At bottom, three things only are needed in the U.S. to become “rich” in the eyes of most.
I understand that if you come into the discussion in the middle, it’s hard to know what the point of some of it is. Just so you know, the born-rich issue was just a tangent to the argument about restoring the traditional tax brackets to the wealthy. (I believe the issue was something like LisaA saying why should the rich be taxed more, since most of them worked hard for their money, an assertion I disputed and that I believe I have gone the farthest, so far, to disprove, given lack of info.)
As noted above, no I didn’t bring this up first, and it’s mostly irrelevant to the discussion. The “downward mobility” topic was also an irrelevant tangent. Also there is no “obsession” with the Forbes list, this just happened to be the only place I have found any info at all about that tangent question we were trying to solve.
Should we also return to allowing the tax shelters that were allowed in our parents and grandparents lives?
I’ve read through the entire thread, and I’ve been following it as it has evolved. What you said in your back-and-forth with Lisa is that it “does it not make much sense logically” for a large number of people not born rich to become rich unless there is “a huge turnover in the wealthy population every generation”. **You **made the connection between people not born rich becoming rich unless there is turnover. What else could cause this turnover?
I understand this. I was responding along the tangential thread of the OP.
Excuse me? A “lack of info” leads one “to disprove” and assertion? What? All you’ve done is discuss the Forbes 400, which isn’t representative and doesn’t even come close to addressing what President Obama has declared as “rich”, i.e. those making over $250k. Nor does it address those with assets of over $1M (which you called the “regular rich”).
Not directly, no. But saying that we must “return our top tax brackets back to the traditionally high levels” coupled with the idea that the 70% who are rich were born rich makes it clear that such efforts would disproportionally affect those born rich. Obviously, if the goal is to tax the rich, and most of the rich were born rich, then the goal here is to tax those born rich. No?
I never said it did. But I pointed out 3 regular, average people that somehow amassed estates of over $1M (four if you include my grandfather who built his own estate from nothing), despite not being “born” rich. And it also included no less than 4 dozen people that I have met personally that have assets in excess of $1M. Seemingly, you consider these people rich (e.g. “regular rich”). You asked “[w]hat percentage of the regular rich – let’s say, those with more than a $million in the bank – were born rich?” I gave you an answer: 100%.
To what end? What do you think we’ll gain by doing so? More money for the government? Higher marginal tax rates have negligible impact on tax revenues. “Hauser’s Law” indicates that tax revenues as a percentage of GDP hovers nearly constant at 19%.
This little snippet from earlier is very illuminating - it shows the liberal/left standard for charitability which is based not on donations of one’s own money or time, but rather on how much one supports the confiscation of others’ money. So the liberal who supports taxing the rich to fund government programs is “charitable” while the conservative who supports private organizations with their own money and wants to balance the budget is “anti-poor.” That about sums up the liberal/left view in all its absurdity.
A Republican president was in the White House when Roe vs Wade was passed, a Republican president resigned because of corruption and a divorced/remarried (adulterer) Republican undermined traditional marriage, while South Carolina and Georgia just tried to elect another adulterer to the White House. In the last decade another Republican president and Republican-led Congress didn’t even try to outlaw abortion when they had the chance. The GOP really has you fooled with its “holier than thou” campaign.
Here’s how I see it. I posted this back in 2008. Why not 4 years later?
You display a lack of understanding of how politics works, so let me help you: Roe v Wade was passed in 1972, 40 years ago. Why do you compare the justices nominated by the GOP in the 60’s and early 70’s when abortion wasn’t a national issue with the justices nominated by the GOP now that abortion has become a national issue? By your reasoning, all Democrats today are racist because it was mostly Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964. What does Newt Gingrich’s primary victories have to do with the prospect for a Romney victory and a pro-life majority on the Supreme court which is necessary to outlaw abortion in the states? What party passes pro-life measures in the states where they have a majority? That would be the GOP. The GOP is the the pro-life party. I don’t know who supported for president, Ron Paul perhaps? If so, you need to get over the fact that Paul lost (he was never in the running) and get behind the GOP candidate Romney who offers serious Catholics the best opportunity to effectively the anti-Catholic candidate, Obama. Don’t let misplaced anger and bitterness toward the GOP cloud your vision.
I see you point, Suudy, and I always appreciate your posts. However, I think that when you say at best the GOP will “eliminate” abortion you are playing into the hands of pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics who like to throw around strawmen and ad hominems. They will say, “the GOP will not eliminate abortion.” And my answer is “I never claimed the GOP would eliminate abortion, but they will overturn the decision that prevents any states from outlawing abortion.” I think you probably meant, at best, the GOP will reduce abortions significantly. I would agree with that. And at worst, they will keep abortion from being federally funded.
Yes, I should have been more clear. When I speak of abortion, I mean direct abortion, as understood by the Church. And in that sense, yes, at best the GOP would eliminate abortion. Perhaps it is naive for me to assume that the Catholics here that are discussing abortion would understand it in the same sense.
And when speaking of the Presidency, I agree. At best, a GOP Presidency would return abortion legislation to the states. But when speaking of the party in general and at all levels, I would claim that the GOP would, at best, eliminate direct abortion.
Ishii, ad hominen again? Well, since we are chatting. You should try to avoid the trap of picking out single examples of our faith, and building theories around them. As an example, human dignity, common good, solidarity and subsidiarity. These must all be considered (equally), as we go about our christian duty. This is why we should avoid causing additional suffering to the less fortunate.
I don’t agree. The national sales tax, will put an undue hardship on lower wage earners. The nation needs money. The wealthiest Americans have the majority of it. So, adequate taxation of their income is the way forward. It’s a no brainer as they say.
Yes, ad hominems. We see them all the time from those on these forums who rationalize support for the most pro-abortion president in history. It is an ad hominm to say in this discussion, “the GOP is not the party of God” or “you Catholics are more loyal to the GOP than to Jesus.” Those responses are kinds of ad hominems wouldn’t you agree? They take away from a serious discussion, but perhaps that’s the goal.
We should look at the root causes of all the poverty and misery that exists in this country. I think that if you look at it closely and objectively, you will find that a large component is the breakdown of the family over the pasts few years. Poverty is not a function of how much federal funding there is for “poverty programs” but rather the health of the family - as well as a robust economy for starters. We need to get away from partisan politics and take a hard look at the causes of the poverty and make reforms. Unfortunately, to do that requires us to consider the possibility that the old liberal Democrat paradigm of tax and spend, redistribute, confiscate, hand out, subsidize, etc. does not work. But it also requires dyed in the wool Republicans to be open to the idea that the market does not always have the answers. Business does not always operate with the common good in mind. A good example of this is the filth that gets put out by Hollywood (as well as most of the rest of our pop culture) because filth sells. The free market (in Hollywood) tends to support trickle down deviancy and the liberals in Washington DC tend to support trickle down charity. There has to be a better way.
A wise politician named Marco Rubio (ever heard of him?) said, " we need more tax payers, not more taxes." And he is exactly right. The common misconception among liberals is that the pie that is the economy is only one size and that if someone is successful - i.e. rich - it must come at the expense of the “poor”. If someone’s piece of the pie gets larger, then everyone else’s piece must be smaller. Nothing could be further from the truth! A rising tide lifts all boats. I hope that the CEO of the company I work for makes a lot more money - that would mean that we’re successful and expanding and the opportunities increase. We all have to pay taxes - and the rich pay a large share of the federal income taxes than everyone else - they pay 70% of the federal income taxes! Even though I am not rich by a long shot, I want the rich to be comfortable, have extra money and buy the products that my company sells ( I want everyone to buy the products my company sells).I don’t agree. The national sales tax, will put an undue hardship on lower wage earners. The nation needs money. The wealthiest Americans have the majority of it. So, adequate taxation of their income is the way forward. It’s a no brainer as they say.
I think this is pretty much, a side step. If you could show me a government that doesn’t tax and spend. That would be something.
They don’t care about households that are run by single woman. They don’t care about bridges that collapse into the river. They don’t care about droughts and tremendous wildfires that scar the landscape. They care about their wealth. That people defend them, still baffles me.Hello Suudy. I think you will have to tolerate an edit.
There is a pie (chart) floating around. It shows what percent of the national wealth is held by who. It also shows what is possible.
You obviously only see the GOP through rose colored glasses. My point was that some of the worst examples of ethics, abortion legislation and traditional family values in the presidency and its candidates have been on the Republican side. I was not describing how government works. I view a lot of the rhetoric and propaganda and about political parties, from all sides, as a form of idolatry and remain an independent with my focus on Christ.
It’s entirely possible for some to view the GOP through rose-colored glasses. It is also possible to cover one’s glasses with pitch so as not to see:
Do you really think wealthy people don’t care whether, e.g., the bridge they are driving on collapses? Does anybody really think a “wealthy” farmer (and any farmer with any land to speak of could be said to be “wealthy”) doesn’t care about droughts. Ponder for a moment that it takes about $300/acre to plant corn. And if a farmer with 1000 acres sees his crop fail so he brings in no money to pay that $300,000? He doesn’t care about that?I think this is pretty much, a side step. If you could show me a government that doesn’t tax and spend. That would be something.
The problem remains, a group of people that wish to hold on to wealth.
ATB