Reply With Quote
"Don't take away our dadies money, we earned it!"
Why should the really rich have to pay when everyone else doesn't?
"Don't take away our dadies money, we earned it!"
Peopld liike to about wal-mart but i'm all about that. Tearing down those that are successful is a trademark of thirdworld countries.
For estate taxes, the reason they don't show examples is that it doesn't force the sale right away, it makes it a struggle so it ends up being a few years down the line, starting out is the hardest thing to do for farming/ranching. That's commen sense. those that disagree with that aren't stupid, there just liberals trying to find a way to prove there skewed logic.
Did you see this?
Yahoo NewsWASHINGTON (Reuters) - America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday.
The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to "Understanding Mobility in America," a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University.
By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said.
"In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family," he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.
Your dad's job determines your future. Keep that one in mind.
Gee, dan, was yours rich or poor?
So, 78% of rich kids don't stay wealthy -- indicating the wealth is moved to others -- while 99% of poor kids stay in with the 95 percentile where the rest of us live. Imagine that.
Oddly enough, they don't explain if those 99% remain poor or maybe just end up somewhere outside the top 5%.
Let's focus on this quote -- which Dan chose to highlight:
Actually, that's an incorrect statement. What should have been said is this; "In other words, the chances of staying rich are about 20 times higher than becoming rich."
That is a more reasonable statement...and, quite frankly, one that surprises me. It seem the wealthy take considerable risks in that 78% of them are losing their wealth.
Dan and his ilk just want to be able take more from those that they deem to have more and "redistribute" it to the poor downtrodden souls of America. Understandable because the social programs of the last fifty years have worked so well (sw). It really is too bad that those on the left cannot grasp the dependant class they have created.
^^Oh, they know about the dependant class and they love them to DEATH.
They know their dumb programs don't work, but it doesn't matter, they tried and
will keep on trying, we (the taxpayer) just needs to pay more taxes so they can
spend more money on the failed programs. They (the Libs) care, they feel their
pain. So if they care, that is all that matters, don't you see?
I know, it has and will always be about the votes. Maybe some day in the future more of community living on the government dole will see the fraud that has been perpetrated upon them and do something about it.
Yeah, wealth redistribution led to the creation of the most dominant middle-class of all developed countries, but this is a bad thing. Much better to be led by a lineage of silver-spoon sociopaths who have no empathy for the common man.
Yeah, like Republican elk like yourself who vote for even more corporate welfare in the face of record profits.
Dan,
I want to get this straight. What you are saying is that the creation of the income tax system ultimately resulted in the most dominant middle class in the world by taxing those with higher incomes? It had nothing to do the hard work of those very same people? Or how about the capitalistic system that rewards education and hard work?
And for the record I never voted for more corporate welfare. Nor do I understand what is wrong with corporate profits. I always thought the object was to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. I know my 401K depends on these corporations trying to maximize profits. And I know I'm not alone or an elitist in this regard.
Without wealth redistribution wealth will concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. Already in the U.S. the top 5% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. Slaves worked hard too, but hardly made anything.
As I've written before, your father's occupation has a closer association with whether you will be wealthy than how much education you get or how many hours you work. Does that mean it doesn't happen at all? No, but statistically speaking, if your father's rich, your more likely to be rich than it is for a poor man to become rich in the U.S...
A poster in another forum explains that if was what he terms 'regulated capitalism' and not socialism, as some term Roosevelt's new deal, that transformed America's Middle class...
Lest we forget that this almost led to a military coup. Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.It is NOT capitalism that created the greatest middle class in history.
It is REGULATED capitalism that created the greatest middle class in history. The New Deal is what created the American Dream. The New Deal is not socialism, as the right wing would claim; it is regulated capitalism. Yes, it redistributes some wealth, as in socialism, but it does not nationalize all wealth nor share all assets equally. The greatness of the New Deal lies in the fact that it, for the first time in American, perhaps in world, history, leveled the playing field for those not born to affluence.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, per se, in my opinion, but it must be regulated. Left unchecked, it becomes a destructive force, and quickly polarizes society into the rich and the poor. Wealth in an unregulated capitalist system tends to become more and more concentrated in fewer hands; wealth generates wealth. It becomes very difficult for someone without wealth to acquire it.
Never forget what Andrew Mellon said about the Great Depression: that it was simply the money returning to its rightful owners. The very wealthy did not suffer unduly from the Great Depression. Most called FDR a class traitor for imposing the New Deal on their formerly-unregulated larceny. (The top income tax rate was nearly 90% for a short time; this provided a very-badly-needed influx of money into the Federal treasury.) The neocons, today's descendants of those robber barons and inheritors of their legacy, despise the New Deal and everything it stands for. They will stop at nothing to complete its destruction, even if they have to bankrupt the U.S. economy to do it.
Without some form of regulation of capitalism, without controls on corporations and reins on the robber barons, you cannot have a large and thriving middle class.
The second world war made America's middle class. Not
Roosevelt. His social programs are causing many problems
today for the U.S. And thank God he didn't get his way
with the Supreme court.
Maybe dan forgot what every father and every immigrant who came to america has ever dreamed about, at least legal ones.
The want to have a better life for their kids.
The if i'm busting my ass at 26 so i when i die and can help your lazy ass, crack addicted brothers and sisters. I'm doing it for the kids i don't have yet.
Its a shame if that means they turn into Nicole Ritchie or the Gotti boys but its there right.
, lets make some new laws.
Really hot hookers have to give freebies away
Gorgeous strippers have to have a happy hour, where patrons use monopoly money
Reigning NBA champs have every game as part of a back to back
The conservatives on this board have to give you an education on society.
Damn, that last one is pretty much a law here now isn't it?
I'd love to stay and chat but i need to get back to work, on a sunday, after 6 pm, so i can hand over a few more bucks to all those Katrina losers without a job STILL for some unknown reason.
The following says alot about America and capitalism.
Caring vs. uncaring
By Walter E. Williams
May 10, 2006
George Orwell admonished, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." That's what I want to do -- talk about the obvious, starting with the question: What human motivation leads to the most wonderful things getting done?
How about the charity and selflessness we've seen from people like Mother Teresa? What about the ceaseless and laudable work of organizations like the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity and Salvation Army? What about the charitable donations of rich Americans, to use the silly phrase, who've given something back?
While the actions of these people and their organizations are laudable, results motivated by charity and selflessness pale in comparison to other motives behind getting good things done. Let's look at it.
In December 1999, Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon wrote an article led "The Greatest Century That Ever Was," published by the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Ins ute. In it they report: Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 30 years; annual deaths from major killer diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, typhoid, whooping cough and pneumonia fell from 700 to fewer than 50 per 100,000 of the population; agricultural workers fell from 41 to 2.5 percent of the workforce; household auto ownership rose from one to 91 percent; household electrification rose from 8 to 99 percent; controlling for inflation, household assets rose from $6 trillion to $41 trillion between 1945 and 1998. These are but a few of the wonderful things that have occurred during the 20th century.
Returning to my initial question: What human motivation accounts for the accomplishment of these and many other wonderful things? The answer should be obvious. It was not accomplished by people's concern for others but by people's concern for themselves. In other words, it's people seeking more for themselves that has produced a better life for all Americans.
Take a minor example. I think it's wonderful that Idaho potato farmers get up early in the morning to toil in the fields, which results in Walter Williams in Pennsylvania enjoying potatoes. Does anyone think they make that sacrifice because they care about me? They might hate me, but they make sure that I enjoy potatoes because they care about and want more things for themselves.
What about all those people who've invented and marketed machines that do everything from diagnosing illnesses to controlling air flight? Were they basically motivated by a concern for others, or were they mostly concerned with their own well-being?
One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one's fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him. Many of the wonderful achievements of the 20th century were the result of the pursuit of profits. Unfortunately, demagoguery has led to profits becoming a dirty word. Nonprofit is seen as more righteous, particularly when people pompously stand before us and declare, "We're a nonprofit organization."
Profit is cast in a poor light because people don't understand the role of profits. Profit is a payment to entrepreneurs just as wages are payments to labor, interest to capital and rent to land. In order to earn profits in free markets, entrepreneurs must identify and satisfy human wants in a way that economizes on society's scarce resources.
Here's a little test. Which en ies produce greater consumer satisfaction: for-profit enterprises such as supermarkets, computer makers and clothing stores, or nonprofit en ies such as public schools, post offices and motor vehicle departments? I'm guessing you'll answer the former. Their survival depends on pleasing ordinary people, as opposed to the latter, whose survival is not so strictly tied to pleasing people.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that self-interest and the free market system produce perfect outcomes, but they're the closest we'll come to perfection here on Earth.
Since 1980, Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/196682.html
^ pretty good.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
