Are you one of the 53% ?

[Dr.Who]

And I believe there are quite a few in the top 1%, or even in the top 1/10 of 1% who do understand that taking an extra 3 or 5 % of their "income" is not going to change their life style, that their kids will still go to the best school, that their yacht will still be manned, and that they will still leave a huge amount of wealth behind when their life ends.

I am sure there are quite a few in the bottom 1% who realize that taking an extra 1$ of their money won't change their lifestyle either, there kids will still go to the same school, their car will still be waiting for sale on the lot, they will still leave no wealth behind when they die.

And all that is irrelevant to whether or not they should pay any or any more taxes.

 

[BigRob]

To be fair, these figure date from 2001, but that was about the time when my husband and I "enjoyed" our 1% status. . .

Because he was a hard worker and a very intelligent and charismatic leader. And because he was lucky. . .having never gone to College, but having learned his skills through the Navy, he ended up as a director or international field engineering in a large computer corporation

So, long story short, you would say he earned it?

This is very much unlike you, Bob. First, I was very clear about my status as a "temporary,
low flying 1%er. Second, I have NEVER said that all wealthy people hoard their cash, although those most obsessed with wealth do so, in my opinion. Please do not start following in the foot step of your friends. You
are a moderator, and I believe you were selected to be a moderator because of your sense of fairness and your honesty.

I thought my smile face indicated my sarcasm.

Our country is in trouble, deep trouble. Sacrifices are being asked from EVERYONE, and shouldn't be limited to cutting assistance to those who need it the most, in order to keep the most privileged from paying a little more taxes. The tax rates of the top bracket has NEVER been this low in over 100 years, and yet a whole group of people act as if asking, in this time of great need for
both our country and for so many individuals in this country, to contribute a little more than
what they have in the last 10 years. . .

I do not think that this is "class warfare" or "taking 100% of the wealthy from their rightful owner." It is a rational step that those who have benefitted the most from the good times, and even benefitted the most from these terrible
times should contribute at least as much to this (hopefully) temporary situation.

And I am encouraged by the fact that 63% of the people in this country see it that way also.

Those 63% are voting for someone else to solve the problem. That is not fair.

 

[Dr.Who]

Because it was offered to him. It is as simple as that.

And, we did the best we could to assure that we didn't change our attitude toward people who were less fortunate than we were, and that, whenever possible, we shared our good fortune.

If you did what you could "whenever possible" then you could have done no more. Clearly if you are accurate in your statement then if you were taxed more you would have had to have done less to share your good fortune.

If you really shared your good fortune whenever possible then you did the right thing in accepting whatever you could get.

On the other hand, the ONLY way you could have been taxed more would have been if you did less than all you could whenever possible.

 

[Openmind]

So, long story short, you would say he earned it?



I thought my smile face indicated my sarcasm.



Those 63% are voting for someone else to solve the problem. That is not fair.

No, not to "SOLVE" the problem. . .to HELP solve the problem.

We went through this often. NO ONE on the left is asking that ONLY tax increase be put in place to reduce the deficit. . .but that BOTH tax increases AND spending cuts be established.

By attacking the problem from BOTH Sides, it is evident that, either it would be resolve twice as fast, or that neither side would be taking the full impact of the austerity program.

I'm not sure I can repeat that same statement one more time without screaming!
With me, it is very rarely a "whole or nothing" proposition. I do like a balanced approach.

 

[Openmind]

If you did what you could "whenever possible" then you could have done no more. Clearly if you are accurate in your statement then if you were taxed more you would have had to have done less to share your good fortune.

If you really shared your good fortune whenever possible then you did the right thing in accepting whatever you could get.

On the other hand, the ONLY way you could have been taxed more would have been if you did less than all you could whenever possible.

That is not quite true. . .and it is probably because of the way I expressed myself.

It is true that I did "what I could" . . .without losing any of my comfort, without making my foreign vacations any shorter, without settling for a new dress from Wallmart, rather than a new dress from Anne Taylor or Ellen Tracy, and without giving up my cleaning lady (with the excuse that I was actually giving her a job. . .but the reality was that I was actually too lazy to clean my own house thoroughly once a week, so I prefer to do the "light" cleaning and left the "thorough" part to someone else, less fortunate).

And, because of that, although I did reserve some of my "blessings" to share with others, I KNOW I could have done more. I probably still could. But I am NOT (and never pretended to be) a saint, or totally altruistic.

And I am not (and never have) argued that people should give 100% of what they have, or 100% of their comfort to the poor. . .it is all a question of fairness, of sensitivity to others, even, to some extend, of respect for others.
And there is a huge gap between "giving 100%" and "giving 5%!).

 

[Openmind]

Doesn't that destroy your argument that they have gotten rich by taking the labor of others?

Take the example of the rich person who is not evil and has not gotten rich by taking from others, should be not be considered innocent?

just to be clear about all of this. But the question is do you have enough integrity to answer and go on record?

Where did I ever say that "ALL" wealthy people were guilty?

And, while I stated that NO ONE reached a status of great wealth without the help and support and hard work of a LOT of people, and also of the government assistance (through infrastructure, subsidized education, etc.. ..), I do not believe that using these "crutches" to reach great wealth is usually "evil!" It is a fact of life. . .unless one purposely takes advantage of other people's weaknesses, to step on their shoulder to reach the top of the ladder, than kick them down and refuse to acknowledge their participation in attaining success and wealth.

There are obviously SOME evil ways to obtain wealth. . . but I never said those were the most common way to reach wealth (although, at the time of the robber barons, it might have been, because of the lack of regulations and the lack of labor laws. . .which confirms my believe that government intervention, when not too excessive, is helpful).

It is not "evil to be wealthy!" It is evil to take great pride in being a "self-made man," when that is basically an illusion, and it is evil to forget about those who were not born with all the advantages (I am talking mostly at this time about such advantage as good health, respectable intelligence, supportive family, and ambition) that some of us are born with. ..that we didn't earn, but that we were gifted with.

Does that answer your question?
By the way, I am answering your questions because I trust you enough (call it respect) to believe that you are not trying to "frame me" as some of your friends would love to do, and that you are honestly interested in the answer, without the intention of USING whatever I say to attack me and belittle me at a later date.

I value honesty. And I have NOTHING to hide. I do find it absolutely vile that some people will take advantage of my openness to spin my words and turn those "adapted" words and meanings into derision.

I guess, I'll have to wait and see what YOU do with these words.

 

[Dr.Who]

Don't you know by now that I never fear answering a question when I have the time?

Then you must have very very little time because you do not answer MOST of the questions I pose. (and you know from experience that if you challenge me on that I will count the questions and the times you have answered). Yet you do not have so little time that you have not been able to make over 1400 post since june.

I guess you decided to join the crowd and belittle me. . .oh well! As you wish!

I do mock the ridiculous things you say at times. I ry not to belittle you yourself. The funny thing is that this post was not even one of the ones in which I mocked anything ridiculous.

I disagree that the poor are not functioning at the level of "survival!" They MAY have enough food to survive, they may even have a home. . .although they are in perpetual fear to lose it, but they have ABSOLUTELY no security, living from one day to the next.

Then by your own words their survival is taken care of. Fear for security and survival are not the same.

And this is what I am talking about, although you chose to focus on the "money" part of my posts! It is NOT about the money. . .it is about having enough resources that one doesn't have to go to sleep at night, wondering which bill will come tomorrow, whether the electricity will be cut, whether the car will have enough gas to get to that minimum wage job, and whether the sick kid in the other room will get better on his own, with over the counter medication, or whether you're going to have to take him to the emergency room to get treated when his illness gets worse.

You say it is not about the money but everything in that paragraph is dependent on money. Bills - money, elecricity - money, medicine - money, gas - money,

No rich person got that way without the work of many people around them, and without the "lift" given to them by that government that you all hate so much. . .public schools, subsidized universities, laws that benefit businesses and keep him safe, roads and infrastructure that allowed him to ship his product to the next State. . .

Everyone was given the same advantage. Talking about the examples you gave above - It is like a poker game Everyone works with the same deck and we all make what hands we can from the cards that are dealt to all of us. Winners are winners because they take they cards they have and use their skill to the best of their ability. No one is a winner because they were just given better cards than the next guy - sure it happens on a hand or two but it all averages out.

 

[Dr.Who]

We went through this often. NO ONE on the left is asking that ONLY tax increase be put in place to reduce the deficit. . .but that BOTH tax increases AND spending cuts be established.

Tax increases don't result in much increased revenue.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is not quite true. . .and it is probably because of the way I expressed myself.

It is true that I did "what I could" . . .without losing any of my comfort, without making my foreign vacations any shorter, without settling for a new dress from Wallmart, rather than a new dress from Anne Taylor or Ellen Tracy, and without giving up my cleaning lady (with the excuse that I was actually giving her a job. . .but the reality was that I was actually too lazy to clean my own house thoroughly once a week, so I prefer to do the "light" cleaning and left the "thorough" part to someone else, less fortunate).

And, because of that, although I did reserve some of my "blessings" to share with others, I KNOW I could have done more. I probably still could. But I am NOT (and never pretended to be) a saint, or totally altruistic.

And I am not (and never have) argued that people should give 100% of what they have, or 100% of their comfort to the poor. . .it is all a question of fairness, of sensitivity to others, even, to some extend, of respect for others.
And there is a huge gap between "giving 100%" and "giving 5%!).

Well I always seek accuracy.

And yes people who live very comfortable lives can give more and morally they should.

But why should the gov take it from them - especially since higher tax rates are not correlated with higher revenues. And without those higher revenues the state will not have the money for more unconstitutional social programs.

But if you and others give more then it WILL result in more money going to those to whom you give it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Where did I ever say that "ALL" wealthy people were guilty?

Exactly. I am pointing out that you do know that they are not ALL guilty. Which destroys any argument you would make that the rich have been taking advantage of the not rich. In fact you think that only a minute few take advantage of other people - so most must be honest fair people. Why take money from fair people who clearly would be giving it to the poor all on their own.

Does that answer your question?
By the way, I am answering your questions because I trust you enough (call it respect) to believe that you are not trying to "frame me" as some of your friends would love to do, and that you are honestly interested in the answer, without the intention of USING whatever I say to attack me and belittle me at a later date.

I will try to affirm you as a person who has worth. But I will most certainly try to use your words to prove you wrong or to find contradictions that need changing. I always hold on to the belief that you would change your mind when confronted with the knowledge that you were wrong. You can count on future attacks against your ideas as long as I see them as faulty as I believe them to be.

When I slip up and attack you a polite mention of it will help me to be contrite.

 

[dogtowner]

It is not "evil to be wealthy!" It is evil to take great pride in being a "self-made man," when that is basically an illusion, and it is evil to forget about those who were not born with all the advantages (I am talking mostly at this time about such advantage as good health, respectable intelligence, supportive family, and ambition) that some of us are born with. ..that we didn't earn, but that we were gifted with.

You described your husband as being a self made man who arose from very hunble beginnings in a state you seem to feel was incapable of producing much. Is your husband evil or is he without pride ? You frame it as a binary resolution so I follow suit.

Perhaps being foreign born you are unfamiliar wiith the countless Americans who overcame a lack of advantage (as your husband did) to do great things. I see you consider ambition as being an advantage which I find quite telling. We don't have the manufactured classes that defined Europe for a thousand years so we understand that ambition is a trait you chose to have and is not given to you.

Come on, quit trying to claim your personal feelings as fact and be secure in the life you've chosen for yourself.

 

[BigRob]

In 2010 a single filer who earned a little over 380k was in the 1%.

Yes, but earning a yearly income of 380k is not the same as just having a million dollars.

 

[BigRob]

No, not to "SOLVE" the problem. . .to HELP solve the problem.

We went through this often. NO ONE on the left is asking that ONLY tax increase be put in place to reduce the deficit. . .but that BOTH tax increases AND spending cuts be established.

By attacking the problem from BOTH Sides, it is evident that, either it would be resolve twice as fast, or that neither side would be taking the full impact of the austerity program.

I'm not sure I can repeat that same statement one more time without screaming!
With me, it is very rarely a "whole or nothing" proposition. I do like a balanced approach.

As I have mentioned numerous times, the CBO has already stated you could tax the rich at 90% and it wouldn't balance the budget.

This idea that we don't need drastic spending cuts, and we can offset any pain with tax hikes has no basis in reality.

You also didn't answer my first question: Did your husband earn his paycheck and earn his job?

 

[GenSeneca]

... at the time of the robber barons, it might have been, because of the lack of regulations and the lack of labor laws. . .which confirms my believe that government intervention, when not too excessive, is helpful).

The Truth About "Robber Barons"

As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.
...
The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.​

 

[dogtowner]

I value honesty. And I have NOTHING to hide. I do find it absolutely vile that some people will take advantage of my openness to spin my words and turn those "adapted" words and meanings into derision.

You might consider chosing your word more carefully. Takes more work but you get what you work for.