Maybe not as much, but would have been happy to help nonetheless.
Romney Fundraiser - Secret Taping
- Thread starter candrew
- Start date
Maybe not as much, but would have been happy to help nonetheless.
LOL
"It's important to destroy their sense of individualism while they're still young"
repped
I think you misunderstand the motivation & drive behind the super successful. Maybe they wouldn't succeed under the most trying circumstances inside a corrupt political regime, but they don't really have that to deal with north of the Mexican border.
A lot of immigrants to NYC have built their businesses from the ground up. That goes for all walks of life, and even more so for the Jews, who do it every damn place they migrate to. Jewish success has been linked to cultural support, which obviously isn't equal across migrant classes. Still, at the end of the day, starting a business & working your *** off is the real first stepping stone. Using that success to pay for college & see family members climb the Wall Street ladder comes after.
110% if able.
I think an implied contract of bettering ourselves & getting off the dole is a good enough promise.
I don't see how the first lady writing off the entire country is much different as a candidate privately discussing campaign strategy that essentially demonizes half.
I always enjoy your input on how the rich children you educate think & operate differently than the masses. I don't think recent class mobility studies fully support your thesis though. The wealthy might beget children who do okay for themselves, but they can also be prone to blowing daddy's money over time, which is an excellent redistributive mechanism.
A few ultra-wealthy US families have been the exception to this, & I want to inheritance tax the hell out of them.
I grew up poor as **** and worked harder during the summer than many grown ups, so you'll have to excuse me for saying boo freaking hoo.
One summer I mowed 10 lawns once a week with a push mower plus my parents twice--many were 1/2 acre. I also had a paper route that took about 1.5 hours every single day, worked in a local orchard for $2/hour, and spent many Saturdays cutting wood to keep warm in the winter. The cars broke down a lot & my father needed help fixing them. We worked a lot.
I don't look back on that and wish I had it any other way. Sure, it would have been nice to value education higher than I did but the value my family placed on hard work has payed off just as much if not more so.
Thank God you came along when you did. I think that dead horse was about to move. Good looking out.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Top 10 states by % of people that pay no income tax:
New Mexico
Louisiana
Texas
Arkansas
Georgia
Mississippi
Florida
South Carolina
Idaho
Alabama
Throw out Florida which is probably because of their large number of old folks then you're left with 6 states dead red and 3 purple (New Mexico, Louisiana and arguably, Arkansas). Not a blue state in the bunch.
You are not getting an answer because:
1. You have made a claim based on the logic that "you can't prove a negative." I can easily say, "the middle class would be much worse off if it were not for trickle down economics." It is the same as "I brush my teeth and floss every day, yet I still had two cavities, therefore I am not going to brush and floss everyday." I could easily say, "If i did not brush and floss my teeth everyday, I would have had 4 cavities instead of two."
2. There is some debate as to if the middle class is actually disappearing, when this supposed disappearing actually began, and what are the root causes of it. Although your assertion that trickle down economics is the root cause, this is a non-starter at worse and a bastardization of correlation does not equal causation at best. Education, decline of two household parents, globalization, movement of individuals between the classes, etc are all contributing factors. Given the complex nature of global economics the statistical chances of just tax rates being the sole cause of the decline of the middle class is virtually next to zero.
3. Your theory is based on several false assumptions that nobody wants to admit:
First, the general mantra is that the "income" gains have largely flowed to the 1% in lieu of the 99%. While the income gains have flowed to the 1%, most of this income is the result of compensation not available to and not at the expense of the workers. Nearly all CEO compensation comes at the expense of shareholders, not company underlings. Berkshire Hathaway is a perfect example. Buffett pays himself next to nothing, yet his employees are no better paid than anybody else. Private companies can do what they want. Let's use a private business example. If the Utah Jazz cut player payroll in half, they are not going to float the player salary differences down to the lower level employees. That is not the way business works and not the way business will ever work.
Secondly, and most importantly, you don't recreate the middle class by compressing down the upper class. Yet, this is exactly what the left proposes. What you and virtually all others that are up in arms over the 1% fail to ARTICULATE IS A STRATEGY by which that even if you raised marginal rates on the 1% to WHATEVER rate you like, you are not going to improve the middle class. WHY? Because you are funneling all tax receipts to a third party...the US Treasury and the whims of Congress. THE ONLY way to directly improve the middle class via this route is set up a mechanism by which all tax revenues collected above and beyond earmarked for the treasury as a normal course of business be directly divided up between all middle class and lower class families.
You don't feed a starving man by making the rich guy on the hill cut his dinner steak in half and throw it away. By raising tax rates, sending it to the treasury you are doing the same thing. Sure, you can make a case for collecting x amount of tax revenues from the 1% and launching some massive stimulus program...fine, but if you believe, Congress will do it effectively, efficiently, fairly, and timely, than you are dreaming. Sorry, but taking x amount of dollars from the private sector and leaking a large part of that into the heavens so you and others can feel good is worse than knowing the 1% is sitting poolside eating caviar. The problem with Keynes economics is the same problem with Austrian economics, great in theory, but impossible to implement by humans.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Hooray! A "I had it harder than you had it" competition!
Were you beat by your mom?
Was your dad a pedophile?
Where you ever homeless?
Was your walk to school uphill both ways?
Were you chased by vultures?
Did gangs of roving Mormons beat you down every chance they got?
All kidding aside. Work is good for kids. Entitlement is learned from childhood, whether by your parents or government.
There is an argument to be made to raise taxes in some areas for economic and structural benefit, but these are far and few between and the belief that Congress can implement laws to achieve such success goes against most of their history. But the larger issue is that human's as a species are wired at the core to be selfish and greedy. To their credit, most good folks out there try like hell to fight the good fight. The tax argument is simply a manifestation of these characteristics and both parties know it. The fact that any human being worries about what somebody else pays in tax rates is beyond insane. No matter what the rate is, your plight will not change. THERE IS NO MARGINAL TAX RATE or government program that can be instituted on those more well off than you will cause you satisfaction. None. There is a famous study whereby the overwhelming majority of people would rather make 70k a year and have that be the most in their neighborhood rather than make 100k a year and be the person that makes the less in the neighborhood. The tech bubble, the housing bubble, consumerism, income disparities, tax arguments are all based on getting mine and having what others have. Look at how professional athletes act when somebody signs a bigger contract than they do. You live in a paradigm whereby you believe fairness, economic equality, a risk less society, and all other various manifestations of the human condition can be mitigated by the proper government intervention. If you stick to this illusion you will go to your grave feeling as angry and lost as you do now.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That's completely unfair. Look at how blue the next five are:
11. Tennesee
12. North Carolina
13. Utah
14. Arizona
15. Kentucky
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/nonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg
I agree completely that changing mariginal tax rates to satisfy people is futile and pointless.
On the other hand, do you think that a properly balanaced tax policy can reduce stratification and enhance success by merit? I've read that many countries with a stronger safety net, such a Germany, Canada. Sweden, etc. show greater income mobility. Do you think that is a goal to work towards?
Sure, we should always strive to improve the system. The question is how? To your point more directly, how does the greater safety net actually increase income mobility? I don't know the answer to that. Also, I don't know many people who are against a safety net, despite the rhetoric from the far right. The far right denies the obvious fact that terrible, random things happen to people and their must be a way to alleviate the effects of such events. The left denies the existence of generational poverty and career parasites on the system.
For me the safety net and things such as healthcare etc, are fine and dandy but even those programs only help people on the margins and only serve to remove some of the risk from their lives, not improve them.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Wrong. They see family, church, charity, and "mutual aid societies" as the proper sources for alleviation...not government.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
I really don't see why anyone is really surprised here.
Actually, you would think everybody would breathe a sigh of relief that an elitist politician can actually tell the truth once in awhile.
That is when he thinks the cameras are off of course......
What level of income mobility do you consider the perfect target?
