C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Even if you got your money through inheritence, what right does anyone have to take it from you? It goes against at least one or two commandments.
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Without reading all of the 35 pages of posts, the only facts I recall seeing anybody post were the ones about the Forbes’ “400 wealthiest people”.
So, are you saying the only ones Obama wants to hit are the Forbes 400%. Realizing that only about half are Americans, that’s 200 people. Of those, half are said to have inherited their wealth. So that’s 100 people.
Are you asserting that facts about 100 people somehow demonstrate that most wealth in the U.S. is inherited?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oops! Posted before I saw Lisa’s post. So 6%??? That’s only 12 Americans. And that proves anything?
J
Jerry_Miah
Guest
Since you are very talented in producing large amounts of extemporaneous text in your post, it surely must mean your reading and comprehension skills are also keen. Therefore I am curious about how and why you would throw out this erroneous sentence and represent it as coming from your source.
The full quote is
Which does NOT mean the others weren’t born rich, and could mean anything – the rest were born rich and then got more in the stock market, born rich and then started flipping yachts or whatever. It’s too bad when the discussion is misled with such mistaken factoids…
Another from your link:
Again this tells us nothing at all about whether they were born rich. “Mostly” – that could just mean they think more than half of their wealth came from “working”? Plus, what is with their strange definition of working. If you’re born rich and then double your money through running around investing in art or starting a new chain store or whatever, and you call that running around “time and effort” and therefore “working”, that doesn’t change the fact you were born rich. Also, remember this was a survey, asking the rich about themselves, not a financial analysis. Plenty of born-rich people like to tell themselves they worked hard to hit a triple when they were born on third base. Sorry, your link proves nothing. We are still waiting for the hard figures.
But in the meantime – Does anyone actually think that the majority of those born rich end up not rich later? That’s totally illogical, counter-intuitive, and doesn’t fit at all with what we know about the rather frozen economic mobility of the USA.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Why don’t the Medicis own everything, then?
I, for one, believe those who were “born rich” (truly rich) most likely end up rich later. But, as even the Walton family proves, that diminishes over time. Unless Sam Walton’s heirs (unlike Sam himself) very severely limit their families, the fortunes inherited will diminish from generation to generation…even in that family. It must be remembered that Sam Walton was, until his death, the wealthiest man on earth. His heirs are not. And, it must also be remembered that the Lifetime Exemption is five million. The excess over that is taxed at very high rates; considerably higher than the income tax. The next generation of Waltons is going to pay a staggering amount of the current fortunes on estate and inheritance taxes.
But a couple with a million dollars and four children? Divide one million by four and it’s not a million anymore in the hands of any one child.
Education also confers a very significant lifetime earnings advantage. Do we want to penalize the highly educated as well, or perhaps simply make it impossible for people to become well educated for the sake of fairness?
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
So far as I know. Bin laden is the only person Obama has had hit.
You don’t have to read all the back pages. I’ll try to come up with some data tomorrow.
ATB
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
The government has the right to levy taxes for the public good. Congress decided that, along time ago.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
And the Supreme Court decided that abortion is legal completely out of thin air.
Just because it has “been decided” doesn’t make it right.
The estate tax is the most immoral tax there is. A person uses money that has been saved after taxes to invest. He dies and leaves it to his daughter. She gets taxed again. She dies and leaves it to her daughter and it is taxed again and so on.
Just plain wrong. We need a national sales tax to replace the income tax.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Not necessarily. Realizing this is anecdotal, I recall that when I was just a kid, a local man who really was “rich” for the time and place, died while his children were young. It was considered astonishing that each of his four children received a trust fund of $100,000. I’m not sure what his wife’s trust fund was. But $100,000 then would be close to a million today in buying power and “being rich” relative to others in the community.
Those children lived up to their “fortune” fairly modestly, but certainly above the way others here lived. Decades later, I happened to see the financial statement of one of the daughters. Her trust fund was still there, and had…$100,000 in it. She had no other significant assets other than her house.
Why wasn’t her $100,000 a million or more now? Because she lived up the income from it and didn’t have the talent or foresight to make it increase.
I know others who inherited absolutely nothing but ended up millionaires.
Yes, some percentage of the Forbes 400 (200 Americans, the remainder being from other countries) inherited money. But that tells us nothing at all about the many, many people whose fortunes increased over the years from nothing, or about those whose fortunes decreased from a high level.
So, the proposition that there is no upward or downward mobility remains, in this thread, unproved.
L
LisaA
Guest
Of course they use qualifiers in the sentence to avoid being called out for some individual exception to the statement. To say “mostly” simply leaves open some room should it be found that some portion of wealth is inherited. Even Mitt Romney would fail your “test” since he did inherit some wealth…but gave it away. His current fortune was earned through his own endeavors…but of course you would dismiss it since he was “born” wealthy.
Your unwillingness to give credit to anyone for having earned their success is very telling about you. The anger, envy and taking on victimhood as an artform only convinces me to quit wasting time responding to you. It amazes me that in this time when people have far more opportunities for financial success than in the past when a few elites controlled the world, you claim that the US economic mobility is “frozen.” That would certainly be a surprise to Bill Gates or Phil Knight or Paul Allen or Meg Whitman or Jeff Bezos or the “Google” guys Page and Brin or even Warren Buffet.
But it’s easier to explain away one’s own failures by claiming the system is rigged against them.
Lisa
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
I think people like Lisa have difficulty admitting that their success comes partly from their advantages granted at birth (I don’t know Lisa’s particular life situation, but for many with her views I think this is the case). It’s so un-Christian in my mind to think that as a society we shouldn’t come together to help the less fortunate. I have no problem admitting that my success is partly due to being born with certain privileges. Also, government programs do indeed help people, and those who use them are not all lazy people avoiding work and abusing drugs. Those kids of comments are extremely rude.
If we leave charity up to the individual, there is no guarantee that everyone will do his or her fair share to help the needy. This animosity for minorities and the poor is a perfect example of the GOP taking over a religion. Jesus himself would be appalled at this lack of care.
If we leave charity up to the individual, there is no guarantee that everyone will do his or her fair share to help the needy. This animosity for minorities and the poor is a perfect example of the GOP taking over a religion. Jesus himself would be appalled at this lack of care.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
With all due respect, I think it is pretty uncharitable to assume anything about why Lisa holds the views she does.
I personally would imagine that she holds those views because they are correct.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This might be of passing interest. The following are the tax rates on estates for 2012. The exemption in 2012 is $5 million, so the amounts below are on the “excess” over $5 million. But in 2013, the exemption is only $1 million, and the top rate is 55%. So, at $1.5 million in 2013, the rich person’s estate will pay $550,000 to the government. If a person’s estate is a billion, the estate will pay $467 million or so in taxes. So, the “rich guy” dies and let’s say he has four children. The children will then each end up with $116 million. From a billion to $116 million. I would say that’s a pretty significant loss of wealth. And it doesn’t get better from there unless each of the children, rich though they still are, don’t live up to their full income and have only one child.
Lower Limit Upper Limit Initial Taxation Further Taxation
0 $10,000 $0 18% of the amount
$10,000 $20,000 $1,800 20% of the excess
$20,000 $40,000 $3,800 22% of the excess
$40,000 $60,000 $8,200 24% of the excess
$60,000 $80,000 $13,000 26% of the excess
$80,000 $100,000 $18,200 28% of the excess
$100,000 $150,000 $23,800 30% of the excess
$150,000 $250,000 $38,800 32% of the excess
$250,000 $500,000 $70,800 34% of the excess
$500,000 and over $155,800 35% of the excess
Of course, there are a total of 412 billionaires in the United States. A big number when you think how much a billion is. But the likelihood of their children being billionaires is really not too strong when you consider that most of the “billionaire club” members do not have multiple billions.
I don’t think it is at all a stretch to say that “gaining wealth” is difficult, almost no matter where a person starts out. But it does require not living up to one’s means, at any level.
It is a great mistake to assume that wealth necessarily continues from generation to generation.
Lower Limit Upper Limit Initial Taxation Further Taxation
0 $10,000 $0 18% of the amount
$10,000 $20,000 $1,800 20% of the excess
$20,000 $40,000 $3,800 22% of the excess
$40,000 $60,000 $8,200 24% of the excess
$60,000 $80,000 $13,000 26% of the excess
$80,000 $100,000 $18,200 28% of the excess
$100,000 $150,000 $23,800 30% of the excess
$150,000 $250,000 $38,800 32% of the excess
$250,000 $500,000 $70,800 34% of the excess
$500,000 and over $155,800 35% of the excess
Of course, there are a total of 412 billionaires in the United States. A big number when you think how much a billion is. But the likelihood of their children being billionaires is really not too strong when you consider that most of the “billionaire club” members do not have multiple billions.
I don’t think it is at all a stretch to say that “gaining wealth” is difficult, almost no matter where a person starts out. But it does require not living up to one’s means, at any level.
It is a great mistake to assume that wealth necessarily continues from generation to generation.
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
Wait, you think it’s correct that people on welfare are lazy drug addicts? Or that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic background, can achieve that same level of success with the same amount of work? Both of those things are false. I personally don’t know how anyone can hold those views and call themselves a Christian. The GOP is not the party of God. The GOP holds one very prominent view that coincides with Christian/Catholic belief, but other than that, I don’t see a lot of Christian views in the party. Sorry, I’m not going to get to the point where I will blame the poor and needy for their circumstances, when in reality, many of them are good hardworking people who just weren’t born into an advantageous socioeconomic background.With all due respect, I think it is pretty uncharitable to assume anything about why Lisa holds the views she does.
I personally would imagine that she holds those views because they are correct.
I think the GOP is largely responsible for this view of the poor and needy as lazy welfare abusers. I’m just extremely disheartened that so many religious folks are more loyal to a political party than to the teachings of a loving man–namely Jesus himself.
P
Persuader
Guest
Yeah, I read it. Here are the direct quotes: 1) “How many of those same Walmart moms would spend extra money on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or platform sandals instead of Similac?” 2) “Now this certainly doesn’t mean all single moms working at Walmart are drug addicted crazies but you will find that many of the folks availing themselves of these services need them because of really poor decisions.”
Stop complaining and own up to your own words.
It appears to be brain surgery for you, since you seem to equate some correlations with a solution.
Who are you arguing against? I have been proposing higher wages for workers. Is working unproductive? I have been proposing educational reform to make it more meritocratic. How is that rewarding unproductive behavior?
Really? Where is the research confirming that?
You misconstrue the issue. We are comparing tax cuts with increasing wages for the working class. Now, if you look at the Bush tax cuts, you will see that it didn’t create jobs in the US. It created jobs in China and gathered dust under pillows. It didn’t have a strong multiplier effect. Increasing wages for the working class will have a strong multiplier effect because working people will spend money, which will increase demand and so on. I am simplifying, but given the historically low tax rates (and low government revenue), there are additional reasons not to reduce taxes. Better that people who need the money, and are struggling in this economy, get more money in their hands. That is right both morally and economically.
You could make the globalist argument, saying that the US cannot afford higher wages because of international competition, but then you have implicitly accepted a race to the bottom (which is, quite frankly, unacceptable). Also, US corporate taxes (as a percentage of GDP) are the lowest among OECD-countries. So, if higher corporate taxes ruins competitiveness, that goes for the entirety of Europe + the rest of the OECD. That is, any country you want to live in.
No, I didn’t. Where did I say that salaries should be capped?
So your answer is that a charity, or several charities, should launch a nationwide mentoring program? Is that your suggestion? Do you know of any likely candidate to do this – a candidate big enough to make a considerable difference? If not, it seems to me that all you have is empty words and pipe dreams. What I have suggested amounts to ordinary, realistic policy - empowering unions, raising minimum wage and raising taxes to pay for education. All completely workable with known precedents at home and abroad.
Marriage rates in Spain and Italy have been pretty average. Generally better than the best performers when it comes to fertility rates. So, there doesn’t appear to be a correlation between low marriage rates and low fertility rates in western countries. But certainly, I agree that strengthening families would help. But how to do that? You don’t seem to have an answer apart from mentoring programs (part of a solution at best).
Then you should know that Smith supported progressive taxation. And you should know some of the arguments for taxation in general. You might want to read about distributive justice if you want to know more about the moral arguments for taxation.
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
I’m not speaking merely in terms of money, but also of the cultures of the wealthy and of the poor. In my town there is a private school and a public one. I’m one of the fortunate ones who was born into a background where I could attend the private school. Success was expected of us. We had a comfortable home life that allowed us to flourish, and we were mostly given encouragement at home and at school. We were told that we could be doctors, attorneys, engineers, etc. And many of my fellow classmates, including myself, and now in these types of professional programs at school. My family is not of some level of extreme wealth or anything, but my dad went to a very good university, and I was in an atmosphere of comfort. On the contrary, the public school in my area can get kind of rough. Some students do not have heat or proper homes or anyone who cares enough to encourage them to take a “white collar” career path. I do whole-heartedly believe that it is much harder for these students to achieve financial success, not merely due to their lack of financial resources, but also due to the cultural of poverty.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There are all kinds of advantages “granted at birth”. My maternal grandfather never got out of the third grade and couldn’t speak English intelligibly until he was 12. But he was, “at birth” granted the advantages of intelligence, energy, and coming from a family that really believed in education and work. Yes, and he did know how to grow strawberries because his father did, and, during the depression, he survived because of that “advantage granted at birth”; his father’s knowing how to grow strawberries.
Why strawberries? Because despite the poverty of many during the depression, lots of people had money for the “luxury” (then) of strawberries, and he could sell every single one he could raise while others who raised staple crops couldn’t even pay for the seed.
Would Jesus be appalled because my grandfather knew how to raise strawberries? Well, I do know that he literally kept some people from starving during the depression by hiring them to help him raise strawberries. While that also aided his income, (though sometimes it sure didn’t) he even built houses (modest, it must be admitted) for some of them because they had no place in which to live.
We might also ask ourselves if Jesus would be appalled by the spectacle of billions of dollars being spent on political favorites and contributors while the poorest and most helpless of all, the disabled needy, got nothing at all out of this administration, or any administrations after Reagan, for that matter.
So, was the proper answer to take sufficient money away from people like my grandfather that he couldn’t do anything for anybody and spend it on political cronies? I realize there are many who, for whatever reasons, doubt the charity of those who have the resources for it, and seem to think politicians are more charitable when they are spending other peoples’ money. I really don’t see why anyone assumes that, when it is obvious that politicians are buying votes and contributions, not engaging in real charity.
I sometimes think (tongue somewhat in cheek, but not entirely) everybody would be a lot better off if politicians were simply given a license to steal up to a certain amount of campaign and personal fortune money from the treasury directly, leaving the remainder of the peoples’ money in their own hands. I honestly think most people would rise to the occasion better than the politicians would.
Why do I think it? Because for a politician now to get, say, a million dollars in campaign money, he has to spend billions of the peoples’ money to get a million in “pay to play”. And, of course, some of them are nauseatingly fond of telling us what “Jesus would want” when it’s their own wants they’re really trying to satisfy. Some are aware of that and some aren’t. But it’s wrong to accuse people of uncharity just because they believe the politicians squander so readily and think individuals are more charitable at heart than those whose ambition and egos are their driving motivations.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
True enough. But one has to ask oneself why some cultures are one way and others are another way, and why there are exceptions. When I was a kid, we burned wood and our house had three rooms, at least initially. No plumbing either. My father never got out of the ninth grade. Was that a “culture of poverty” then? I attended college and graduate school. Every one of my siblings did too. When I got to college I was simply astonished at the educations my classmates had gotten, and their resources.
I don’t for a minute doubt that there is some kind of cultural drop-off going on. But is it due to poverty itself, or to something else? Very obviously, in the past poverty was not considered an insurmoutable barrier to advancement. Certainly, I considered it a barrier, but never thought insurmountable. Why is it so considered now?
Is it because all of the most intelligent and the most motivated escaped and there is now some kind of genetic degeneration going on? Has all of the cream risen to the top, so to speak, in terms of culture and inherited characteristics?
Or is it perhaps that those in poverty are assailed by a multitude of things that hold them down; drugs, illegitimacy, sexual license, a “robber culture” that elevates criminality, a “dependency culture” that denervates?
I don’t think we know. I don’t think we have a clue, really. But it does seem that the assumed wisdoms of the last few decades; that poverty is the root cause of this or of that on a widespread basis, is off the mark somehow, and that somehow or other if we simply pass out enough money it will all be corrected.
I realize there is more to life than literature, but, as a person who lives in the very country in which “Winter’s Bone” was set, I can’t help but think (as undoubtedly the readers or watchers of that did) Ree Dolly was not going to fail. She eschewed the meth and the “doobie” and the illegitimacy and the criminality. Her aspiration was to join the army and to get a better life for her siblings and herself. No, she wouldn’t be a doctor or a lawyer. Maybe a Master Sergeant or even a Sergeant Major if she applied herself and had a bit of luck. Maybe she would learn to be an aircraft mechanic and make a good living outside the armed forces sometime or other.
She was different, despite the fact that every single thing in her background and culture was degenerative in the extreme, and all of us readers and watchers knew she was different. And more than that, we identified with her unless we were born into comfort and maybe even if we were. Was she just smarter? More determined, definitely. More observant, yes. More thoughtful? Absolutely. Had a better underlying way of thinking about life? Of course.
Despite the film’s representation, this area is actually rather well off except in pockets, some of which really are horrific. But do I know any Ree Dollys? Absolutely. Do I know any who have succeeded in life? Yes. Do I know any of that background who haven’t. Yes to that too.
I think sometimes that literature can be a better teacher than all the psychologists and sociologists. That’s why it holds our interest; why it makes us think; why some of it is lasting. I also think that instead of focusing on poverty itself, we might do better to wonder just what accounts for the Ree Dollys.
L
LisaA
Guest
I really enjoy the very selective comprehension exhibited by Et Cetera et al. I bolded the weasel word that allows EC to attempt to turn me into yet another evil Republican outed by the Lone Ranger who apparently reads my mind and knows my heart. While I’m impressed with your ability to leap to broad conclusions with a single bound and without bothering to read what I have written, I’m dismayed that you and others continue to malign my character.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:
I have stated REPEATEDLY that the gifts one is born with (including wealthy parents) have a significant impact on their lives and as is obvoius such gifts are not fairly distributed. Life isn’t fair. Most of us, me included, were not born to wealthy parents. Further I wasn’t born with the genetic potential to be a Super Bowl quarterback or to sing on Broadway or win the Master’s. I get it…we aren’t all equal in talents, abilities, drive, intelligence, athleticism, or musical ability. No government program on earth is going to make life fair although that seems to be the objective of the Left, howver futile the objective. So trust me Et Cetera I am perfectly willing to admit that some, maybe most of our eventual success in certain endeavors is 'programmed at birth." Why do you conclude otherwise? I have said this repeatedly.
Nor have I said all of those availing themselves of social services are all drug addicted crazies, lazy bums or stupid. You have either misread my posts or have simply projected your own thoughts into the mix. I have said that in the United States poverty is more often than not the result of making bad decisions. While one may have been born disadvantaged, that doesn’t mean they should choose to drop out of school, have out of wedlock babies, fail to get a job or indulge in intoxicants. This isn’t the Sudan where one’s life is in the hands of the latest tin pot dictator. The US provides opportunities, you just have to recognize them.
I have also said repeatedly that not only do I believe in charity but that I donate a pretty substantial portion of my time, talent and treasure in such endeavors. (If you don’t believe me call my Priest). I am more than happy to share the amazing gifts God has given me. I believe if you read the Bible there is much said about DOING unto others, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. There is nothing I recall about handing over your money to the government to spend as substituting for charity. So for you Et Cetera to claim that I am “un-Christian” because I would prefer to work with charities rather than the Federal Government, I have to conclude that you think paying taxes is the more noble approach to society’s ills than actually working one on one with people. I’m afraid that you will have a hard time finding Biblical support for that plan.
I truly wonder why you have such an amazing faith in the government when it has proven to be subject to waste, fraud, graft, and theft. THere is no accountability in a government entity. It cannot deliver nearly the same level of service for the same amount of money as a charity.
As to the “GOP taking over a religion” how ironic. Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals. Further the GOP has been the party of life while the Democrat party has descended into promoting a culture of death through its militant support of abortion, sterilization and birth control. On balance I think the death of millions of babies is a little more significant than reducing the increase in government programs.
I suspect it’s the Left’s faith in government that allows them to be unconcerned about whether or not the poor are being served. How much of every tax dollar sent to Washington DC to help with the poor actually GETS to the poor? You will find it’s a very small percentage. In contrast charities often promote that less than 5% of their expenses are other than direct services. Tell me a government program that is 95% effective. I won’t hold my breath.
If you would like your life, your choices and your future controlled by the government then best of luck. I prefer having freedom.
Lisa
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
I quite liked “Winter’s Bone” myself, and I do respect your opinions. I’m glad that you were able to become a successful person, and I think you grasp this issue much better than the people I was criticizing earlier in this thread. Sure, some people will make it out. They might be naturally more intelligent or more strong-willed, but my main point is to always understand that people should not be blamed for not being strong enough or whatever to make it out of those situations. I have never been in a position like that, so I just hate to criticize or think “Well, they must be lazy or on drugs,” when in reality sometimes the culture of poverty is too strong. And also I cut these people a lot of slack because it’s of course it’s unfair that they were born into these bad situations in the first place.
Edit: This is to Ridgerunner. I forgot to quote.
Edit: This is to Ridgerunner. I forgot to quote.
- Status