration, don't bother voting. However, if you're interested in making politicians accountable to voters, the merely negligent ones will figure it out, and the bums will get booted. Determining that no good will ever come out of government, which seems to be your position, Chip, merely benefits those already in power, since that's what they've been trying to get you to believe.

Weird that Bush talks up the virtues of democracy for Iraq and people in this country seem to have decided that it doesn't work.

Um. Where was I? Oh. Living wages and universal healthcare would be a start. I know, I know--government can't do anything right. Read the last two paragraphs again. I'm tired of typing. And someone really needs to answer Spexvet's question.

----------


## chm2023

> Look those living in the "poverty level" in the U.S. live higher than most of Europe and Asia's population that is concidered reasonably affluent. If they are not starving, have two color T.V.s and at least one car why do we need bleeding hearts for them?
> 
> Do I feel a little jealousy for those with Yachts, very high priced cars, estates, etc? Yea a little but if I take things like this away from them, you can bet they are not going to bust thier chops just to provide me with things.
> 
> You did notice that Marxism(Socialism) Didn't work in the Soviet Union, Germany, Cuba, or any other company with a we should all be equal policy did you not?
> 
> 
> 
>  Chip


So the two choices are Marxism (different from Socialism as I am sure you know????) or a growing gap between the top tier and the bottom tier.  Got it. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Spexvet

> Yes, I have. Everyone wants to cure the world's troubles with someone else's money. Kind of like the people in church (and I used to be one of this group) that say I can't afford to tithe, but I'll make up later after I've arrived. I just can't afford to give 10% now (and some folks think this means after tax money).
> 
> Liberals say I think those horrible tight conservative rich people ought to pay for bringing those poor (never mind that most of them would't stay out of poverty 3 months if you made them millionaires) devils out of despaire.
> 
> If you ain't willin to carry your own cross, don't ask someone else to carry it for you, that only happened once.
> 
> Chip


No, you haven't. My question is "why". We have a system where some folks make $200 million a year, and get all their benefits for free, and others work sixty hours, make $16,000 a year, and can not afford healthcare for their children, let alone maintain their car or have cable TV. 

My question is not "am I, personnally willing to give money to welfare recipients?", it is "why is the system I described better then a system where folks max out lifetime income at $150 million and the amount above that which they would have made can A)go to their employees (note: not welfare recipients), B)create new jobs (maybe get folks off of welfare), C)improve a product or service without raising its price (improves working poor's standard of living), D) reduce the price of a product or service, or E) given to charity?

I agree with Spartus. If "front-line" jobs provided a standard of living above that of welfare, more folks would work, and get off welfare! But, apparantly, that's not what's important to the wealthy in this country - it's much more important for them to have excess.

I support *work*fare. I believe _working_ for a government check would accomplish a couple things: as a taxpayer, I would get a return on my investment, workers would learn good habits, and their self-esteem would increase. :cheers:

----------


## rinselberg

Spexvet,

I am not much of an economist, but I think that your income redistribution plan has serious implications concerning the acquisition and control of venture capital. Whether they're "right" or "wrong", I suspect that the "high rollers" would probably say that you are going to reduce the scope for one person or a small group of people to make an independent or "free market" decision about where to put their "chips" (not Chip) - one person or a small group thinks that they have a smart idea for a new product or enterprise (or the next version of the Ford Foundation) and wants to stake some serious money on it. It sounds like you are going to redistribute the acquisition and  control of venture capital into many more hands - larger groups of people and (G-d forbid) the government. Down with visionary and imaginative entrepreneurship. Up with "investment by large committees only". Looks like your moving headlong towards *socialism.* Wall Street aint gonna like it.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *What is taxing and "redistributing wealth" other than forced donation?*


I think that our govenments should be cut in personel and other expenses to the bare bones. Unions of government employees should be disbanded and eliminated. Government then could become lean and efficient at less than half the present cost and would also perform better.

*I dont know the ratio in the USA, but in Canada every 3rd Canadian works for the government of one type or another.*

Blue collar workers got caught in Montreal 2 weeks ago using 195 man hours to fill 9 potholes....the pay is $ 22.50 per hour.

Government is stealing from us and mismanaging  many things. While out in the corporation world the mergers continue with resulting layoffs by the thousands, all due to streamlining the old world corporations that functioned like governments.

Before thinking of handouts of money we dont have, create the already existing funds by eliminating the sources of spoilage.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet,
> 
> I am not much of an economist, but I think that your income redistribution plan has serious implications concerning the acquisition and control of venture capital. Whether they're "right" or "wrong", I suspect that the "high rollers" would probably say that you are going to reduce the scope for one person or a small group of people to make an independent or "free market" decision about where to put their "chips" (not Chip) - one person or a small group thinks that they have a smart idea for a new product or enterprise (or the next version of the Ford Foundation) and wants to stake some serious money on it. It sounds like you are going to redistribute the acquisition and control of venture capital into many more hands - larger groups of people and (G-d forbid) the government. Down with visionary and imaginative entrepreneurship. Up with "investment by large committees only". Looks like your moving headlong towards *socialism.* Wall Street aint gonna like it.


Thank you for an answer to my question, Rinnsey. Finally, an answer! And one based on legitaimate reasoning. 

I can't say that you are right or wrong. While this may be a negative of my plan, does it outweigh the benefits? Additionally, I don't think my plan heads toward *socialism*. I think it makes our economic system more *democratic*. A venture capitalist will have to get more folks to "vote" for a venture, than before. Maybe fewer businesses will be "flash in the pans" or "flashes in the pan".

----------


## Spexvet

> ... While out in the corporation world the mergers continue with *resulting layoffs by the thousands*, all due to streamlining the old world corporations that functioned like governments.
>  ...


Do you view that as a positive thing?

----------


## spartus

> Thank you for an answer to my question, Rinnsey. Finally, an answer! And one based on legitaimate reasoning. 
> 
> I can't say that you are right or wrong. While this may be a negative of my plan, does it outweigh the benefits? Additionally, I don't think my plan heads toward *socialism*. I think it makes our economic system more *democratic*. A venture capitalist will have to get more folks to "vote" for a venture, than before. Maybe fewer businesses will be "flash in the pans" or "flashes in the pan".


I'll happily go on record as being one that supports an economic model that tends more towards socialism than it does today, as opposed to our current haphazard "_laissez-faire_ for big campaign contributors, standard rules for the rest" system. 

Pure socialism is just about as bad as pure free-market capitalism. However, as some elements of capitalism are great things for the public, so are some elements of socialism. Roads are socialist. Schools are socialist. Clean tap water, the electrical grid, parks, police and fire departments--infrastructure--all socialist. 

You're all quick to go on about the "redistribution of wealth". That's *all* that government does. A government collects taxes and provides the services and amenities to its citizens that the citizens, by voting in their candidate, demand. It's sort of like a free market in that respect. All we're quibbling about is _which_ services they provide. Every time I start thinking about what Libertarians would like to see government do, I get a headache trying to figure out the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist. 

I can't say it enough: Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civil society. If you don't like it, I hear the rates are very low in sub-Saharan Africa. Mind the death squads.

----------


## rbaker

*Gates fortune hits 50 billion dollars as megawealth spreads*

Bill Gates increased his lead at the top of the megarich ranking as the world's wealthiest people added 400 billion dollars to their net worth, according to Forbes magazine's annual list. 

The number of people whose wealth reached 10 figures stood at a record 793, an increase of 102 from the previous year, with Microsoft founder Gates in first place for the 12th straight year. His 50 billion dollar fortune increased by 3.5 billion dollars from the 2005 Forbes list.

----------


## chip anderson

How much profit is too much......His

How much profit is not enough......mine.

But I promise you that if I ever become a billionaire, I will give all but 10 million or so away.  But I will also give it to whom and how I see fit, not as you would have me do.

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> How much profit is too much......His
> 
> How much profit is not enough......mine.
> 
> But I promise you that if I ever become a billionaire, I will give all but 10 million or so away. But I will also give it to whom and how I see fit, not as you would have me do.
> 
> Chip


If you're referring to me, I never told you how to use your excess. I made suggestions, but I also said that what the gluttonous filthy rich do should be voluntary. Go back, read my posts, you'll find that it's all there.

----------


## rsandr

> *Gates fortune hits 50 billion dollars as megawealth spreads*
> 
> Bill Gates increased his lead at the top of the megarich ranking as the world's wealthiest people added 400 billion dollars to their net worth, according to Forbes magazine's annual list. 
> 
> The number of people whose wealth reached 10 figures stood at a record 793, an increase of 102 from the previous year, with Microsoft founder Gates in first place for the 12th straight year. His 50 billion dollar fortune increased by 3.5 billion dollars from the 2005 Forbes list.


I have heard that Bill will be giving all his wealth away when he exprires.
Is this to be believed?

Fair play to him if its true.

----------


## chip anderson

No one keeps _any wealth_ after they expire although I am sure some have tried to bury it to pick up on the way down. 
Chip

----------


## rsandr

> No one keeps _any wealth_ after they expire although I am sure some have tried to bury it to pick up on the way down. 
> Chip


Sorry, I meant to charitable causes rather than let it pass to his family.

----------


## Spexvet

I ran across this, found it interesting, and thought I'd share it with you.




> WAGE--PRODUCTIVITY GAP
> 
> The most damaging factor to our economy today is the Wage-Productivity gap. This refers to the increase in the hourly output of workers vs. the increase in hourly pay. This concept is described quite well in Chapter 6 of economist Ravi Batra's book, "Greenspan's Fraud." During times of true economic prosperity, wages have kept pace with productivity increases. Workers have shared in the benefits of their increased productivity. The result is that wages remained sufficient to purchase our nation's industrial output. Borrowing, or debt-financed consumer spending, was unnecessary to maintain sufficient consumer spending to purchase our production. More production can be purchased because more wages are paid. Demand, created by wages, matches supply, which is created by productivity. This creates a balance that makes massive borrowing unnecessary. And such balance maximizes economic "growth." 
> 
> This balance has not been maintained, however, during recent years. It has worsened greatly under the Bush administration. Productivity has increased significantly during the Bush years. In contrast, wages have actually decreased. This trend started before Bush took office, but I'll confine the time frame to December 2001 through March of 2005. These are years for which records are readily available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Below is a graph from the New York Times showing how productivity is outpacing wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Starting in January of 2003, productivity (or output per hour) has increased 11.2% thru the 1st quarter of 2005. In contrast, hourly wages have declined 2.3% over the same time period, from an inflation-adjusted $8.32/hour in January, 2003, to $8.13/hour in June, 2005. Production has exceeded the ability of wage earners to purchase the production by 13.5%. This gap has been filled by consumer borrowing. The amount borrowed must steadily increase, in order to keep pace with our increasing industrial production. If it did not, our economy would sink into recession. However, maintaining demand through borrowing is not a sustainable path. 
> ...

----------


## chm2023

> I ran across this, found it interesting, and thought I'd share it with you.


One could make the argument that we are redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top.  Forget Japan, this is the sort of thing that made Marie Antoinette light headed......;)

----------


## Spexvet

I've presented a solution, hoping to stir discussion. The response has not been constructive debate or discussion, only reasons why my idea wouldn't work. Let's try this:


1. Do you think the disparity between rich and poor is currently a problem in the US?
2. Would it be OK if one person aquired 90% of the wealth of the world, and the rest of us split the remaining 10% (living in squallor)?
3. What solution do you have for solving the problem of the disparity between rich and poor?

----------


## chip anderson

I have found the answer:  To a Liberal Democrat *His Profit is Too Much.*

To a Conservative Republican: *My Profit Can't Ever be Enough!*

Anybody noticed how good we are getting at telling other people how to behave, spend thier money, get educated, require a license, etc.  But, of course we don't need anyone to tell us.

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> I have found the answer: To a Liberal Democrat *His Profit is Too Much.*
> 
> To a Conservative Republican: *My Profit Can't Ever be Enough!*
> 
> Anybody noticed how good we are getting at telling other people how to behave, spend thier money, get educated, require a license, etc. But, of course we don't need anyone to tell us.
> 
> Chip


Thanks for the nonsense, Chip

----------


## rinselberg

> I've presented a solution, hoping to stir discussion. The response has not been constructive debate or discussion, only reasons why my idea wouldn't work. Let's try this:
> 1. Do you think the disparity between rich and poor is currently a problem in the US?
> 2. Would it be OK if one person aquired 90% of the wealth of the world, and the rest of us split the remaining 10% (living in squallor)?
> 3. What solution do you have for solving the problem of the disparity between rich and poor?


T'aint quite the _original,_ but on short notice, THIS was the best I could come up with ...

And if that aint enough, there's always more!


_The UAE (United Arab Emirates) was the country at the center of the recent US port terminals controversy. Why are they known as America's "Top Gun" in the Middle East? RinselNews has the answer: See http://www.laramyk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=207_

----------


## Spexvet

Still no serious answer to my question?

----------


## chip anderson

Spex:  What you fail to realize that when people have great wealth, Bill Gates for example:  His money is not in cash, it is in a business that manufactures goods, employes lots of people develops lots of products.  Very very few people in this country (as contrasted to oil shieks in the middle east) have much of thier assets in cash.  If these people were made to divest thier assets, no large inovative companies and products would evolve.   I am aware of golden parachute abuses and other abuses in our capitalistic system.  But without the go-geters, all of our system would colapse.   _In most cases enormous profits are plowed back into the company or into other businesses or investments that go into other investments.  _ Even if the person dies and others inherit the inheritance is in businesses not primarily cash so the company goes on.


Yes, spex this is a *serious reply to your question.*

----------


## Spexvet

Thank you, Chip. And it only took 151 posts for the second serious answer (Rinnsey had the only other one).:cheers: :shiner:

----------

