Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[LisaA]

I want you to tell me exactly how that relates to anything I have said. How does strengthening unions or cutting tuition reward bad behavior? How does any of my suggestions about mobility reward bad behavior? If you’re worried about welfare-programs, increasing wages would strengthen the financial incentive to work.

So you’re telling me I’m being unrealistic etc., yet you have not made any arguments against my proposals. How does that compute for you?

I read what you write, and I think you were cruel in your characterization of single mothers. I am actually flabbergasted that you think I am being nasty for bringing attention to your own words. Do you actually think it’s fine to call single mothers drug addicts and crazies? To suggest that they’re so useless, they shouldn’t even have money? Don’t you understand how offensive that is? How can you expect to get away with that kind of talk?

I don’t want to live in a world where people less fortunate are written off as drug addicts and crazies. You can have that world all to yourself, sister. Enjoy.

I don’t know whether you deliberately misquote me or if you don’t actually read posts with any kind of comprehension but I said specifically that it’s NOT that all single moms are “drug addicted crazies” but that their past decisions don’t indicate they would necessarily utilized Mr Gotrocks’ funds more appropriately than he would. Why would you assume that?

At any rate what I find curious about your whole line of “equalization” of society is that you don’t seem to look to the individual as being at all responsible for their situation nor are they responsible for getting themselves out of a bad situation. Instead you propose taking money from other Americans to redistribute. Wouldn’t the father of this mythical child be the appropriate source to support him or her? Were marriages and families stronger and were we to put as many resources to keep families strong as we do paying for out of wedlock births we might not see this problem get worse generation after generation.

Lisa

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I don’t know whether you deliberately misquote me or if you don’t actually read posts with any kind of comprehension but I said specifically that it’s NOT that all single moms are “drug addicted crazies” but that their past decisions don’t indicate they would necessarily utilized Mr Gotrocks’ funds more appropriately than he would. Why would you assume that?

At any rate what I find curious about your whole line of “equalization” of society is that you don’t seem to look to the individual as being at all responsible for their situation nor are they responsible for getting themselves out of a bad situation. Instead you propose taking money from other Americans to redistribute. Wouldn’t the father of this mythical child be the appropriate source to support him or her? Were marriages and families stronger and were we to put as many resources to keep families strong as we do paying for out of wedlock births we might not see this problem get worse generation after generation.

Lisa

Lisa, I think you would have to admit, (after having your nose rubbed in it.) That there is very little chance in our present system. The wealthy are typically born into it. The less fortunate like wise consigned at birth. What you suggest, ie not offering any support for those in need. Well, it flys in the face of our countries history. Even before the constitution was drafted. The early settlers had imported Englands Poverty laws. Aid in the form of money and other provisions for the unfit. Work for the fit. It’s a simple idea that makes great sense.

Just out of curiosity. How far back, would you like to roll human progress? We learn and adapt for a reason you know.

 

[stinkcat_14]

SSI, and Medicare are the dole? I sense a lot of hate, and contempt, for your fellow humans, in these few words of yours. Where did you come from?

No hate or contempt, I just don’t think the government should be giving money and free health care to people who are too lazy to work.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

No hate or contempt, I just don’t think the government should be giving money and free health care to people who are too lazy to work.

That would be a person blinded by hate, and contempt. I’ll remember you in my prayers.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, I think you would have to admit, (after having your nose rubbed in it.) That there is very little chance in our present system. The wealthy are typically born into it. The less fortunate like wise consigned at birth. What you suggest, ie not offering any support for those in need. Well, it flys in the face of our countries history. Even before the constitution was drafted. The early settlers had imported Englands Poverty laws. Aid in the form of money and other provisions for the unfit. Work for the fit. It’s a simple idea that makes great sense.

Just out of curiosity. How far back, would you like to roll human progress? We learn and adapt for a reason you know.

Frankly I find your constant mischaracterization and misquoting of my posts rather tiresome. For the record:

I have never said “don’t offer any support” to the poor, needy, disabled. That seems to be the usual strawman of the Left. If you question the use of tax dollars for programs that have proven ineffective and wasteful you obviously want to let the poor starve in the streets. Yeah right…

As to your constant charges that I am heartless because I don’t think a government official should be deciding who should get OPM, it simply demonstrates you cannot distinguish between charity and bureacracy. I am not only a great proponent of charity, I actually put my money where my mouth is instead of just running it on a discussion list.

The government has made a total hash of the “War on Poverty.” We have watched as government programs have destroyed the black family and created multi-generational dependence. It’s not working, yet you and the rest of the Left seem to have a vested interest in continuing the insane policies that have increased rather than solved the problems of the poor. All it takes is more tax dollars or more regulations or more government meddling and all of our problems will be solved!

I have no clue what you mean by “roll back human progress.” I don’t see what is positive about an ever increasing rate of government dependence. That is hardly progress.

Sorry but that dog still don’t hunt.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, I think you would have to admit, (after having your nose rubbed in it.) That there is very little chance in our present system. The wealthy are typically born into it. The less fortunate like wise consigned at birth. .

You know this is such a specious argument. Life isn’t fair Mickey. My mama told me that when I was nine years old and it’s proven to be true. The fact that if you are born to a wealthy family your chance of staying in the upper middle or upper classes is greater than someone born to a single mom in a Section 8 apartment. So while it’s unlikely the latter will grow up to be Steve Jobs (although such things have actually happened) it’s also not likely that everyone will be born with the talent to become a professional basketball player or to sing at the Met or the intelligence to cure cancer. You cannot hope to make everyone equal…check how that theory worked during the French Revolution or in the Soviet Union or in Communist China.

The question isn’t how should we take the money from Mr. Gotrocks and give it to Ms Welfare Recipient but how to we provide the opportunity for people to cultivate and utilize their gifts. The government is not here to solve all of our problems but to protect our freedoms. Or as Lady Thatcher said:

“We should not expect the state to appear in the guise of an extravagant good fairy at every christening, a loquacious companion at every stage of life’s journey, and the unknown mourner at every funeral.”

Be brave Mickey and join those of us in the real world. The Utopia you imagine does not exist in this life.

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

The wealthy are typically born into it.

Actually, they’re not. The great majority of millionaires in the U.S. are self-made. Most of their wealth is in businesses they started themselves. A significant number, too, are farmers, and most of their wealth is in the land.

The real distinction between them and the “rest of us” is that they typically live considerably below their means. They also typically keep the same spouse for life. (divorce is ruinous, financially). Most are churchgoers.

Certainly, there are wealthy people who inherited their money, drive Porsches and sail yachts. But they are very much in the minority among the wealthy in this country.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Actually, they’re not. The great majority of millionaires in the U.S. are self-made. Most of their wealth is in businesses they started themselves.

Certainly, there are wealthy people who inherited their money, drive Porsches and sail yachts. But they are very much in the minority among the wealthy in this country.

Could you prove this? Not only does it not make much sense logically (it implies a huge turnover in the wealthy population every generation), but I couldn’t find good statistics on it. I did find that 7 of the 10 on the Forbes list were born rich.

But careful identification of how Forbes’ centi-millionaires and billionaires attained their wealth tells a different account of the plebeian origins of the richest Americans. Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes’ heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees.

**The data, then, do not support the assumption that the United States is a true meritocracy where the most able rise to their rightful positions. Nor do they defend the contention that the United States is structured so that authentic equality of opportunity prevails. Inheritances undermine the achievement-reward equation. **

faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400

 

[Ridgerunner]

Could you prove this? Not only does it not make much sense logically (it implies a huge turnover in the wealthy population every generation), but I couldn’t find good statistics on it. I did find that 7 of the 10 on the Forbes list were born rich.

faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400

Perhaps you could read this: amazon.com/The-Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising/dp/1563523302

I don’t know that it implies a huge turnover every generation, though it seems likely that there is. The heirs of a successful self made millionaire might or might not inherit enough wealth to still be considered wealthy. And, of course, there is the old saw “From shirsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”. It isn’t hard to squander wealth. Look at the U.S. government for a lesson in squandering. It may be observed, too, that none of the Walton heirs has the wealth Sam Walton did. In a few more generations, how many will still be on the list? In any event, Sam Walton didn’t inherit wealth.

It may well be that everybody with significant wealth is accounted for on the “Forbes list” (a rather small list at 400 people, most of whom don’t seem to be Americans). But I do wonder whether whoever compiles the list knows them all. I hardly see how they could.

 

[LisaA]

Could you prove this? Not only does it not make much sense logically (it implies a huge turnover in the wealthy population every generation), but I couldn’t find good statistics on it. I did find that 7 of the 10 on the Forbes list were born rich.

faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400

You consistently point out that those on the Forbes Fortune 400 were more likely to have inherited wealth than to have been self made. This is hardly a representative sample of what is considered wealthy in this society. It’s the tiniest fraction of this segment of our population. That being said, there are many many examples of those who made millions and millions of dollars despite being born in rather humble circumstances: Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Jeff Zuckerberg, Phil Knight, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, etc. I have a lot harder time coming up with those from dynasties of wealth than those who made their wealth through ingenuity and hard work and quite honestly a bit of luck.

As Ridgerunner noted we are not talking about the top 400 in a country of 300 million people but those who have achieved enough financial success to be called wealthy. Now how does Obama define “wealthy” :? Someone who makes over $250,000 a year. That’s not exactly the Forbes Fortune 500. Two professionals living in an urban area can easily top that income level. Even if you used the term millionaire, once again you are not talking about the Warren Buffetts of the world but as Ridgerunner noted, often a small businessman who is more likely than not self made whose assets are tied up in a business in which he has invested his time and money.

So to claim that there is no way to success in this country unless you’re born with the silver spoon in your mouth is utterly ridiculous. Self made individuals are everywhere. Quit focusing on ginning up envy and resentment and think positive for a change

Lisa

 

[Jerry_Miah]

You consistently point out that those on the Forbes Fortune 400 were more likely to have inherited wealth than to have been self made. This is hardly a representative sample of what is considered wealthy in this society. It’s the tiniest fraction of this segment of our population. That being said, there are many many examples of those who made millions and millions of dollars despite being born in rather humble circumstances: Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Jeff Zuckerberg, Phil Knight, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, etc. I have a lot harder time coming up with those from dynasties of wealth than those who made their wealth through ingenuity and hard work and quite honestly a bit of luck.

As Ridgerunner noted we are not talking about the top 400 in a country of 300 million people but those who have achieved enough financial success to be called wealthy. Now how does Obama define “wealthy” :? Someone who makes over $250,000 a year. That’s not exactly the Forbes Fortune 500. Two professionals living in an urban area can easily top that income level. Even if you used the term millionaire, once again you are not talking about the Warren Buffetts of the world but as Ridgerunner noted, often a small businessman who is more likely than not self made whose assets are tied up in a business in which he has invested his time and money.

So to claim that there is no way to success in this country unless you’re born with the silver spoon in your mouth is utterly ridiculous. Self made individuals are everywhere. Quit focusing on ginning up envy and resentment and think positive for a change

Lisa

It’s logically absurd to say most wealthy people (millionaires or more) weren’t born that way. It would imply a huge turnover in the wealthy population every year, which isn’t exactly the situation in the USA. I used the Forbes info because it’s the only info I could find. Do you have any other facts from reliable sources? Facts are better than personal accusations about envy and resentment, which you tend to make much too often.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually, they’re not. The great majority of millionaires in the U.S. are self-made. Most of their wealth is in businesses they started themselves. A significant number, too, are farmers, and most of their wealth is in the land.

The real distinction between them and the “rest of us” is that they typically live considerably below their means. They also typically keep the same spouse for life. (divorce is ruinous, financially). Most are churchgoers.

Certainly, there are wealthy people who inherited their money, drive Porsches and sail yachts. But they are very much in the minority among the wealthy in this country.

Can you cite some data on this?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You consistently point out that those on the Forbes Fortune 400 were more likely to have inherited wealth than to have been self made. This is hardly a representative sample of what is considered wealthy in this society. It’s the tiniest fraction of this segment of our population. That being said, there are many many examples of those who made millions and millions of dollars despite being born in rather humble circumstances: Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, Jeff Zuckerberg, Phil Knight, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, etc. I have a lot harder time coming up with those from dynasties of wealth than those who made their wealth through ingenuity and hard work and quite honestly a bit of luck.

As Ridgerunner noted we are not talking about the top 400 in a country of 300 million people but those who have achieved enough financial success to be called wealthy. Now how does Obama define “wealthy” :? Someone who makes over $250,000 a year. That’s not exactly the Forbes Fortune 500. Two professionals living in an urban area can easily top that income level. Even if you used the term millionaire, once again you are not talking about the Warren Buffetts of the world but as Ridgerunner noted, often a small businessman who is more likely than not self made whose assets are tied up in a business in which he has invested his time and money.

So to claim that there is no way to success in this country unless you’re born with the silver spoon in your mouth is utterly ridiculous. Self made individuals are everywhere. Quit focusing on ginning up envy and resentment and think positive for a change

Lisa

The envious might also do well to reflect on whether Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others contributed to prosperity for others or were destructive to it. Well, I’ll admit, George Soros has bragged about how he made much of his money by destroying the wealth of whole populations, but among how many wealthy people is that really true?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Can you cite some data on this?

Not at the moment. I don’t even think I still have that book, and doubt I do. But it’s readily available from Amazon, and the reader can critique it if he wishes.

And I realize this is anecdotal, but I personally know a substantial number of millionaires. I am not aware of a single one who inherited anything of consequence. Of course, I live in a part of the country where there is essentially no truly “old wealth”. So pretty much all wealth around here is “new”.

Yes, in this general area where I live, one can point to the Walton heirs, but Sam himself wasn’t an heir to anything of consequence. Neither was John Tyson. (Granted, Don Tyson inherited the then smallish poultry business from John, but Don developed TSN, not John) Neither was J.B. Hunt. Neither were the members of the O’Reilley (automotive) family. Neither Was Jack Henry (jkhy). Neither was Bill Turner (gsbc). I can think of a lot of others who are as obscure as obscure gets, but are nevertheless self-made multi-millionaires who inherited little or nothing. While not in the Walton category, some are surprisingly wealthy. I know one guy, about 40 years old, who started a little shop, then got into farming and ranching, then into manufacturing. Just from what I know, his net worth is presently in the tens of millions of dollars. He didn’t inherit anything. Even most people around here have no real idea how wealthy he is.

Around here, there is a sort of joke that “The only way you can tell a millionaire from a factory line worker is that the factory worker’s pickup truck is newer.” And there is a lot of truth to it. A lot of self-made people are like that.

And I don’t suppose any of the people I named or didn’t name are on that Forbes list. Some because they aren’t billionaires (merely paltry millionaires) and some perhaps because nobody did the research to find out what they’re really worth.

But one can also realize what a massive hit the estates of the Walton heirs are going to take through the estate tax. There are things people can do to avoid it in part, but at a point it becomes very difficult. That’s precisely why Gates and Buffett have put so much into the Gates Foundation.

Well, and i can point to some “Walmart millionaires”, “Tyson Millionaires”, “Jack Henry millionaires” and “O’Reilley millionaires” who were just employees of the company early on and took stock in lieu of salary. I have even known some “Tyson millionaires” who were, and still are, line workers.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Frankly I find your constant mischaracterization and misquoting of my posts rather tiresome. For the record:

I have never said “don’t offer any support” to the poor, needy, disabled. That seems to be the usual strawman of the Left. If you question the use of tax dollars for programs that have proven ineffective and wasteful you obviously want to let the poor starve in the streets. Yeah right…

As to your constant charges that I am heartless because I don’t think a government official should be deciding who should get OPM, it simply demonstrates you cannot distinguish between charity and bureacracy. I am not only a great proponent of charity, I actually put my money where my mouth is instead of just running it on a discussion list.

The government has made a total hash of the “War on Poverty.” We have watched as government programs have destroyed the black family and created multi-generational dependence. It’s not working, yet you and the rest of the Left seem to have a vested interest in continuing the insane policies that have increased rather than solved the problems of the poor. All it takes is more tax dollars or more regulations or more government meddling and all of our problems will be solved!

I have no clue what you mean by “roll back human progress.” I don’t see what is positive about an ever increasing rate of government dependence. That is hardly progress.

Sorry but that dog still don’t hunt.

Lisa

Lisa, I think the other poster is the one who may have misquoted you. If I mis characterized your post. I’m sorry. But, I’m running the sum total of your comments together in my above post.

You’ve thrown a lot of well used rhetoric into this latest post. ( not to mention the “straw man” again) Not sure it’s worthy of either of us, to debate it.

What I mean by progress, is the level of care we provide for our fellows. Like I’ve said before. I don’t see a reason to have a society that doesn’t provide for the less fortunate.

Now some have an Idea who deserves care, and who does not. But, it’s highly unlikely that any majority could agree on which ones deserve it. So, we end up giving to some who may not. Oh well. Like you, and Jimmy Carter said. “life is not fair”.

ATB

p.s. You would make a great “Good Guy”.

 

[Persuader]

I don’t know whether you deliberately misquote me or if you don’t actually read posts with any kind of comprehension but I said specifically that it’s NOT that all single moms are “drug addicted crazies” but that their past decisions don’t indicate they would necessarily utilized Mr Gotrocks’ funds more appropriately than he would. Why would you assume that?

Own up to what you said. You accused single mothers of being drug addicts and crazies. Based on that sort of accusation, you assumed that people are poor because of bad decision-making. This is a simplistic way of looking at how things work in the real world. People are not islands, making decisions in a vacuum. Environment shape behavior and character. Thus we see the need to improve environment, which is what I have suggested.

Now, if single mothers waste their money on consumption, that is actually a fairly good thing for the economy, and better than rich people sitting on their money or investing in China. So even if you are right, and they make bad financial decisions for themselves, those decisions are not as bad for the economy. In any case, I want you to tell me how my suggestions would result in taking money from Mr Gotrocks. Is it higher taxes for education? I thought you were in favor of a nationwide mentoring program, which would probably cost billions of dollars.

At any rate what I find curious about your whole line of “equalization” of society is that you don’t seem to look to the individual as being at all responsible for their situation nor are they responsible for getting themselves out of a bad situation. Instead you propose taking money from other Americans to redistribute. Wouldn’t the father of this mythical child be the appropriate source to support him or her? Were marriages and families stronger and were we to put as many resources to keep families strong as we do paying for out of wedlock births we might not see this problem get worse generation after generation.

You are clearly confused about what responsibility means in this context. Notice your own suggestion on what could be done about our problems. You want a mentoring program implemented because you think it would improve decision-making. Thus you recognize how changing environment can improve behavior and character. I also recognize the importance of environment, and have presented some proposals with that in mind.

Perhaps what irks you is my apparent willingness to have taxes pay for things, but then I have to ask how you think we should pay for a nationwide mentoring program. If you have difficulties with the concept of taxes in general, perhaps you should try to learn about it. Adam Smith is a good start.

As far as your point about marriage, there are several issues that are likely to be tied up with a high divorce-rate (equality among the sexes, economic need for both partners to be working etc.), but you should notice that the western countries with the lowest divorce rates are Italy and Spain. Apart from being economic messes, they have terrible fertility rates.

PS: the folk understanding of responsibility tends to be confused by two conflicting notions of free will. I could tell you to look into compatibilism - which is the majority view in academia today - but recognize that it will take a considerable amount of time and effort to understand. Thankfully, even if you find yourself disagreeing with the position, understanding it is crucial to a developed view of responsibility.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Actually, they’re not. The great majority of millionaires in the U.S. are self-made. Most of their wealth is in businesses they started themselves. A significant number, too, are farmers, and most of their wealth is in the land.

The real distinction between them and the “rest of us” is that they typically live considerably below their means. They also typically keep the same spouse for life. (divorce is ruinous, financially). Most are churchgoers.

Certainly, there are wealthy people who inherited their money, drive Porsches and sail yachts. But they are very much in the minority among the wealthy in this country.

We’ve been over this already. You could read back and look at the facts.

 

[LisaA]

Own up to what you said. You accused single mothers of being drug addicts and crazies. Based on that sort of accusation, you assumed that people are poor because of bad decision-making. This is a simplistic way of looking at how things work in the real world. People are not islands, making decisions in a vacuum. Environment shape behavior and character. Thus we see the need to improve environment, which is what I have suggested.

Now, if single mothers waste their money on consumption, that is actually a fairly good thing for the economy, and better than rich people sitting on their money or investing in China. So even if you are right, and they make bad financial decisions for themselves, those decisions are not as bad for the economy. In any case, I want you to tell me how my suggestions would result in taking money from Mr Gotrocks. Is it higher taxes for education? I thought you were in favor of a nationwide mentoring program, which would probably cost billions of dollars.

You are clearly confused about what responsibility means in this context. Notice your own suggestion on what could be done about our problems. You want a mentoring program implemented because you think it would improve decision-making. Thus you recognize how changing environment can improve behavior and character. I also recognize the importance of environment, and have presented some proposals with that in mind.

Perhaps what irks you is my apparent willingness to have taxes pay for things, but then I have to ask how you think we should pay for a nationwide mentoring program. If you have difficulties with the concept of taxes in general, perhaps you should try to learn about it. Adam Smith is a good start.

As far as your point about marriage, there are several issues that are likely to be tied up with a high divorce-rate (equality among the sexes, economic need for both partners to be working etc.), but you should notice that the western countries with the lowest divorce rates are Italy and Spain. Apart from being economic messes, they have terrible fertility rates.

PS: the folk understanding of responsibility tends to be confused by two conflicting notions of free will. I could tell you to look into compatibilism - which is the majority view in academia today - but recognize that it will take a considerable amount of time and effort to understand. Thankfully, even if you find yourself disagreeing with the position, understanding it is crucial to a developed view of responsibility.

Once again, no I did not accuse single mothers of being drug addicts and crazies. Check the post. I did say that they end up in precarious financial situations because of bad decision making.

Again it’s not brain surgery. In this country (ONE MORE TIME) you will have a very low chance of being poor if you:
Graduate from high school
Get married before you have a baby
Don’t abuse intoxicants
Work

Paying people who make these decisions rewards their unproductive behavior. Why would we want to do that? Why would we not instead provide resources to programs and educational institutions that teach good decision making instead? Sort of like preventative care is easier than paying for a serious illness. Our entire system is reactive rather than proactive and thus is inefficient and ineffective. The only response when a program fails is “throw more money at it” and hope it does some good. That’s why we are 14 trillion dollars in debt.

You claim that the single mom will make better use of Mr Gotrocks’ money, that rich people “sit” on their money. Really? So Warren Buffet has a very large pile of greenbacks that he uses for an office chair? Talk about a silly answer. Wealthy people invest money, make purchases, spend their money. They do not sit on it

As to your suggestion that meant money was taken from Mr Gotrocks and given to Ms Welfare Mom, your suggestion that salaries or compensation be capped because the rich “don’t need it.” Back to the old “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.” Works great in books but not in real life.

As is so common from the Left you immediately conclude that the mentoring program I have experience with is a government program costing “billions of dollars.” Well no it’s not a government program, it’s a charity. Charities make far better use of their funds in my experience than does the government. Even the sainted Warren Buffett said he doesn’t write a check to the Treasury but instead helps fund the Gates Foundation because “they do a better job.” So I am willing to and in fact do happily contribute money to a number of social services charities whereas I am not so willing as you to hand over my money to Uncle Sam because he is doing SUCH a great job…NOT. Please understand that my reluctance to pay taxes is not because I hate poor people but because I don’t like throwing money down a rathole and from my experience that is a good description of most government programs.

BTW you point to the high divorce rate…tha’t is NOT the problem. It’s the low MARRIAGE rate that has created a very high percentage (70+) of single mothers in the black community with the Hispanic community working hard to catch up…Even if a couple divorces, chances are much better that the non-custodial parent will provide support. OTOH Baby Mama who never married Mr Sperm Donor(s) is unlikely to get any financial or emotional assistance after he sows his wild oats.

So again…GET MARRIED, GET A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION, GET A JOB and STAY AWAY FROM INTOXICANTS. Were we able to strengthen our families, our entire society would strengthen. All it take is plain old garden variety traditional values.

As to “trouble with taxes” I must confess I’m a CPA who is a tax accountant so I suspect I have a pretty good understanding of taxation. I am however a big fan of Adam Smith

Lisa

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Once again, no I did not accuse single mothers of being drug addicts and crazies. Check the post. I did say that they end up in precarious financial situations because of bad decision making.

Again it’s not brain surgery. In this country (ONE MORE TIME) you will have a very low chance of being poor if you:
Graduate from high school
Get married before you have a baby
Don’t abuse intoxicants
Work

Paying people who make these decisions rewards their unproductive behavior. Why would we want to do that? Why would we not instead provide resources to programs and educational institutions that teach good decision making instead? Sort of like preventative care is easier than paying for a serious illness. Our entire system is reactive rather than proactive and thus is inefficient and ineffective. The only response when a program fails is “throw more money at it” and hope it does some good. That’s why we are 14 trillion dollars in debt.

You claim that the single mom will make better use of Mr Gotrocks’ money, that rich people “sit” on their money. Really? So Warren Buffet has a very large pile of greenbacks that he uses for an office chair? Talk about a silly answer. Wealthy people invest money, make purchases, spend their money. They do not sit on it

As to your suggestion that meant money was taken from Mr Gotrocks and given to Ms Welfare Mom, your suggestion that salaries or compensation be capped because the rich “don’t need it.” Back to the old “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.” Works great in books but not in real life.

As is so common from the Left you immediately conclude that the mentoring program I have experience with is a government program costing “billions of dollars.” Well no it’s not a government program, it’s a charity. Charities make far better use of their funds in my experience than does the government. Even the sainted Warren Buffett said he doesn’t write a check to the Treasury but instead helps fund the Gates Foundation because “they do a better job.” So I am willing to and in fact do happily contribute money to a number of social services charities whereas I am not so willing as you to hand over my money to Uncle Sam because he is doing SUCH a great job…NOT. Please understand that my reluctance to pay taxes is not because I hate poor people but because I don’t like throwing money down a rathole and from my experience that is a good description of most government programs.

BTW you point to the high divorce rate…tha’t is NOT the problem. It’s the low MARRIAGE rate that has created a very high percentage (70+) of single mothers in the black community with the Hispanic community working hard to catch up…Even if a couple divorces, chances are much better that the non-custodial parent will provide support. OTOH Baby Mama who never married Mr Sperm Donor(s) is unlikely to get any financial or emotional assistance after he sows his wild oats.

So again…GET MARRIED, GET A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION, GET A JOB and STAY AWAY FROM INTOXICANTS. Were we able to strengthen our families, our entire society would strengthen. All it take is plain old garden variety traditional values.

As to “trouble with taxes” I must confess I’m a CPA who is a tax accountant so I suspect I have a pretty good understanding of taxation. I am however a big fan of Adam Smith

Lisa

Thanks Lisa. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[LisaA]

Could you prove this? Not only does it not make much sense logically (it implies a huge turnover in the wealthy population every generation), but I couldn’t find good statistics on it. I did find that 7 of the 10 on the Forbes list were born rich.

faireconomy.org/press_room/1997/born_on_third_base_sources_of_wealth_of_1997_forbes_400

Since you like Forbes as a source yow about something a little more recent than 1997

forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/04/20/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth-2/

6% obtained wealth through inheritance.

Happy reading
Lisa