What do you consider rich?

[Al_Masetti]

The “rich” have no “income”.

Therefore increasing the income tax has no effect on “the rich”.

The “rich” get their spending money from other sources.

There are a variety of ways to “extract money” from a variety of financial entities. And “the rich” have the staff to be able to get those monies without any tax liability.

I knew a lawyer once who spent all of his time “working” property that was held in a variety of trust accounts. Very complicated.

People who work for a living cannot afford to have a room full of lawyers and accountants and lobbyists manipulating money all day.

So, people who work for a living are paid either hourly (“the poor”) or by salary (“the middle class”). And every penny they get is fully reported to the government and is fully taxed.

AND the working folks are also manipulated into believing or thinking that “raising taxes on the rich” really means something.

As in many other issues (such as the debate now ongoing regarding illegal immigration and “reform” thereof), the essential argument is in the DETAILS. And … “the rich” (upon whom the tax increases are impacted) can be folks who earn as little as $25,000.

NOT ONLY THAT, but the “last time” that “the rich” were taxed, we got the AMT … the Alternative Minimum Tax … which was supposed to affect ONLY those multi-millionaires who clipped bond coupons and paid NO taxes … maybe a half-dozen people. Instead what we got was a new ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM TAX, which is impacting MILLIONS of working people. And it really hits folks who live in high-tax states such as New York and California and New Jersey and Massachusetts.

The issue of “the rich” really needs to trigger a discussion of ENVY, which is a capital sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As an interesting aside on how the rich hang onto their money was highlighted in the '00 campaign. Al Gore was asked if he opposed Big Oil so much, how come he had hundreds of thousands of dollars in Occidental Petroleum stock.

His outraged answer, “That’s for my mother’s income!” defused the issue – no one pursued it farther.

That stock was a tax dodge – his parents divided their estate, each taking half. When one died (in this case his father), that half of the estate went legally to the children, but with the proviso that the surviving spouse controlled it, and could live off the income.

Now how does this beat taxes? Simple. The Inheritence Tax is based on the size of the bequest. By cutting a large estate into two smaller estates, the Gores beat the Inheritance Tax. Had his parents not done that, he and his siblings would have owed about $275,000 more in taxes.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The “rich” have no “income”.

Therefore increasing the income tax has no effect on “the rich”.

This is not even close to true. The rich do have income, for example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have income, which they have to pay income taxes on. Now of course, people like Bill Gates have a lot of their wealth in corporations and corporations pay taxes as well. Last year Microsoft paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes.

The “rich” get their spending money from other sources.
There are a variety of ways to “extract money” from a variety of financial entities. And “the rich” have the staff to be able to get those monies without any tax liability.

I knew a lawyer once who spent all of his time “working” property that was held in a variety of trust accounts. Very complicated.

People who work for a living cannot afford to have a room full of lawyers and accountants and lobbyists manipulating money all day.

This is partially true, by hiring clever lawyers and accountants you can reduce the tax burden, but even very wealthy people usually end up paying some taxes.

So, people who work for a living are paid either hourly (“the poor”) or by salary (“the middle class”). And every penny they get is fully reported to the government and is fully taxed.

I would dispute your definition, because you have some CEO’s that make millions and even though it is a salary, I would put them well above middle class. Also, the previous example I gave with my friend who bills out at $300 per hour would hardly qualify him to be working class.

AND the working folks are also manipulated into believing or thinking that “raising taxes on the rich” really means something.

I do not dispute that there is a lot of economic illiteracy out there.

The issue of “the rich” really needs to trigger a discussion of ENVY, which is a capital sin.

Certainly it needs to be part of the discussion, but I think that some people’s knee jerk reaction to the discussion of money is to attribute anybody’s criticism of what happens in the marketplace as stemming from envy.

Let me give you an example: On other boards I have criticized some of the payouts that CEO’s receive. It is not that I am against someone making millions of dollars, it is how these CEO’s use their inside position to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the shareholders. This basic problem is what economists call “the principal-agent problem”. There are legitamite issues here that Christians should be concerned about. But when I raise these issues I am invariably called envious.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me give you an example: On other boards I have criticized some of the payouts that CEO’s receive. It is not that I am against someone making millions of dollars, it is how these CEO’s use their inside position to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the shareholders. This basic problem is what economists call “the principal-agent problem”. There are legitamite issues here that Christians should be concerned about. But when I raise these issues I am invariably called envious.

That stems from envy and lack of economic understanding.

Because people were buying up shaky businesses, streamlining them and selling them off – and cutting dead wood in the process – those people were called “takeover artists” and vilified (despite the fact they kept many a business from going down the tubes.)

To deal with these eeeeevil people – who were the owners of the businesses, of course – congress made it possible for the boards of directors and corporate officers to overcome the wishes of the owners. And – surprise, surprise! – they used that power to increase their own slice of the pie.

The simple solution is to reverse those laws. Let the owners of the business, the stockholders, determine what the members of the board and the corporate officers are paid.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That stems from envy and lack of economic understanding.

Because people were buying up shaky businesses, streamlining them and selling them off – and cutting dead wood in the process – those people were called “takeover artists” and vilified (despite the fact they kept many a business from going down the tubes.)

To deal with these eeeeevil people – who were the owners of the businesses, of course – congress made it possible for the boards of directors and corporate officers to overcome the wishes of the owners. And – surprise, surprise! – they used that power to increase their own slice of the pie.

The simple solution is to reverse those laws. Let the owners of the business, the stockholders, determine what the members of the board and the corporate officers are paid.

What you are saying is true to some extent, there is no doubt that the takeover threat can be a constraint on managerial behavior. However, it will not cure all cases of managerial greed. The principal agent problem existed long before the anti-takeover laws were passed in the 1980’s. For example, there is an extensive literature on this problem from the 60’s and 70’s and I would be surprised if Adam Smith didn’t comment on it in 1776.

 

[Nino]

Al…right on …the wealthy elitist class always hide their money…we the poor masses…(drop the m smirked karl marx) are the ones who really pay into the system…the so clalled progressive income taxe is a sham! I remember years back when Nelson Rockfeller was being questioned about his income tax…he smirked also and said…'well ,our holdings are so extensive it takes time to figure out how much we do owe…but we will get back to you…! he had not payed income tax for the past 5 years…and so it goes…the expression for Uncle Sam.being uncle SAP…kinda fits…Nino

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The “rich” have no “income”.

From working, that is.

The issue of “the rich” really needs to trigger a discussion of ENVY, which is a capital sin.

It also needs to trigger a discussion of AVARICE and PRIDE, which are also capital sins.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What you are saying is true to some extent, there is no doubt that the takeover threat can be a constraint on managerial behavior. However, it will not cure all cases of managerial greed. The principal agent problem existed long before the anti-takeover laws were passed in the 1980’s. For example, there is an extensive literature on this problem from the 60’s and 70’s and I would be surprised if Adam Smith didn’t comment on it in 1776.

The object of the exercise is not to “cure managerial greed” by threatening them with takeover, but by taking away their power and restoring it to the owners, the stockholders. The law should state that the compnsation of the board and corporate officers will be set annually by a vote of the stockholders.

If the stockholders – the owners – want to pay their CEO a gazillion dollars, that’s their business.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Under the Clinton administration the tax code was changed so that companies could no longer deduct as expenses salaries in excess of $1 million. Except for actors and athletes.

That meant that the companies had to come up with more creative ways of paying their employees.

Which led to the mess with re-dated stock options.

---

Really rich people have money in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands OR they use a variety of complex trusts.

This is not even close to true. The rich do have income, for example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have income, which they have to pay income taxes on. Now of course, people like Bill Gates have a lot of their wealth in corporations and corporations pay taxes as well. Last year Microsoft paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes.

This is partially true, by hiring clever lawyers and accountants you can reduce the tax burden, but even very wealthy people usually end up paying some taxes.

I would dispute your definition, because you have some CEO’s that make millions and even though it is a salary, I would put them well above middle class. Also, the previous example I gave with my friend who bills out at $300 per hour would hardly qualify him to be working class.

I do not dispute that there is a lot of economic illiteracy out there.

Certainly it needs to be part of the discussion, but I think that some people’s knee jerk reaction to the discussion of money is to attribute anybody’s criticism of what happens in the marketplace as stemming from envy.

Let me give you an example: On other boards I have criticized some of the payouts that CEO’s receive. It is not that I am against someone making millions of dollars, it is how these CEO’s use their inside position to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the shareholders. This basic problem is what economists call “the principal-agent problem”. There are legitamite issues here that Christians should be concerned about. But when I raise these issues I am invariably called envious.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Read the various lists published by Forbes of the richest people in the world, etc.

You really have NO IDEA where they get their spending money.

What is public and what is real are two different things.

Take a look at those airliners that are used as private planes. Take a look at the humongous yachts.

Their money is sheltered in ways that you cannot imagine.

 

[Nino]

I hope I’m not changing the conversation too much, but I haven’t checked in a few days and I wanted to reply to Proletarian.

Er. I mean healthy food.

By clothes, I mean modest, clean clothes. We only use second hand clothes with a few exceptions when we can’t find something. By good books, I mean edifying. We obtain our books from the library. By activities, I could mean scouts or sports–I mean formative activities that build leadership skills and virtue.

By a safe neighborhood, I mean one in which you have some measure of safety. For example, in one part of Indpls, in the last few months, two young girls were abducted from their bus stops and raped. Obviously, you don’t have children if you don’t consider safety a necessity. And, I doubt you would consider my neighborhood a wealthy one or my small old house a mansion.

You, my friend, have a serious chip on your shoulder. Healthy and adequate diet, presentable clothes, wholesome activities, and safe environment should be our goal for every single person on this planet.

Errrrrrrrrrr

 

[Nino]

.my wife and I have seven children…now all grown…all college grads…I taught in a catholic (small c) HS for 30 years…always had a second job…we never had money…were ‘poor’ and the worst people I ever met are the upper class rich…no wonder Jesus warned…'that a camel can make it to heaven before a rich man…thats because wealth means power…and golly gee,what great fun to send others folks kids off to a no win war…or tax,spend and tax again the middle class…we ,of course, can be warm hearted care givers…place our name over the museums door,or hospital wing or foundation…see that proves we care…its you middle class Catholic Christians who dont…and we prove that in our movies and books and sitcoms…all the best…Nino

 

[Al_Masetti]

.my wife and I have seven children…now all grown…all college grads…I taught in a catholic (small c) HS for 30 years…always had a second job…we never had money…were ‘poor’ and the worst people I ever met are the upper class rich…no wonder Jesus warned…'that a camel can make it to heaven before a rich man…thats because wealth means power…and golly gee,what great fun to send others folks kids off to a no win war…or tax,spend and tax again the middle class…we ,of course, can be warm hearted care givers…place our name over the museums door,or hospital wing or foundation…see that proves we care…its you middle class Catholic Christians who dont…and we prove that in our movies and books and sitcoms…all the best…Nino

Wow.

Careful.

Skirting the edge of “uncharity”…

All that finger pointing …

We have a volunteer military and have had for several decades. The military in Iraq now all signed up after September 11, 2001.

It is better for folks who give voluntarily to give anonymously, but if seeing their name in lights on a library or a college building or a hospital wing, more power to them. At least it wasn’t money provided by the government from our involuntary taxes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

.my wife and I have seven children…now all grown…all college grads…I taught in a catholic (small c) HS for 30 years…always had a second job…we never had money…were ‘poor’ and the worst people I ever met are the upper class rich…no wonder Jesus warned…'that a camel can make it to heaven before a rich man…thats because wealth means power…and golly gee,what great fun to send others folks kids off to a no win war…or tax,spend and tax again the middle class…we ,of course, can be warm hearted care givers…place our name over the museums door,or hospital wing or foundation…see that proves we care…its you middle class Catholic Christians who dont…and we prove that in our movies and books and sitcoms…all the best…Nino

Tell me you’re not an English teacher. Please tell me you’re not an English teacher.

 

[Athanasiy]

Hello to every body !

In our Baptist Churches very often You could hear that the end is coming soon, just because the prove was - the events on the middle east.
And many Christians were fooled and are fooled today by this fake and destructive escathological theories, which force many of us to think that we do not need to worry about our duties and responsibilities before the earthly future .

For the Christians :
Its not forbidden to get rich for the sake of helping others !
Its not forbidden to be rich and invest in the noble projects and the charity projects.

The Economical activity doesn’t abide out of Spirituality as some Evangelical Christians think today.
The same of course we can say about the political and social activities.
When the Christians neglect and ignore these fields of activities ,
then we do not give the God’s opportunity to bless us in all spheres of life.

I am from the ex - communist country , and I am not the Businessman, so for me it is not easy to give the opinion about of being rich.
What You call necessities we call luxuries.

Of course we can not judge, only God is a Judge.
Sometimes we can see our neighbor as unspiritual just because he has what we don’t have, and our standard of living can become a yardsick by which we measure others.
For us it would be unfair to condemn others who choose a different lifestyle.

But I think that the rich Christian who is worried about the ministry, must be able to think not only thirty years ahead , but ‘’Think thirty million years ahead.’’
I mean to be rich also in God and not to forget about the charity.

He/She can go to the vocation one time a year instead of 2-3 times a year….
He/She can drive the less expensive car instead of more expensive car……well its in my opinion.

Of course ( as the classic says) whoever believes that giving is an easy matter, makes a mistake; it is a matter of very great difficulty, provided that gifts are made with wisdom, and are not scattered haphazard and by caprice.
But the God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.

For each of us there must be not only the conversion of the heart and mind but also the conversion of the purse.

 

[governorperez]

Kind of an offshoot of the Rich Have Passion thread, but a bit different. I thought it deserved it’s own thread. If I put this in the wrong place please feel free to move it.

My SIL is a nice person. She works hard and her husband works hard. They have nice things to show for it, a beautiful house in a nice area, two expensive car,nice clothes, ect…For some reason she feels she has to justify her lifestyle to me. I always tell her, “whatever makes you happy…”

Dh and I live a considerably different lifestyle. Dh has worked his way up in the mental health field. We live in a mid to low income area, and we own second-hand cars. I’m a work at home mom (home daycare) so that I can be home with the kids. I don’t justify my lifestyle, simply because it works for me. I also don’t judge work outside the home moms. I was one once. I know that all three WOHM, WAHM, and Stay At Home Moms work hard in different ways. Let’s face it, WOHMs are my bread and butter too.

So what do I think is rich? For me it’s enjoying my life, where I am, right now. Yeah, a little extra money would come in handy, but money doesn’t always make you happy. I’ve been very poor as in working below minimum wage, living on walfare, poor. I never thought of myself as poor, though. My kids were well cared for. I had a roof over my head and food on the table. Sure it was a struggle sometimes, but we were still happy. To me, that’s what rich is.

Kim

 

[governorperez]

Hooray KIM !
a happy family is a glimpse of heaven .

 

[thechrismyster]

in my humble experience, the people who complain the most about the evils of money are the ones who have none.

and those that extol it, have it.

right or wrong, money does buy security and happiness. very few rich people i know are as evil as they are made out to be. most crime comes from the poor? why is that.

not too many multimillionaires i know are selling crack and prostituting their neighbors for $10 on street corners.

money is not the root of all evil. LACK of money is what drives people to be evil.

greed is bad. the money is good.

 

[stinkcat_14]

in my humble experience, the people who complain the most about the evils of money are the ones who have none.

This may be true to some extent, but even those of us who are fairly well off, will often point out the hazards of relying too much on money.

and those that extol it, have it.

right or wrong, money does buy security and happiness. very few rich people i know are as evil as they are made out to be. most crime comes from the poor? why is that.

A friend of mine did a study on the role of money and sex on happiness. He found that more of both did have some effect on making people happier. But, money and sex only explains about 10% of the variation in the level of happiness. So while money is useful, it actually accounts for very little in making happy.

not too many multimillionaires i know are selling crack and prostituting their neighbors for $10 on street corners.

money is not the root of all evil. LACK of money is what drives people to be evil.

greed is bad. the money is good.

Actually, it is not lack of money, but greed that drives people to commit crimes. There are rich people who commit crime, just usually not violent crime. After all, why rob a gas station for $100 when you can just as easily embezzle $1 million.

 

[RWMorris]

According to the Sacred Scriptures, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.
We have five children and my husband is retired military who now works for the State of Oklahoma. I am a music teacher. Four of our children are still at home and three are in college.
We live in a small house in a modest neighborhood. We drive used cars and fix them when they’re broken. We add on to the house when necessary, doing the work ourselves. For years we gardened to have enough food to eat and also had chickens, pigs, etc. to meet the needs of our family. Our children learned where food actually comes from, so it was worth it.
If we want a big-ticket item, we save up and pay cash for it rather than max out a credit card. Speaking of which, we keep very low balances on our credit cards and try to pay them off every month.
Now for the interesting part: my husband’s retirement pensions are worth over $1,000,000 so technicially we are millionaires. But we live very modestly rather than try to impress people with Mercedes or Lexuses or a big expensive house. And we give a lot of money every month to our church and to Catholic charities.
I am convinced that far too many people live beyond their means and live paycheck to paycheck. It is so much better to save up money for retirement and live modestly than to try to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
We’ll never move out of our 1400-sq. ft. home although we could afford to, simply because it would be silly to pay all that money for extra space to have to clean.
People should visit Third World countries to see how the REALLY poor people live!