Rich Man Poor Man
- Thread starter domtoni
- Start date
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
All you've got is a minute and a half retort from a comedian's schtick?
Could this explain why we have an unstoppable deluge of actual (you know, really, really, poor people who lived in cardboard huts or worse) poor people flooding into this country so that they can be the "suppressed" peoples of our country?
Did you actually listen or did you go google Colbert when he was mentioned?
You know air conditioning really is a luxury. I grew up without it in Southern California. Most everyone across America did, up until the seventies.
Refrigerators and microwaves really, really are out of reach for the poor in the rest of the world. Houses, cars, TV, you must be kidding.
A couple of points:
- Envy - that's the point, we all suffer from it
- According the the US definition of poor, I don't have the amenities of the poor whether it be space or convenience items.
- You teach a man to fish, and you have given him a trade and he can support himself. If you feed him, he is hungry within hours.
Mr. Whittle forgot the word greed.
- Envy - that's the point, we all suffer from it
- According the the US definition of poor, I don't have the amenities of the poor whether it be space or convenience items.
- You teach a man to fish, and you have given him a trade and he can support himself. If you feed him, he is hungry within hours.
Mr. Whittle forgot the word greed.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Greed is good, ask the guys on Wall Street! Not sure about envy.
Similar situation in Oz, the so called poor have a pretty good life. But it appears to be a crime to be wealthy. We even have a phrase for it, we call it the Tall Poppy Syndrome.
No one in Australia is paying people smugglers to help them leave the place to find a better life.
Similar situation in Oz, the so called poor have a pretty good life. But it appears to be a crime to be wealthy. We even have a phrase for it, we call it the Tall Poppy Syndrome.
No one in Australia is paying people smugglers to help them leave the place to find a better life.
Class warfare. Saul Alinsky deluxe.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Colbert makes the counter-point nicely.
That 99% of poor Americans have refrigerators doesn't change the fact that we have historically high levels of income and wealth disparity, lack of wealth mobility, a shrinking middle class, and the lowest tax levels on the wealthy since WWII.
Class warfare? I will agree with you that AHI produced this report to try to claim that the poor don't have it so bad, and (apparently) need to shoulder more of the tax burden than the rich.
You agree, I disagree and think that folks like you and me paying 2-3% more in taxes makes more sense than adding taxes to the guy living in the 900 sq. ft. subsidized apartment with a fridge, a TV, a phone and an XBox who makes $25k a year.
That 99% of poor Americans have refrigerators doesn't change the fact that we have historically high levels of income and wealth disparity, lack of wealth mobility, a shrinking middle class, and the lowest tax levels on the wealthy since WWII.
Class warfare? I will agree with you that AHI produced this report to try to claim that the poor don't have it so bad, and (apparently) need to shoulder more of the tax burden than the rich.
You agree, I disagree and think that folks like you and me paying 2-3% more in taxes makes more sense than adding taxes to the guy living in the 900 sq. ft. subsidized apartment with a fridge, a TV, a phone and an XBox who makes $25k a year.
Sure there is wealth disparity, people have different levels of education and drive. Maybe we ought to make a proclamation that all people should be at least lawyers, but all lawyer should have the same income no matter how hard they work or how many hours they work. Every liberal jumps on the refrigerator/AC on the charts, how about cell phones or more than one TV. Sure the very rich should pay more taxes, but things are never going to be equal, because some people put more time and effort into what they do. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet didn't get wealthy working 40 hour weeks, probably not even 60 or 80 hour weeks. The money didn't just fall out of the sky, they busted their butts for it, and still do.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Strawman.
No one is saying income levels should be equal.
But a lot of folks are looking at historic levels of income and wealth concentration, and a shrinking middle class, and wondering how in the heck that is good for the economy.
Believe I have busted my butt for every penny I've made. I'm fortunate to have done well, and understand that hard work was a big part of that. At the same time, given the historically low income tax rates I pay, I am perfectly willing to pay 2-3% more income tax so that the guy making $50k a year does not have to. I personally -- in my opinion -- consider this fair.
What I do not like about that video is that it suggests that the fact the poor in the US have some of the basic necessities for living in the modern world means that they should bear more of the tax burden. I think that is wrongheaded, and I think that is exactly why that study was put together.
No one is saying income levels should be equal.
But a lot of folks are looking at historic levels of income and wealth concentration, and a shrinking middle class, and wondering how in the heck that is good for the economy.
Believe I have busted my butt for every penny I've made. I'm fortunate to have done well, and understand that hard work was a big part of that. At the same time, given the historically low income tax rates I pay, I am perfectly willing to pay 2-3% more income tax so that the guy making $50k a year does not have to. I personally -- in my opinion -- consider this fair.
What I do not like about that video is that it suggests that the fact the poor in the US have some of the basic necessities for living in the modern world means that they should bear more of the tax burden. I think that is wrongheaded, and I think that is exactly why that study was put together.
Pat
Supporter
I find it quite surprising that the conversation has turned to tax increases, the wealthy paying more, high end income equality etc. instead of the root cause of our economic malady. The government has gotten too big, too intrusive and spends too much money. It spends far more than it can take in and has embarked on multigenerational borrowing that is unsustainable. Even if you take ALL the income of the top 1% you still don't fix the problem. The spike in the federal deficit beginning in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.
What disheartens me is that both political parties contribute to and hide the problem.
While is it great that Jeff and other wealthy folks are willing to pay more, there are provisions in the tax code to do so. Having personally seen the magnitude of government fraud, waste and abuse (as an Inspector General for 6 years) I personally don't want to contribute to the problem. I prefer to have the freedom to use my discretionary assets to contribute to my church and it's charities, the colleges I attended (Geaux Tigers), the USO and others agencies that I know are low overhead and the money goes to where I want it.
As of January 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The CBO projects total revenues of $2.228 trillion and total outlays of $3.708 trillion for a deficit of $1.48 trillion for 2011. Economists Peter Diamond of MIT and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley, contend the top tax rate should go from 28% to 76%. OK, say we do that. The top 1% go to paying approximately the amount of ALL income taxes currently collected to about a $ Trillion dollars. That still leaves half a $trillion dollar annual budget deficit and doesn't touch the $14 trillion debit. We are spending ourselves to oblivion. How will our grandchildren have to live to settle this debt?
What disheartens me is that both political parties contribute to and hide the problem.
While is it great that Jeff and other wealthy folks are willing to pay more, there are provisions in the tax code to do so. Having personally seen the magnitude of government fraud, waste and abuse (as an Inspector General for 6 years) I personally don't want to contribute to the problem. I prefer to have the freedom to use my discretionary assets to contribute to my church and it's charities, the colleges I attended (Geaux Tigers), the USO and others agencies that I know are low overhead and the money goes to where I want it.
As of January 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The CBO projects total revenues of $2.228 trillion and total outlays of $3.708 trillion for a deficit of $1.48 trillion for 2011. Economists Peter Diamond of MIT and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley, contend the top tax rate should go from 28% to 76%. OK, say we do that. The top 1% go to paying approximately the amount of ALL income taxes currently collected to about a $ Trillion dollars. That still leaves half a $trillion dollar annual budget deficit and doesn't touch the $14 trillion debit. We are spending ourselves to oblivion. How will our grandchildren have to live to settle this debt?
Alice, you just can't help it can you!
While there is a shrinking middle class, there are a lot of people that have gone to the wealthy side of the board. The charts are not saying that the poor are not making less, they are pointing out that they still have amenities that other poor in the world don't have. We take refrigerators and AC for granted, while in South American countries they are luxuries. I'm not disagreeing with you about the wealthy paying more taxes. I wouldn't want the taxes to affect small business in an adverse way though.
While there is a shrinking middle class, there are a lot of people that have gone to the wealthy side of the board. The charts are not saying that the poor are not making less, they are pointing out that they still have amenities that other poor in the world don't have. We take refrigerators and AC for granted, while in South American countries they are luxuries. I'm not disagreeing with you about the wealthy paying more taxes. I wouldn't want the taxes to affect small business in an adverse way though.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Veek, we have a spending and a revenue problem. Modern society requires a fairly large government. The fact is most people want "smaller government" until we start talking about what we cut.
The real issues are the explostion of Medicare and Social Security coss as people get older, couple with historically low tax rates.
Most economists say the "fix" of $2/cuts per $1/additional revenue would probably fix our long term problems IF we raise the SS retirmenet age and stop spending so much on the last six months of a person's life on health care.
A lot of the rest of the debate -- defense, EPA, etc. -- is quite honestly fluff and not huge ticket items.
The real issues are the explostion of Medicare and Social Security coss as people get older, couple with historically low tax rates.
Most economists say the "fix" of $2/cuts per $1/additional revenue would probably fix our long term problems IF we raise the SS retirmenet age and stop spending so much on the last six months of a person's life on health care.
A lot of the rest of the debate -- defense, EPA, etc. -- is quite honestly fluff and not huge ticket items.
Reagan made a deal with the Democrats that if he signed on to a tax increase, there would be four dollars cut for every dollar of increase. They got the dollar, the cuts never came, and so it goes.
There is so much waste in this government, it is beyond the comprehension of the normal human mind, and yet there is no room to even cut the rate of its growth.
A twenty percent spending cut across the board would go unnoticed to the end user, easily. But that would be felt by the crooks in both parties.
Its not a bout parties anymore, its about Conservatives vs. Liberals, and you will find without exception that Conservatives are pushing for the elimination of wasteful spending. The liberals, well are liberals.
There is so much waste in this government, it is beyond the comprehension of the normal human mind, and yet there is no room to even cut the rate of its growth.
A twenty percent spending cut across the board would go unnoticed to the end user, easily. But that would be felt by the crooks in both parties.
Its not a bout parties anymore, its about Conservatives vs. Liberals, and you will find without exception that Conservatives are pushing for the elimination of wasteful spending. The liberals, well are liberals.
Pat
Supporter
Jeff, we agree that we have a spending/debt problem. It dwarfs everything else. We also agree we have a revenue problem. We disagree that we have a tax problem. We are in such a hole, tax increases won't fix it. We need to grow the economy and generate revenue that way in getting more people to make more and pay more. We have historically low TAX Revenues, high unemployment and volatile stock market do that. The top 1% hasn't been a static group of people; they've mostly made their money in capital gains and not base salary.
The income tax rates have been consistent. The top rates went from 38 to 35% in 2002. Before that they were at 39.6 from 1993 to 2002. Before that 1988-1990 it was 28%.
Remember from 1998 to 2001 we had a budget SURPLUS.
We fundamentally disagree on big government. I've seen it, it doesn't work. Name ANYTHING the federal government does efficiently.
For example, we have a school board in my county, a state department of education, and a federal department of education all that redundancy has the quality of our education declining compared to other countries that spend a fraction of what we do. There is redundancy everywhere. The GAO found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances, according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. They found $200B in overlapping programs!
I don't need the government to tell me what type of light bulb, shower head, water faucet, toilet bowl, floor tile, counter height, water temp, doorknob, toilet handle, toilet tank, toilet seat height, and I haven't even left the bathroom! Go visit the headquarters of any major federal agency and just walk around...
Is the federal government better now than it was in 1980, or 1990? Are we getting our money's worth? We also have fewer people paying federal taxes so they have no incentive to reduce spending. If we keep this up, we'll have the financial equivalent of the Weimar Republic.
IMHO Bowles Simpson had the answer but they were ignored at our economic peril.
TPC Tax Topics | Bowles-Simpson Plan Summary
Veek, looking at the new U.S. five dollar bill, the big number 5 printed on it reminds me of the Weimar Mark. They too had a big number stamped on it, because when the inflation went up, they merely stamped another zero on it, on and on, until you needed a wheelbarrow full of money with lots of added zeros to buy a loaf of bread.
Social Security would have been fine if LBJ had not decided that our money belonged in the general fund for everyone in goverment to spend with worthless IOUs. Medicare would be a lot better off if fraud were taken care of. As far as medical care in the last six months of ones life, let me hear what you have to say when you have six months to go.
Pat
Supporter
What would the average medical expense look like if we had meaningful tort reform? All day long we are assaulted by some law firm advertising, "Have you or a family member ever been ill or died of something?-There is a cash settlement waiting for you." So we have defensive medicine, unnecessary testing, over prescribing (which almost killed my wife) all in the name of following standards of practice to cover a physician's legal rump at massive cost. Conversely, we have airways, billboards and magazine ads from attorney’s trolling for “victims” the vast majority of which never get a day in court or a dime in settlement. A study determined 80% of the physicians responding to the survey ordered more tests than they believe were necessary out of fear of litigation (Hickson et al. 1994). I have three physician friends who have stopped practicing medicine due to not just the malpractice premiums but the hassle of being repeatedly being dragged into court. One is a pediatrician, one a cardiac surgeon and the third is a foot doctor! They have told me the dirty little secret is that the vast majority of cases are dropped in discovery as the plaintiff attorney finds out there isn't a likely big payoff. As to the merits of all these suits, in 85% of the cases that do go to court, the doctor wins. But as they point out, it still takes over $100K to win one. Any specialist physician that takes on a high risk patient is inviting themselves to countless hours of depositions, records discovery at the “expense” of patient care. The system is broken.
