Mary i have to agree with Peter. Look at the prices of items and the fact of how much less quality and quantity we get these days yet they stay on the top of the food chain while the little guy continues to suffer. Right? Wrong? Neither matters. The poor are going to stay poor and the rich are going to continue to look down their noses at them.
As far as Trump or Gates caring... I could care less. They have a right to their feelings and we have a right to ours.
Bill Gates is now devoting his life to charities which help others. No way is he like Donald Trump. Kelly, I like your answer. Mary, please define "rich".
No, but you can force the rich man, who became that way on the backs and shoulders of the poor and middle class, to pay his fair share in taxes, thus giving back to the community where he made his money.
We are all in this together, and I don't mind paying a little extra into the pot for those who can't make it on their own. What happened to helping people?
Interesting... saw that question on TV earlier. Today I was watching "Love in the Time of Cholera" and there was a statement made: "I am not a rich man, I am a poor man who happens to have a lot of money".
Larry has figured out a better way in which nobody has any less chance of being rich than anyone else... please check it out and tell us what you think at www.nopom.info
You don't need to make a rich man poor to make life better for a poor man. You can take care of the impoverished from the fat, and rich people can stay rich.
often the poor man is richer than the RICH man, There is a song called Satisfied Mind. I think it says it well.
I do not want to be so poor I have no place to lie my head at night or creature comforts. But not so rich I am selfish and greedy and my barns are full and so I feel I need nothing and think I did it myself. God gives and God can take away. He has made people poor and then restored them to weatth again, Attitude and the heart is what he looks on. You can make the Poor Man Rich or rather God can by taking from the Rich Man and making him poor. God has done it. But it is not always a good thing. God took Sauls Kingdom and gave it to a poor Shepherd boy David and it was not Good for David all the time. Why because Humans are just plain purely carnal and give in to carnal nature. God still loved and forgave David but he paid a huge heavy price. God took away all of Job's wealth and then made him Rich again and the same for Joseph. So yes you can take from a Rich man and make him Poor and Make a Poor man Rich.
I disagree. Take away all the wealth from the rich and you have lost all incentive for business and commerce. In a meritocracy some will succeed and others will not. But it is the rich that are primarily responsible for commerce and if they are 'robbed' of their wealth the entire economy will grind to a halt.
The question reflects a simplistic misunderstanding (and looks/sounds very much like a loaded poll question) I agree with EM, "No, but you can force the rich man, who became that way on the backs and shoulders of the poor and middle class, to pay his fair share in taxes, thus giving back to the community where he made his money."
I think the rich are paying a good part of their 'fair share',
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoulÂdered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 perÂcent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Or, Sandy and EM, you can let each person choose what they will do with what they've got and not assume that simply because they are wealthy that they have trodden on the backs of those of us who aren't. People should be allowed to choose what they will do as far as being charitable is concerned, I believe that everyone should be charitable, but I don't think you can force them to be rightly by taxing them and then taking their money and funding things they don't believe in with it.
I firmly believe the rich should help the poor, I believe we all, and I'm one below the poverty line, have a duty to help those who cannon help themselves but I agree with ARiel.
One other thing, not all rich people are greedy, kick the poor, and over price their goods, you just hear about those. Thank goodness the media does write about Bill Gates, but he is not alone. Look at Oprah--why do so many people live by stereotyping and being judgemental?
"No, but you can force the rich man, who became that way on the backs and shoulders of the poor and middle class...."
Really? How do you support that claim? Sam Walton started Wal Mart in a one room store front and built it to what it is through his hard work and ingenuity. Bill Gates developed a computer operating system with his intellect and founded Microsoft. Those are two of the richest guys ever, and they did not become that way on the backs of anyone else.
"...to pay his fair share in taxes...."
The top 5% of wage earners pay 40% of ALL income taxes. Is that NOT their fair share? How much is fair? What's the magic number? Half of their earnings? Two-thirds? Three-quarters? The number of old money (inherited) families is declining while the number of self-made millionaires is rising (I think it was Forbes I read that in). How did they do that on the backs of someone else?
"...I don't mind paying a little extra into the pot for those who can't make it on their own."
Good for you. You should be free to do that. But you should not be compelled to do it by the government.
"What happened to helping people?"
Nothing happened to it. It's called charity, and Mr. Obama is about to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, decreasing the incentive for many to do so.
>>Nothing happened to it. It's called charity, and Mr. Obama is about to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, decreasing the incentive for many to do so. <<
AC--I didn't want to believe that, but it looks like it's true.
I agree. With people paying more tax, they will have less money to spend and invest.
The itemized deductions for homeowners will also be reduced and the tax credit for first time buyers has some tricky restrictions on it. Persons with a credit score under 740 will need to pay points of 6% and have mortgage insurance when buying a home.
Education is the key to making a poor man richer. If we forced a rich man to give a poor man all his money the poor man would have to be smart enough to use the money wisely to remain rich. I guess you can make a poor man rich but can he remain so.
I think there is a problem with taking from the rich just because they're rich and giving to the poor just because they're poor, if that's what you're asking. It is wrong to think that people who have struggled and sacrificed and paid and paid and paid to get themselves a degree and make more money at a job should be penalized by paying higher taxes than someone else who didn't. That doesn't reward hard work.
I would like to see the actual taxes paid once all of the credits and deductions are applied. Not based on the income, but based on the tax return. We all know what we pay in taxes based on our w-2 is not the actual amount we pay.
we are way below the poverty with 4 children and i don't know if i agree or not but i do know that with the economy some rich people are getting a taste of what the working class have gone through for years
I've never been rich and most of the time ,especially when raising six kids, it was a struggle and now I live on Social Security, but I have never thought those who worked hard to become rich should be told by the government that they have to help support me.
Before he died, my son worked very hard to build his landscaping business and to become successful, although not wealthy rich, he had a good income. He put himself through college, bought a small lawn mowing company and then wokred that, eventually bought another small comppany and did without while building into a landscaping venture and having a family. Would it be fair to take from him to give to someone who didn't work hard or try to get an education? How do you determine who deserves the money taken from those who have and be sure to give to those who have not through no fault of their own and those who have not because they don't try?
I've watched one of my kids work two jobs to raise their family and pay their mortgage and some who insteaqd of working hard took out 2d mortgages to go on vacations and buy newer cars who get the bail out. Does that make sense?
Another scene. I babysit for a family who had their 401k wiped out and the investments they made for their kid's education down to almost nothing and now, because they make over $250,000 a year, they are going to have to pay more taxes instead of being able to rebuild their kid's education fund or put away for their retirment.
If someone has a choice between going to work to make a living and not going to work and being given a living, which choice do you think they will make?
Tax incentives and other amenities should go to those that have money as well as those that do not. You need the folks with money to invest it in business so that this BS with the market falling like a lead balloon ceases.
I'd like to beleive that everyone has the same opportunity and one person's wealth or good cannot take wealth or good form another. I think that idea takes a lot of faith. Never stop believing.
Mary, that's a very good question! I recall the words of the late Henry Ford, when asked to distribute his wealth amongst the poor. He said, "If I distribute all my wealth amongst the poor, each person will benefit only by a few dollars, but I will become a pauper!" It aptly answers your question, that one cannot make a poor man rich, by distributing the wealth of the rich man.
The rich can only rob the rest of the people until the whole thing collapses, like NOW maybe(?), and then it will be just like Jesus said: The first shall be last.
"Look at Oprah--why do so many people live by stereotyping and being judgemental? "
I read an article in "Time Magazine"(I think) last year about the philanthropic efforts of the very rich. Bill Gates came out on top, and Oprah came out at the bottom, but just above Buffet. The article cited that considering each person's combined wealth and their "donations", Oprah's efforts were tantamount to you or I dropping a dollar into a Salvation Army kettle at Christmas.
What some don't realize, is that while the upper 1% may pay the lion's share of taxes on top, they have a million ways to offset the tax loss in "shelters" which the rest of us do not have. As Buffet said "My secretary pays more taxes than I do".
Money wise agree. In my opinion; A self made millionaire can go broke, however he/she has the knowledge to be a millionaire again. A money poor man learns how to get by being poor. Give a poor man a million bucks and statistics have proven the poor man will be poor within ten years..... it is all a learning process. The poor have the mentality of the poor. Everyone owes them, nothing is fair.....
Sandi T. you said: > I'd like to beleive that everyone has the same opportunity and one person's wealth or good cannot take wealth or good form another. I think that idea takes a lot of faith. Never stop believing.<<br>
You can believe it all you want, but all people do NOT have the same opportunity. I guess it's easier to go through life with this attitude. That way, you have no responsibility for anyone but yourself. Sounds like good old Christian values afoot.
It's called charity, and Mr. Obama is about to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, decreasing the incentive for many to do so.
The only incentive for giving should be care and compassion for those in need. Why give if you plan to get half of it back? It's a selfish motive, truthfully.
Debra-YES! Thank you for pointing that out. I guess that attitude of giving 'cuz you gotta is inherent in the Christian "values" that so many people cling to (along with their guns and their polident).
And among many of the wealthy, "Giving" is nothing more than a ploy for making a name for yourself ... to be part of the inner circle.
The charities I've enjoyed most were the outdoor concerts, where everyone was having a great time together. I participated in a few concerts where the entry fee was canned or boxed food to be given to the poor. Others were for aid to farmers, research for AIDS, Cancer, etc... That is grass roots "GIVING".
There you go stereotyping again. "ALL WEALTHY PEOPLE"
You have no idea how many 'wealthy' people give anonymously, or with no thought of 'he he he, how can I make this pay me".
It's sad to see bitter people stereotyping--but then those who resort to believe all types belong in the same arena, probably stereotype everyone in some way or another.
"I disagree! You can help the poor man by redistributing the wealth of the rich man. No one needs to have all the toys!"
Is it right to forcibly take those toys from him if he EARNED them himself? Surely there is someone worse off than you are. Would you want the government to forcibly take what you earned and give it to that person? Or would you like the freedom to help that person on your own if you so desired?
"I don't address you (anywhere, any more) because : 1). you creep me out...."
As said in my reply to your ping, I suspect you are more creeped out by the fact that someone was able to cast doubt on the talking points you had accepted as gospel truth--and that bothered you.
"...and 2). your denial and tendency to spin the truth is both laughable and repellent."
Yet you've refuted nothing I've said. Sounds like you're in full retreat mode.
I'm wondering how many who have commented here give on a regular basis. How many give to the local food bank, or community charity fund? How many give to St. Jude or MDA, or any other reputable charity? Just for fun, comment with a yea or nay!
So does that mean you are opposed to forceful redistribution by the government?
I'm not sure what you mean by "forceful redistribution", AC. If it's by gun point, then, yeah.. I'm totally against it. If it's distribution of all collective taxes, used to help those in need, then no, I'm not against it. If my portion of tax dollars is used to enable the greedy mismanagement of business gone awry, I'm against it.
We can argue all day and night about the fairness of taxation, rich vs poor... the pendulum swings far right and far left. When GWB was in office and the wealthiest received an increase tax break, people like Bill Gates balked at it. In politics, the republicans cater to the wealthy, and the democrats cater to the poor.
In real life, it doesn't matter if we are wealthy, poor, democrat or republican, we give what we can, and usually generously. Americans are known for their generosity, even in world catastrophes. It's not about how much or how often.. it's about what you can do. Collectively we do it, as a nation, based on true need.
Does it matter if it's at gun point or through forcible tax redistribution? You're still being forced--end result is the same. That kind of thinking says the ends justify the means.
As for GWB's tax cuts, I'm sure you know that he cut taxes in ALL brackets, created a new low bracket to ease the burden on low-income filers, and took millions off the tax rolls entirely. In pure dollar terms, yes, the wealthiest Americans did get more savings--but that's because they pay the most! Under GWB, the percentage of all income taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans actually went up.
yes, and my point is this.. the republicans were in control then, and they passed what they wanted. The democrats were upset. Now a liberal has actually been voted into office by the majority, and the republicans are going to have to live with it, or get their chit together and form a viable party for the people.
I'm being forced to pay taxes! Does that bother you? It's not even constitutional or a law. Yet, if I don't pay those taxes, I can be forced by gun point if necessary, to go to prison.
Nothing in this world is "fair".
To whine about how much the wealthy must give up to support this country is childish, self serving and self centered.
I know what you mean, Mary, and I know your point, but let me say that there's far more to this issue than just taxing the rich. If someone is really rich, and that doesn't mean only having money, you can take as much money as you want to take from a rich person and the person will never be poor. People who have made money because of their ingenuity, their creativity, and other talents will always be rich in those ways, and will always have the means to make more money. They will probaby also find ways to work around any problems that they face because that's what they do best and, to a great degree, a solid reason they have succeeded to the point they have.
I've traveled a lot, and some of the wealthiest people I've ever been around have been the kindest, most generous, and most sincere people I've ever known. There are also wealthy drug dealers, prostitution, and gambling ring leaders who are wealthy who are not any of those things.
Taking money from the wealthy to indiscriminately distribute to people who may not use it constructively is probably not wise, but I believe that it's going to affect the people who don't understand the dynamics of the circulation of wealth more than it will affect either the rich or the poor. The rich will always be rich, the poor will always be poor, and the people who want to complain about how wealth is distributed will always be complaining and pointing fingers, because that's what they do best. Things don't change as much as we think they do, or we'd like to think we control them, no matter what we do. It's the law of nature; the law of the jungle.
"If someone is really rich, and that doesn't mean only having money, you can take as much money as you want to take from a rich person and the person will never be poor."
But just because you can, does that make it right?
It doesn't have anything to do with right and wrong, AC. Of course, it's wrong, but the outcome won't really affect those who are able in the long run, and it won't really affect those who are unable in the long run. I wasn't trying to make any political point here.
Does that mean we should not even try for fairness?
By all mean, try. Just make sure you're FAIR about it, and consider all sides involved. Can you do that? Or are you too partisan?
If you knew the truth about Bush's tax cuts, why did you stick with the "tax cuts for the wealthy line?"
I didn't really. All I basically said is that the dems are in control now... live with it. If you can't live with it, get your party workable for the people, and you will be voted back into power. All I see the republicans doing is trying to berate this admin as much as possible in hopes that they won't have to work hard at being better.
"I wasn't trying to make any political point here."
I didn't think you were, given the context of your entire comment. I was just throwing the question out there in the interest of fostering debate. I wasn't taking a shot at you.
"By all mean, try. Just make sure you're FAIR about it, and consider all sides involved."
I can do that. I don't think anyone should pay more than a quarter of their income in income taxes. Yet the top bracket pays more than a third while a full 38% of all workers pay NO income tax at all. I don't think that's fair. The latest IRS data (2006) show that the top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes; the top 5% pay 60%; the top half pays about 95%--that means the bottom half only accounts for 5% of all income taxes.
Is that fair?
"I didn't really. All I basically said is that...."
You clearly linked "wealthy" and the Bush tax cuts, a commonly held but erroneous perception.
>>I'm wondering how many who have commented here give on a regular basis. How many give to the local food bank, or community charity fund? How many give to St. Jude or MDA, or any other reputable charity? Just for fun, comment with a yea or nay! <<
We (my husband and I) give on a regular basis, and expect nothing in return, other than that warm feeling you automatically receive when you help other people.
Heck, I'd even drop a bag of groceries off on AC W's doorstep--but no hand lotion or tissues, and definitely no aftershave.
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
Of the bottom 95 percent of tax returns, nearly 40% do not pay any tax! Filing a return doesn't mean you actually pay something.
I would think that given the restructuring of the tax brackets under GWB (where the top earners became responsible for an even greater share of the overall income tax burden), you'd be in favor of continuing or expanding Bush's plan.
I like this article by Scott Burns in the Dallas Morning News; it gives a nice breakdown of who pays income taxes. Here are some excerpts, with a link to the full article at the bottom:
"Perhaps we can learn something by examining how much we pay in taxes, who pays them and how our tax payments have changed in the last 20 years or so. We can do this pretty easily, thanks to the Internal Revenue Service."
"Every year it examines all the returns that are filed and analyzes changes in the patterns of tax payments. The latest year for which the data are complete is 2005."
"Today, fewer people pay income taxes. In 1986, Americans filed 103 million federal income tax returns. Of those, 84 million had to pay some taxes. That's 81.5 percent of all returns. By the time Mr. Clinton took office, the percentage of filers paying taxes had declined to 75 percent. During the Bush years, the percentage of filers who paid taxes continued to decline. It fell to only 67.4 percent in 2005."
"While the number of households filing returns rose by 5 million, the number of households actually paying income taxes fell by 6 million. Basically, 11 million lower-income households don't have to pay income taxes that would have had to pay taxes before the Bush tax cuts."
Did you catch that? Eleven million lower-income households that paid taxes before the Bush tax cuts do not pay taxes now? But Bush's tax cuts were only for the wealthy, right?
"Today, the rich pay more, the poor pay less. Bush tax rate cuts notwithstanding, those with high incomes pay at much higher marginal tax rates than those with lower incomes. They also pay much more of the total tax bill, a reality that has escaped Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Only 953,000 taxpayers – about 1 percent of the total who paid taxes – paid at the top 35 percent tax rate in 2005. They paid $315.4 billion in taxes on their $1,094 billion in income."
"In 2000, the top 25 percent of all taxpaying filers paid a whopping 83.6 percent of all income taxes. By 2005, they paid 85.6 percent of all taxes. So in spite of tax rate cuts for the well-off, the share of taxes paid by the well-off has risen."
It is something that you have to take on an individual basis, not all the wealthy are bastards, I had my doorbell go this morning and a neighbour from the hill overlooking myhouse was there, he and I have never met, but he offered, on his dime, to have my palm trees trimmed, (this is usually $250 per tree so I haven't done it in a while) he sent his gardeners down and trimmed and cleared away the debris, when I thanked him he said he did it as he had the money and I, being on disability, don't. He wanted nothing but a better view! On Bill maher the other night (Fridays on HBO) they were discussing wealth and poverty extremes here in the States and the redistibution of wealth is necessary. Too many of the rich are hoarding, not giving back anything and storing their money abroad in Swiss and Cayman accounts, they neglect paying billions in tax each year. Well, Obama is going to get a list of all the names of these evaders. Let them be like Italy. They have a great way of shaming the rich. They list all the tax evaders, what they owe and their currnt location. like "the ______ are presently vacationing on their yacht off Monte carlo and owe 27 m EU to the government. They shame them into paying up!
I think this depends entirely on the person involved. I'm commenting based on assuming that by "rich" you are referring to financially well off. If a rich man gives money to those who are financially challenged, but give too much, he could become poor. If that poor person takes the money and uses it as a boost to fulfill a dream and works had, he could become rich.
I've done a lot of volunteer work over the years and have found that the most generous and consistent donors and workers are nearly always those who have the least money. Make new tax laws or not; the biggest hearts will always outgive the wealthy.
Georgiana, that's a lot like publishing the John's names in the paper when they do a prostitution shakedown. It can be very effective. I doubt, however, that these tax evaders have any shame and will only pay when legally forced to do so.
"Too many of the rich are hoarding, not giving back anything and storing their money abroad...."
If it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to decide for themselves what they do with it? I mean, seriously, don't you want to make the decisions regarding your money?
"...they neglect paying billions in tax each year."
Read the Dallas Morning News article I cited above. The "rich" pay more than their fair share.
"They list all the tax evaders...."
Maybe Obama can start with Geithner, Daschle, and Killefer. Maybe all the tax evaders can apply for a position in Obama's administration. The precedent is already set....
Again, define "rich"... Though I haven't monetary wealth, and my health has taken a little turn at the moment, I feel that I am rich in many ways. Many of us are way more blessed that we take the time to realize... There is novel by Leo Tolstoy titled "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" in which a race is run from sun up to sun down. However much land each man can cover on foot by sundown, having returned exactly to the point where they started recieves that portion of land. Suffice to say that the greedy man who runs himself too wide a parcel does not make the deadline... he just runs himself to death wanting more and more of what he sees as he runs. So when all is said and done, all the land he really needed is six feet by three feet by six feet long. You can't legislate generosity anymore than you can morality.
Oh, BTW... as to the original question... I do agree that you cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor... But I wouldn't think it would hurt thoe people with higher incomes to do some volunteer work as part of their tax incentive programs... it might get them a little close in touch with some real people...
And how do we know that those 'rich' people don't help others? Maybe it's because those of us below the poverty line don't know any 'rich' people so we assume they all hoard their money and refuse to help those in need.
I dont understand why, if Obama is really going to tax the rich more, why do the rich support him? Amost all of the celebrites are Dems and voted for him... so if he is going to tax them more, you would think this would make them mad... Unless, there is a clause in this bill which allows them to claim more deductions... this would certainly explain why they still give him a good approval rating... In answer to your question... I don know ... I dont think we could make the rich man poor... not with Obama in office... I think most of the rich do contribute to charites..
No you cannot. The poor man given wealth would not appreciate it and would squander it, since he didn't work for it. So he would never really know what it meant to be rich. And once you tried too hard and long to take money from the rich guy, he'd find another place to be, have his business, or at least hide his money.
Making everyone rich is what we should be doing. First, it starts with attitude adjustments. Everyone has the opportunity - right now - to be as successful as he/she chooses. Nothing - except one's own inability to believe - is holding anyone back. People start businesses with less than $100 and eventually become millionaires. This is still the land of opportunity. Why else do people want to come here? They know.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 153
As far as Trump or Gates caring... I could care less. They have a right to their feelings and we have a right to ours.
We are all in this together, and I don't mind paying a little extra into the pot for those who can't make it on their own. What happened to helping people?
Larry has figured out a better way in which nobody has any less chance of being rich than anyone else... please check it out and tell us what you think at www.nopom.info
So my answer is yes . . . sorta . . .
It could be like balancing things on a scale. Eventually, things will meet in the middle.
(oh wait, that's what's trying to happen, now)
I do not want to be so poor I have no place to lie my head at night or creature comforts. But not so rich I am selfish and greedy and my barns are full and so I feel I need nothing and think I did it myself. God gives and God can take away. He has made people poor and then restored them to weatth again, Attitude and the heart is what he looks on. You can make the Poor Man Rich or rather God can by taking from the Rich Man and making him poor. God has done it. But it is not always a good thing. God took Sauls Kingdom and gave it to a poor Shepherd boy David and it was not Good for David all the time. Why because Humans are just plain purely carnal and give in to carnal nature. God still loved and forgave David but he paid a huge heavy price. God took away all of Job's wealth and then made him Rich again and the same for Joseph. So yes you can take from a Rich man and make him Poor and Make a Poor man Rich.
Just stopped by to say have a great weekend and God Bless!
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoulÂdered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 perÂcent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Ever heard of supply and demand? If the price is too high, demand drops and people stop buying. Then the price comes down. Funny how that works.
One other thing, not all rich people are greedy, kick the poor, and over price their goods, you just hear about those. Thank goodness the media does write about Bill Gates, but he is not alone. Look at Oprah--why do so many people live by stereotyping and being judgemental?
"No, but you can force the rich man, who became that way on the backs and shoulders of the poor and middle class...."
Really? How do you support that claim? Sam Walton started Wal Mart in a one room store front and built it to what it is through his hard work and ingenuity. Bill Gates developed a computer operating system with his intellect and founded Microsoft. Those are two of the richest guys ever, and they did not become that way on the backs of anyone else.
"...to pay his fair share in taxes...."
The top 5% of wage earners pay 40% of ALL income taxes. Is that NOT their fair share? How much is fair? What's the magic number? Half of their earnings? Two-thirds? Three-quarters? The number of old money (inherited) families is declining while the number of self-made millionaires is rising (I think it was Forbes I read that in). How did they do that on the backs of someone else?
"...I don't mind paying a little extra into the pot for those who can't make it on their own."
Good for you. You should be free to do that. But you should not be compelled to do it by the government.
"What happened to helping people?"
Nothing happened to it. It's called charity, and Mr. Obama is about to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, decreasing the incentive for many to do so.
AC--I didn't want to believe that, but it looks like it's true.
The itemized deductions for homeowners will also be reduced and the tax credit for first time buyers has some tricky restrictions on it. Persons with a credit score under 740 will need to pay points of 6% and have mortgage insurance when buying a home.
Warren Buffet, whom we all agree is RICH RICH RICH once said that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
You could rephrase it to many things.
Can you make a person see by taking another persons eyes?
Can you make a person walk by taking away anothers legs.
PW at its worst.
"Warren Buffet, whom we all agree is RICH RICH RICH once said that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does."
And you're able to extrapolate that statement to make it applicable to all "rich" people?
By the way, you didn't address any of my refutations to your earlier comment.
Does that make sense?
The rich can only rob the rest of the people until the whole thing collapses, like NOW maybe(?), and then it will be just like Jesus said: The first shall be last.
I agree with the statement, per se. Of course you'd still have one rich man and one poor man.
However, you could equalize and make both men comfortable.
Rest easy
I read an article in "Time Magazine"(I think) last year about the philanthropic efforts of the very rich. Bill Gates came out on top, and Oprah came out at the bottom, but just above Buffet. The article cited that considering each person's combined wealth and their "donations", Oprah's efforts were tantamount to you or I dropping a dollar into a Salvation Army kettle at Christmas.
What some don't realize, is that while the upper 1% may pay the lion's share of taxes on top, they have a million ways to offset the tax loss in "shelters" which the rest of us do not have. As Buffet said "My secretary pays more taxes than I do".
Why are most wealthy Americans so greedy?
In my opinion;
A self made millionaire can go broke, however he/she has the knowledge to be a millionaire again.
A money poor man learns how to get by being poor. Give a poor man a million bucks and statistics have proven the poor man will be poor within ten years..... it is all a learning process.
The poor have the mentality of the poor. Everyone owes them, nothing is fair.....
You can believe it all you want, but all people do NOT have the same opportunity. I guess it's easier to go through life with this attitude. That way, you have no responsibility for anyone but yourself. Sounds like good old Christian values afoot.
I don't address you (anywhere, any more) because :
1). you creep me out
and 2). your denial and tendency to spin the truth is both laughable and repellent.
:) Have a nice day (but I'm sure that is hard to do with your inflated ego).
The only incentive for giving should be care and compassion for those in need. Why give if you plan to get half of it back? It's a selfish motive, truthfully.
The charities I've enjoyed most were the outdoor concerts, where everyone was having a great time together. I participated in a few concerts where the entry fee was canned or boxed food to be given to the poor. Others were for aid to farmers, research for AIDS, Cancer, etc... That is grass roots "GIVING".
You have no idea how many 'wealthy' people give anonymously, or with no thought of 'he he he, how can I make this pay me".
It's sad to see bitter people stereotyping--but then those who resort to believe all types belong in the same arena, probably stereotype everyone in some way or another.
"I disagree! You can help the poor man by redistributing the wealth of the rich man. No one needs to have all the toys!"
Is it right to forcibly take those toys from him if he EARNED them himself? Surely there is someone worse off than you are. Would you want the government to forcibly take what you earned and give it to that person? Or would you like the freedom to help that person on your own if you so desired?
"I don't address you (anywhere, any more) because : 1). you creep me out...."
As said in my reply to your ping, I suspect you are more creeped out by the fact that someone was able to cast doubt on the talking points you had accepted as gospel truth--and that bothered you.
"...and 2). your denial and tendency to spin the truth is both laughable and repellent."
Yet you've refuted nothing I've said. Sounds like you're in full retreat mode.
"The only incentive for giving should be care and compassion for those in need."
So does that mean you are opposed to forceful redistribution by the government?
I'm not sure what you mean by "forceful redistribution", AC. If it's by gun point, then, yeah.. I'm totally against it. If it's distribution of all collective taxes, used to help those in need, then no, I'm not against it. If my portion of tax dollars is used to enable the greedy mismanagement of business gone awry, I'm against it.
We can argue all day and night about the fairness of taxation, rich vs poor... the pendulum swings far right and far left. When GWB was in office and the wealthiest received an increase tax break, people like Bill Gates balked at it. In politics, the republicans cater to the wealthy, and the democrats cater to the poor.
In real life, it doesn't matter if we are wealthy, poor, democrat or republican, we give what we can, and usually generously. Americans are known for their generosity, even in world catastrophes. It's not about how much or how often.. it's about what you can do. Collectively we do it, as a nation, based on true need.
As for GWB's tax cuts, I'm sure you know that he cut taxes in ALL brackets, created a new low bracket to ease the burden on low-income filers, and took millions off the tax rolls entirely. In pure dollar terms, yes, the wealthiest Americans did get more savings--but that's because they pay the most! Under GWB, the percentage of all income taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans actually went up.
But I'm sure you knew that.
I'm being forced to pay taxes! Does that bother you? It's not even constitutional or a law. Yet, if I don't pay those taxes, I can be forced by gun point if necessary, to go to prison.
Nothing in this world is "fair".
To whine about how much the wealthy must give up to support this country is childish, self serving and self centered.
I've traveled a lot, and some of the wealthiest people I've ever been around have been the kindest, most generous, and most sincere people I've ever known. There are also wealthy drug dealers, prostitution, and gambling ring leaders who are wealthy who are not any of those things.
Taking money from the wealthy to indiscriminately distribute to people who may not use it constructively is probably not wise, but I believe that it's going to affect the people who don't understand the dynamics of the circulation of wealth more than it will affect either the rich or the poor. The rich will always be rich, the poor will always be poor, and the people who want to complain about how wealth is distributed will always be complaining and pointing fingers, because that's what they do best. Things don't change as much as we think they do, or we'd like to think we control them, no matter what we do. It's the law of nature; the law of the jungle.
(St. Jude's is my favorite charity)
If you knew the truth about Bush's tax cuts, why did you stick with the "tax cuts for the wealthy line?"
"Nothing in this world is 'fair'."
That's a hell of a justification. Does that mean we should not even try for fairness?
"If someone is really rich, and that doesn't mean only having money, you can take as much money as you want to take from a rich person and the person will never be poor."
But just because you can, does that make it right?
By all mean, try. Just make sure you're FAIR about it, and consider all sides involved. Can you do that? Or are you too partisan?
If you knew the truth about Bush's tax cuts, why did you stick with the "tax cuts for the wealthy line?"
I didn't really. All I basically said is that the dems are in control now... live with it. If you can't live with it, get your party workable for the people, and you will be voted back into power. All I see the republicans doing is trying to berate this admin as much as possible in hopes that they won't have to work hard at being better.
To a starving beggar in Kenya, all of us are rich, even low income retirees like me.
"I wasn't trying to make any political point here."
I didn't think you were, given the context of your entire comment. I was just throwing the question out there in the interest of fostering debate. I wasn't taking a shot at you.
"By all mean, try. Just make sure you're FAIR about it, and consider all sides involved."
I can do that. I don't think anyone should pay more than a quarter of their income in income taxes. Yet the top bracket pays more than a third while a full 38% of all workers pay NO income tax at all. I don't think that's fair. The latest IRS data (2006) show that the top 1% pay something like 40% of all income taxes; the top 5% pay 60%; the top half pays about 95%--that means the bottom half only accounts for 5% of all income taxes.
Is that fair?
"I didn't really. All I basically said is that...."
You clearly linked "wealthy" and the Bush tax cuts, a commonly held but erroneous perception.
We (my husband and I) give on a regular basis, and expect nothing in return, other than that warm feeling you automatically receive when you help other people.
Heck, I'd even drop a bag of groceries off on AC W's doorstep--but no hand lotion or tissues, and definitely no aftershave.
Of the bottom 95 percent of tax returns, nearly 40% do not pay any tax! Filing a return doesn't mean you actually pay something.
I would think that given the restructuring of the tax brackets under GWB (where the top earners became responsible for an even greater share of the overall income tax burden), you'd be in favor of continuing or expanding Bush's plan.
"Perhaps we can learn something by examining how much we pay in taxes, who pays them and how our tax payments have changed in the last 20 years or so. We can do this pretty easily, thanks to the Internal Revenue Service."
"Every year it examines all the returns that are filed and analyzes changes in the patterns of tax payments. The latest year for which the data are complete is 2005."
"Today, fewer people pay income taxes. In 1986, Americans filed 103 million federal income tax returns. Of those, 84 million had to pay some taxes. That's 81.5 percent of all returns. By the time Mr. Clinton took office, the percentage of filers paying taxes had declined to 75 percent. During the Bush years, the percentage of filers who paid taxes continued to decline. It fell to only 67.4 percent in 2005."
"While the number of households filing returns rose by 5 million, the number of households actually paying income taxes fell by 6 million. Basically, 11 million lower-income households don't have to pay income taxes that would have had to pay taxes before the Bush tax cuts."
Did you catch that? Eleven million lower-income households that paid taxes before the Bush tax cuts do not pay taxes now? But Bush's tax cuts were only for the wealthy, right?
"Today, the rich pay more, the poor pay less. Bush tax rate cuts notwithstanding, those with high incomes pay at much higher marginal tax rates than those with lower incomes. They also pay much more of the total tax bill, a reality that has escaped Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Only 953,000 taxpayers – about 1 percent of the total who paid taxes – paid at the top 35 percent tax rate in 2005. They paid $315.4 billion in taxes on their $1,094 billion in income."
"In 2000, the top 25 percent of all taxpaying filers paid a whopping 83.6 percent of all income taxes. By 2005, they paid 85.6 percent of all taxes. So in spite of tax rate cuts for the well-off, the share of taxes paid by the well-off has risen."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sburns/stories/DN-burns_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.4603045.html
Can you get everything you wish in life and be one hundred percent happy? I say no.
On Bill maher the other night (Fridays on HBO) they were discussing wealth and poverty extremes here in the
States and the redistibution of wealth is necessary. Too many of the rich are hoarding, not giving back anything and storing their money abroad in Swiss and Cayman accounts, they neglect paying billions in tax each year. Well, Obama is going to get a list of all the names of these evaders. Let them be like Italy. They have a great way of shaming the rich. They list all the tax evaders, what they owe and their currnt location. like "the ______ are presently vacationing on their yacht off Monte carlo and owe 27 m EU to the government. They shame them into paying up!
Make new tax laws or not; the biggest hearts will always outgive the wealthy.
If it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to decide for themselves what they do with it? I mean, seriously, don't you want to make the decisions regarding your money?
"...they neglect paying billions in tax each year."
Read the Dallas Morning News article I cited above. The "rich" pay more than their fair share.
"They list all the tax evaders...."
Maybe Obama can start with Geithner, Daschle, and Killefer. Maybe all the tax evaders can apply for a position in Obama's administration. The precedent is already set....
There is novel by Leo Tolstoy titled "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" in which a race is run from sun up to sun down. However much land each man can cover on foot by sundown, having returned exactly to the point where they started recieves that portion of land. Suffice to say that the greedy man who runs himself too wide a parcel does not make the deadline... he just runs himself to death wanting more and more of what he sees as he runs. So when all is said and done, all the land he really needed is six feet by three feet by six feet long.
You can't legislate generosity anymore than you can morality.
In answer to your question... I don know ... I dont think we could make the rich man poor... not with Obama in office... I think most of the rich do contribute to charites..
Making everyone rich is what we should be doing. First, it starts with attitude adjustments. Everyone has the opportunity - right now - to be as successful as he/she chooses. Nothing - except one's own inability to believe - is holding anyone back. People start businesses with less than $100 and eventually become millionaires. This is still the land of opportunity. Why else do people want to come here? They know.