New Taxes

[Die Hard]

You crack me up Art. Truly.

And I'm glad all your effort and hard work got you to the standard of living of which you now enjoy. But you definitely aren't the norm among the social and economic elite.

I was born into a middle-class family.. and I remain there. And I've yet to know a single person in my entire lifetime who moved "up" a socio-economic class.

However, I've had more than a handful of friends from upper-class families. And I've watched them piss their lives away... because they can. They have the security net of their families... and they carry an elitist attitude.

I don't begrudge them. Their entitled to the wealth... simply by the good fortune of circumstance. I would just suggest a little less attitude.

When Paris Hilton was asked why she never attended post-secondary school... she said "Why? I'm rich and I'm beautiful".

Exactly.

Now we can get into an argument about how wealth is acquired and how we would define "hardworking" and what is truly "earned".

[Die Hard]

My bad... Blade is probably one of the hardest working most intelligent people I've met. You could take away everything he owns... and I have 100% confidence he'd rebound completely.

[Art]

Die Hard,

You're in Canada. Socialist, over-taxed Canada. Of course you probably don't know anyone who's been able to get ahead of the government's desire up there to provide heroin for people. You have too large a hill to climb. But, don't place the same limitation on Americans.

I think of the Top 100 Americans 54 are self-made men where 46 have inheritance money as starting them off. So, your point that the norm is to have money handed to you is simply outrageous since the closest your statement would be to being true is at the very top. It would be more tilted toward hard working people as you get further from the top.

Of course, of the 46 people who did inherit money, several are actually working hard and increasing their fortunes. You can think the American elite is Paris Hilton all you want. Factually though, the face of that elite is far closer to Dan Snyder.

[luckydevil]

And I've yet to know a single person in my entire lifetime who moved "up" a socio-economic class.

I'm sure this quite common in Canada( this applies with Europe as well). Income mobility is non-existent in Europe( where families are confined to a particular income class for generations). That is not the case in the United States.

Why you ask?

Government intervention and socialist polices

Only about 5% of the 400 richest Americans in 1992 were still in the same category in 2000.

Factually though, the face of that elite is far closer to Dan Snyder.

Art nailed it

[Die Hard]

Just to show that this isn't particularly a Canadian or American issue:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/13/disparity021213

Canada's wealth disparity rivals Third World: study

Last Updated Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:48:23

TORONTO - A study by a Canadian public policy group has found what many people have always thought: the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.

The study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) says the gap between rich and poor in Canada has grown over the past three decades and now rivals that of the Third World.

Using Statistics Canada data, the CCPA study concluded that half of the country's families control 94 per cent of its wealth.

It says between 1970 and 1999, the wealthiest 10 per cent of families saw their net worth more than double to an average of $980,000.

During the same period, the poorest 10 per cent of families saw their inflation-adjusted net worth fall 28 per cent, leaving them in debt by an average of $10,600.

Tax system part of problem

The study, paid for by the government of British Columbia, says the growing divide is partly the result of federal and provincial taxation policies. It says measures such as cuts to high-income surtaxes and capital gains taxes have favoured the rich.

At the same time, budget cutting has eroded social programs such as unemployment insurance and welfare, hurting the poor.

Study author Steve Kerstetter, a former director of the National Council on Welfare, said the findings show that governments are out of touch with the realities facing most Canadians.

He said a surprising number of Canadian families are a paycheque away from financial disaster.

The study also found disparity in income from east to west. The average wealth in Atlantic Canada was under $123,000, compared to $251,000 in B.C.

The study suggests that one way to create fairer income distribution would be to bring in an inheritance tax. Canada is one of the few developed countries without one.

[Die Hard]

http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Features/Inequality/USInequality.htm

Wealth Inequality

'Wealth' refers to total net worth or total assets, including financial assets (such as cash, stocks, etc.) and other assets (such as house). Wealth is different from 'income' which is the annual amount of money earned in a year. Most of the wealth calculations are based on 'households', and average household sizes are 3 people.

Most of the facts are from: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000. Table 2. (Courtesy, United For a Fair Economy)

Share of national wealth by percentage of population. - Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000 (Original graph by Devesh Kumar)

Top Facts

The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.

Source: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000.

The total wealth owned by the top 1% of Americans is equivalent to 200 times the total combined wealth of the bottom 40%. (Or, the top 1% owns 200 times the wealth of the bottom 40%

The total wealth of the top 60% of Americans is 500 times the total wealth of the bottom 40%.

Bill Gates, America's richest individual, alone has more wealth than 40% of the U.S. population combined, or 120 million people.

The top 1% of households own almost 40% of the nation's wealth.

The top 10% of Americans own over 70% of nation's wealth.

The top 20% of the nation's households own 85% of the nation's total wealth.

The top 60% of households own almost 100%, or 99.8%, of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 40% of households own one-fifth of 1% (or 0.2%) of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 80% of Americans own only 15% of the nation's wealth.

Other Facts

The total wealth owned by the top 1% of Americans is equivalent to 200 times the total combined wealth of the bottom 40%. (Or, the top 1% owns 200 times the wealth of the bottom 40%

The total wealth of the top 60% of Americans is 500 times the total wealth of the bottom 40%.

The total wealth of the top 40% of Americans is 475 times the total wealth of the bottom 40%.

The total wealth of the top 40% of Americans is 20 times the total wealth of the bottom 60%.

Source: Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000. Table 2. (Courtesy, United For a Fair Economy)

Percentage of nation's wealth owned by:

Top Sectors % of nation's wealth Bottom Sectors % of nation's wealth

Top 1% 40% Bottom 40% 0.2%

Top 4% 60% Bottom 80% 15%

Top 10% 75% Bottom 90% 25%

Top 20% 85% Bottom 96% 40%

Top 60% 99.8% Bottom 99% 60%

The top 1% of households own almost 40% of the nation's wealth.

The top 4% of Americans own 60% of the nation's wealth.

The top 10% of Americans own over 70% of nation's wealth.

The top 20% of the nation's households own 85% of the nation's total wealth.

The top 40% of households own 95% of the nation's total wealth.

The top 60% of households own almost 100%, or 99.8%, of the nation's wealth.

(Wolff, 2000)

The bottom 40% of households own one-fifth of 1% (or 0.2%) of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 60% of Americans own only 5% of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 80% of Americans own only 15% of the nation's wealth.

The bottom 99% of Americans own 60% of the nation's wealth.

The total wealth in America totals $27 trillion dollars.

(Wolff, 2000)

The top 1% of Americans could live for an average of 555 years at basic living standards (defined as 125% of the national poverty line of $13,000 per household per year).

Average household wealth for all Americans is $270,000.

The average wealth of the top 1% of Americans is $10 million ($10,000,000).

The average wealth of the bottom 40% of Americans $1,000.

Wealth Trends

In the fifteen years between 1983 and 1998, the bottom 40% of Americans saw their wealth drop 76%. (In other words, they lost three-quarters of their wealth in 15 years).

In the same time period, the richest 1% saw their wealth increase by 42%.

The richest 40%, excluding the richest 1%, saw their wealth increase roughly 20%.

Income Inequality

'Income' means annual earnings or increase in wealth (for example, the increase in the value of stocks) over a one year's period. This is different from 'wealth', which is the total cumulative assets or net worth.

Top Facts

The richest 1% of Americans earned as much income (after taxes) in 1999 as the bottom 38%. (In other words, the 2.7 million Americans with the highest incomes will have as much after-tax income as the 100 million Americans with the lowest incomes.)

The Widening Income Gulf, Center for Budget Policy and Priorities

The total income earned by the top 20% of Americans equalled the total income earned by the bottom 80%. (Or, the top 20% of Americans earned as much total income as the bottom 80%). (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000-01)

[Die Hard]

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0701-05.htm

Published on Monday, July 1, 2002

Economic Inequality in US

by Huck Gutman

Like those magicians whose hand is quicker than the eye, the acolytes of American capitalism make arguments that are fascinating - and deceptive. The historian Francis Fukuyama, darling of American bankers and industrialists and conservative politicians, famously proclaimed "the end of history". What he was referring to was the uncontested victory of capitalism as the now dominant motor force of societies all over the globe.

There is no question that the United States is, by far, the wealthiest nation in the world; there seems little doubt that it, with its system of corporate capitalism, has amassed such a sheer abundance of material goods and productive capacity that it can lay claim to being the wealthiest nation in the history of humankind. What Fukuyama, and George Bush, and Bill Clinton before him (though the latter less so) do not pronounce nearly so boldly - they actually do not pronounce it at all - is who owns this wealth. Or, in more traditional economic terminology, they do not dwell on the manner in which this wealth is distributed.

In the United States today, the wealthiest one per cent of the population owns more than the bottom 95 per cent.

The United States has the greatest disparity of wealth in the entire industrialized world. That fact is a national disgrace, though it is largely invisible both in the media, and in the endless accolades about the wonders of capitalism. While America seems to be enjoying a banquet of unbelievable richness, most Americans do not get a full plate, and a remarkable number go hungry.

In the last quarter of a century when the United States moved from global power to global behemoth, a quarter of a century in which American corporations reaped huge profits while spreading their power and influence all over the globe, American workers made no gains. None. The wages of American workers have, since 1978, been flat or declining.

This may be hard to believe for those abroad who see, on television and in movies, Americans driving sports utility vehicles and living in well-appointed houses. But the economic reality is that increases in the standard of living - and many families have seen such increases - have come almost entirely because women have entered the work force in huge numbers, and households which formerly depended on one wage earner now depend on two. Child care, home management, cooking, today are not part of the work day, but in addition to it.

It is not only this increase in the invisible, unpaid work hours that accounts for the ability of many American families to maintain their standard of living. American workers today work longer hours than workers in any other industrialized nation, even hard-working Japan. Harvard economist Juliet Schor reported that the average American works an additional 163 hours, or one month a year, more than the workers did in 1969. American workers get less vacation time than in any other nation.

Let me repeat: the wealthiest one per cent of the population owns more than the bottom 95 per cent. There are three causes for this monstrous maldistribution of wealth: capitalism, government, and pay.

The first is obvious. Capitalism depends on capital, and some members of society have a lot more of it than others. So the in-built tendency of capitalism is to reward those who have capital, which in less technical terms means that those with money tend to see their wealth grow much faster than those who have no money. The rich get richer is a fundamental corollary of capitalist dynamics.

There are two ways of suppressing this tendency toward increasing concentration of wealth. One, obviously, is taxes; the other is government spending. Taxes support public services and government functions, but they have, always, another function. Taxes redistribute income. Governments take money from people via taxes, and they also give money back to people, via social programs. Who the government takes money from, how much it takes, and what it spends the money on: these are decisions with redistributive consequences.

With the exception of a Clinton tax increase on the wealthy in 1993, the major tax changes since 1978 - an era in which Republicans Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes (father and son) were president a majority of the time - redistributed wealth upward. That is, larger tax breaks went to the wealthy than went to ordinary citizens. In fact, while taxes on the rich were reduced in a multitude of ways, the non-progressive social security tax for federally-funded pensions and the medicare tax for health care for senior citizens, took ever more dollars from working people.

How egregious this tax policy has been can be seen, dramatically, from the single most important initiative of Mr. George W. Bush's presidency. Elected by a minority of voters only after shenanigans in the courts, Mr. Bush insisted that what the country wanted and what the economy needed was a huge tax cut. He proposed, and then rammed through the Republican Congress, a tax bill which redistributed money from social services into the pockets of the wealthy.

The wealthiest one per cent of the population will rake in 52 per cent of the tax benefits when the cuts are fully operative. In the next ten years, the new tax plan will divert an astounding $500 billion out of federal coffers and into the bank accounts of those who earn over $375,000 a year. Diverting this money to the wealthy has moved the US government into deficit.

Accordingly, the president and his Republican allies in the Congress are loathe to provide money for education, housing, health care, and other services which working people and the poor depend on. Not only are the rich made richer, the poor and even the middle class will see cuts in what they receive from the government. Redistribution two ways, in a country where the disparity of wealth is already so great that in the world's richest nation, over sixteen per cent of children live in poverty.

Capitalism favors the rich, and in America tax policies have been skewed to take from the working people and give to the wealthy.

The third cause of the huge wealth gap between the rich and the great mass of ordinary Americans, is pay.

In the United States today, according to the authoritative publication, Business Week, the CEOs of large corporations earn, in salary and other compensation, five hundred times what their average workers make. Put in less arithmetical terms, they earn in slightly over half a day what their workers earn in an entire year. As the recent debacles of Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Adelphia Networks and others have revealed, corporate executives have been running their companies for the sole purpose of enriching themselves. And rich they have become.

While greed has been the operative guiding principle for corporate executives - and their bankers, their accountants, their investment advisers - American workers have seen hard times. Over the last four years, a total of 2 million factory jobs have been lost - ten per cent of the manufacturing workforce, which is the best-paying sector of the American economy. The executives who reward themselves so handsomely (the CEO of pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck received over $250 million for one year's compensation) nonetheless cry in outrage at any mention in a rise in the minimum wage, currently at $5.15 an hour.

Since 1979 the minimum wage, in inflation-adjusted dollars, has dropped 21 per cent. In the same period, corporate executives were under no such restraint: in 1980, CEOs made 45 times as much as their workers, while last year they made 531 times what their workers made.

Wages have been flat, the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and, to make matters worse, well-paying jobs have declined while low paying service-sector jobs have increased dramatically. Worse, in the last half-century concentrated efforts by business and the corporate media have combined to undermine unions and union-organizing activities. While in 1954, 34.7 per cent of American workers were unionized, currently only 13.9 per cent of the workers belong to a labor union. This too drives wages downward.

It bears repeating, for a third time: In the United States, the wealthiest one per cent of the population owns more than the bottom 95 per cent. It would seem that capitalism is scarcely triumphant, except for those who are at the top of the pile. It is not even the case that, as capitalist apologists always seem to claim, a rising tide lifts all boats, for as we have just seen, the evidence reveals that wages have been flat and wealth share declining for a majority of American workers.

The Americans are, in general, hardworking and generous people. But the maldistribution of wealth, and the Republican effort to continue - with Democratic connivance - the wealth shift, has painful consequences. For all the appearance of material prosperity, Americans often live with large reservoirs of economic anxiety and unfocussed political anger. Economic injustice is the great unacknowledged specter which haunts American society. And this injustice is, sadly, increasing.

The writer is a professor at the University of Vermont in the US.

[Die Hard]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2003-01-22-household-study_x.htm

Posted 1/22/2003 4:22 PM Updated 1/22/2003 11:06 PM

Nation's wealth disparity widens

By Barbara Hagenbaugh, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The gaps in wealth between the rich and the poor and between whites and minorities have grown wider, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday in a closely watched report that also showed a broad increase in stock ownership in the USA.

The difference in median net wealth between the 10% of families with the highest incomes and the 20% of families with the lowest incomes jumped 70% from 1998 through 2001, the Fed said in its consumer finances report, which it conducts every three years. The gap between whites and minorities grew 21%.

MEDIAN INCOME

Median income 1998 Median income 2001 Change

(in thousands)

All families $36.4 $39.9 9.6%

Percentile of income

Less than 20 $9 $10.3 14.4%

20-39.9 $22.1 $24.4 10.4%

40-59.9 $36.4 $39.9 9.6%

60-79.9 $58 $64.8 11.7%

80-89.9 $86 $98.7 14.8%

Top: 90-100 $142.2 $169.6 19.3%

Race or ethnicity

White non- Hispanic $41.1 $45.2 10.0%

All nonwhite or Hispanic $25.4 $25.7 1.2%

African Americans $21.2 $25.5 20.3%

Source: Federal Reserve Board

The wealth gaps between races and income levels had shrunk slightly from 1992 to 1995 but had also risen by double digits in the 1998 report.

Economists and government officials use the study to evaluate trends and to set policy. Its release comes as the debate heats up over President Bush's plan to stimulate the economy. The centerpiece of Bush's proposal is the elimination of taxes on stock dividends paid by individuals, which Democrats say would be a handout to wealthy Americans.

"I'm sure the president's critics will latch onto this," says Steven Wood, president of Insight Economics, a California consulting firm. "The real beneficiaries of the significant economic expansion (in the 1990s) were already highly skilled, highly paid individuals. They've just become wealthier and wealthier."

The widening of the wealth gaps can partly be attributed to the fact that lower-income and minority families are less likely to own assets — including homes — that have increased in value in recent years, Fed Vice-Chairman Roger Ferguson said late last year.

Details from the study:

Median net worth for all families rose 10% to $86,100 in 2001 from 1998 and was up 41% from 1992, the Fed said, calling the gain "striking." Noting the sharp drop in stock prices in 2002, Fed economists estimate net worth likely fell 6.3% through October last year. Despite the decline, wealth was still higher than in 1998.

The median is the point at which half of the numbers are above and half are below. Net worth includes the value of stocks, retirement funds, homes and other assets minus all outstanding debts.

Net worth for the lowest income group, whose median pre-tax income was $10,300 in 2001, rose 25% to $7,900. Net worth for the top 10% of household income, with a median income of $169,600, rose 69% to $833,600.

The median income for all families rose 10% to $39,900 in 2001.

Median net worth for whites rose 17% to $120,900 but fell 4.5% to $17,000 for minorities.

The report also found that nearly 52% of families held stocks either directly or through plans such as mutual funds or 401(k)s in 2001, the Fed said. That was up from 49% in 1998, and it was the highest level since at least 1983, when the Fed began its survey.

The biggest gain in asset ownership was in direct stock holdings. The percentage of families who owned individual stocks rose 2 percentage points to 21% from 1998 through 2001.

"You've had an equity culture developing. Equity has become a normal part of investing, just like putting money into savings accounts," says James Spellman, spokesman for the Securities Industry Association. He says his group conducted a study that showed similar results.

The Fed interviewed 4,449 families in the second half of 2001 to produce the report.

[Die Hard]

Income mobility is non-existent in Europe( where families are confined to a particular income class for generations). That is not the case in the United States.

You sure about that?

[luckydevil]

Die Hard, income inequality has increased in this country.

My question is

Why is income inequality a bad thing? I have no problem with it.

In fact many will argue increased income inequality is a good thing. Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the free market. Widening income inequality does not mean that poverty is increasing, rather that the rich are becoming better off at a faster rate compared to the poor.

to quote Ludwig von Mises Von Mises

"The consumers [in a market economy], by their buying or abstention from buying, ultimately determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. They render profitable the affairs of those businessmen who best comply with their wishes and unprofitable the affairs of those who do not produce what they are asking for most urgently... It is the consumers who make some people rich and other people penniless."

Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy. It is the implement that makes the consumers supreme in giving them the power to force all those engaged in production to comply with their orders. It forces all those engaged in production to the utmost exertion in the service of the consumers. It makes competition work. He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches...

The millionaires are acquiring their fortunes in supplying the many with articles that were previously beyond their reach. If laws had prevented them from getting rich, the average . . . household would have to forgo many of the gadgets and facilities that are today its normal equipment. [Countries like the United States] enjoy the highest standard of living ever known in history because for several generations no attempts were made toward ‘equalisation’ and redistribution’. Inequality of wealth and incomes the cause of the masses’ well-being, not the cause of anybody’s distress."

[luckydevil]

You sure about that?

Yes, I have read a great deal on this subject

With that said.....

Many studies have shown that income mobility has decreased( still amazingly high compared to Europe) the last 10-15 years( though many studies have come to an opposite conclusion).

Why you ask?

The level of taxation and regulation on the poor and middle class have increased, while the level of taxation on the wealthy has decreased( they still carry a huge burden).

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Die Hard, income inequality has increased in this country.

Why is income inequality a bad thing? I have no problem with it.

I never said it was a good or bad thing.

You said:

Income mobility is non-existent in Europe( where families are confined to a particular income class for generations). That is not the case in the United States.

Are you conceding this is a false statement?

[luckydevil]

Are you conceding this is a false statement?

Well, the level of income mobility in Europe is minimal( slightly above nonexistent).

Income mobility is at a much higher rate and quite common in the United States.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Well, the level of income mobility in Europe is minimal( slightly above nonexistent).

Income mobility is at a much higher rate and quite common in the United States.

Actually, a true statement would read....

Income mobility in the US isn't prevalent. However, it is more prevalent than Europe.

If you're going to use descriptive terms like "higher rate" and "quite common"... I would ask you to provide statistics. Since I've afforded you at least 4 articles above refuting what you appear to believe is "quite common".

[Art]

Providing articles from socialist web sites that do not explain the membership of the small upper class do little to assist us, don't you think Die Hard? Seriously, guy, how do you discuss income mobility without ever following people over the course of time and measuring whether they rise up the scale or fall down it?

Here's a conservative website that outlines several studies that show very high income mobility within the U.S. This is a different view than what you're seeing. The gap, obviously, is going to widen between the top and the bottom. The question is does the bottom have a chance to move up to the top. And are new workers taking the place of old workers at the bottom while the older workers move up the food chart some.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1418.cfm

Didn't economist Glen Hubbard release a study in June of last year tracking 14,000 people who paid taxes over a 10-year period and discovered 86 percent had an upward rise in their financial status? I know it's something like that. Should I look for that? Obviously, there were flaws with it, just as there are flaws with the data you are providing.

I think basing this sort of conversation on views from a couple of socialist web sites or liberal economists using static data rather than dynamic tracking data is an inappropriate method to understand the issue. But, you keep flashing those conservative credentials of yours with World Revolution data and I'm sure we'll all be held in rapt attention by it.

Here's a dated article -- also from a conservative point of view -- to show that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor has always been a topic of conversation and that income mobility is a different question altogether. Pretty reasonable when you think logically.

http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/mobility.htm

Here's a site which says it's non-partisan and what they think:

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=5881

I can keep going you want, but, I think I should ask you by now whether you want to stick by your assertion that snapshots of various earnings or wealth estimates actually have any reflection at all on income mobility or whether income mobility is actually measured in a different way whether it's vast or not at all existent depending on who you decided to believe?

[Jay Master Jay]

Bush is a criminal he has changed the tax system so his boys can be paid. He is not a good president and should lose his job and will in November.

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by Art

Providing articles from socialist web sites that do not explain the membership of the small upper class do little to assist us, don't you think Die Hard? Seriously, guy, how do you discuss income mobility without ever following people over the course of time and measuring whether they rise up the scale or fall down it?

It's unfortunate when you can perform a random search on the internet... completely unbiased just looking for the truth... and when I posted impartial material it gets dismissed as "socialist" because (1) a Canadian who lives in a socialist country posted it and (2) it isn't consistent with what you believe so it is dismissed as socialist.

I've provided 4 links to 4 different websites. I didn't see "socialism 101" in the url or site headers.

You really can't discuss things with someone who pretends to know it all and doesn't believe he can learn anything from anyone.

The best anyone can do is tell you what you want to hear or agree with you.

What's the social condition for people who spend their whole lives trying to convince every body they know everything... and view everything that isn't consistent with the perceptions a threat?

Is it "insecurity"?

[jbooma]

Interesting how every thread now turns into a canada vs us pissing contest :doh:

By the way the nicest high income families are the ones that don't shout out how rich and how good they got it

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by jbooma

By the way the nicest high income families are the ones that don't shout out how rich and how good they got it

You're a socialist Booma.

Art would argue you should be able to tell people about your "smoking huts", your new suburban vehicle, how you're building a new 3-level deck, what satellite stereo company is better than the other.

How else is the world supposed to know how smart and great you are? You need to remind people... and then praise the wonderful system that's allowed you to benefit so greatly.

And when you're not doing that.... you can remind people who horribly inadequate others are who haven't achieved the same amount of prosperity.

Because it's truly a measure of their value as a person.

Some people go around saying Canada should be greatful the US doesn't invade it.

In return, I'll argue those people should be greatful the world lets you live in it.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Die Hard

You're a socialist Booma.

Not exactly just don't like it it when people flaunt everything when they have it. I am happy for them just don't need to know how much they make and what they own.

[atloldskin]

Remember folks, that most of the taxes are paid on income not wealth. Even with the estate tax in place, less than 2% of all revenues are raised by this tax on the wealthy. Don't confuse the two in responding.

A very large percentage of our society pays little or no income taxes (in fact many receive a redistribution check called the earned income credit). Their "tax hikes" come primarily from social security taxes and sales taxes. Therefore, income taxes should not be an issue for many people; however, they (and the government) want income producers (not necessarily "wealthy" people) to pay for more and more government. That is the real issue--a class warfare.

[Cskin]

I know you've been taught by liberals that those who are conservative all were born with maids and pampered from a young age. But, I thought YOU of all people were capable of seeing through this fairy tale told to make liberals feel better about taking money from those better off and would realize that one's belief structure as a conservative can come from a life without great privilege.

Can I get an Amen!!!!

I too did not come from a "life of priviledge". I lost my father at five and my mom raised three kids on her own. Heck, a Republican Ronald Reagan cut our social security checks by two thirds while I was growing up. We almost lost our house several times, and I ate Green Goddess (salad dressing) sandwiches many days.

I'm conservative, although I consider myself independent, and lean towards the republicans because I just don't see the reasoning behind taking more from those who have more because they can afford it. Mechanisms in place for those who have more to VOLUNTARILY give more to those "less fortunate" is one thing... DEMANDING that I pay more because I can afford it is fundamentally wrong. Taxes... medicare premiums... whatever!!! It flys in the face of equality as defined by our forefathers, with slavery and women's positions excluded.

Because I earn more I should pay more taxes?

Because I earn more I should pay my taxes and someone elses?

Because I earn more I should pay a larger medicare premium?

**I've said this many times... I put my pants on the same as everyone else. I grew up surviving, not thriving. To be asked to pay more because I've worked harder and smarter and I earn more is a slap in my face!!!!

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Die Hard

It's unfortunate when you can perform a random search on the internet... completely unbiased just looking for the truth... and when I posted impartial material it gets dismissed as "socialist" because (1) a Canadian who lives in a socialist country posted it and (2) it isn't consistent with what you believe so it is dismissed as socialist.

I've provided 4 links to 4 different websites. I didn't see "socialism 101" in the url or site headers.

You really can't discuss things with someone who pretends to know it all and doesn't believe he can learn anything from anyone.

The best anyone can do is tell you what you want to hear or agree with you.

What's the social condition for people who spend their whole lives trying to convince every body they know everything... and view everything that isn't consistent with the perceptions a threat?

Is it "insecurity"?

Actually, it's funny DH. I just did a quick google on income mobility and the first site is refuting Art's link.

Read this article by Paul Krugman "The Death of Horatio Alger"

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman

It takes to task some of the income mobility stuff Art posted.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Cskin

Can I get an Amen!!!!

I too did not come from a "life of priviledge". I lost my father at five and my mom raised three kids on her own. Heck, a Republican Ronald Reagan cut our social security checks by two thirds while I was growing up. We almost lost our house several times, and I ate Green Goddess (salad dressing) sandwiches many days.

I'm conservative, although I consider myself independent, and lean towards the republicans because I just don't see the reasoning behind taking more from those who have more because they can afford it. Mechanisms in place for those who have more to VOLUNTARILY give more to those "less fortunate" is one thing... DEMANDING that I pay more because I can afford it is fundamentally wrong. Taxes... medicare premiums... whatever!!! It flys in the face of equality as defined by our forefathers, with slavery and women's positions excluded.

Because I earn more I should pay more taxes?

Because I earn more I should pay my taxes and someone elses?

Because I earn more I should pay a larger medicare premium?

**I've said this many times... I put my pants on the same as everyone else. I grew up surviving, not thriving. To be asked to pay more because I've worked harder and smarter and I earn more is a slap in my face!!!!

The fact is you actually pay less when you figure it out on a % basis. Didn't we go through this before?

[Thiebear]

OK lets not use your "Fuzzy" Math again.

If I pay 7k and Arnold pays 9 million - He pays more no matter the percentages no matter where the planets are in the sky.

He gave more, and more people will benefit from it.

And I gave 3.5k in charities, I believe he gave a couple of million.

Again, he gave more and more people will benifit from it.

And it is my goal to end up 1 dollar more than him in 9 years and do the same thing... Give more and help more but don't under any circumstance BLAME people who are doing soooo much already by throwing in %'s as a red herring.