# Wealth in America



## Chixarecute (Nov 19, 2004)

My nephew shared this link with me. I do not know the sources.

Very startling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM


----------



## Wldlife23 (Mar 11, 2012)

Very interesting....I'm in the lower percentile


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I've seen those numbers before but it is even more startling to see it in a graph lol..


----------



## CocalicoSprings (Mar 12, 2008)

So what can we do about it? Everyone seems to blame Obama for being a socialist. Yet the conservatives want to place people in office who will only support big oil, pharma, banks etc since that is the only way for them to get elected. There is no viable 3rd party, When will we get a movement to trump this 1% and get our country back on track?


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

I love infographics. Regardless of the position, they can take a sack of "stuff" and make it neat and orderly. This one sure makes that sack of "Socialism" look purdy, don't it?
Sigh.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

For those of you that are in the sticks and suffer YouTube "buffering" lapses (as I do), I've summarized the video's infographic charts, and message, in poor-man's (get it?) ASCII-ART:


An InfoGraphic on the Distribution of the Wealth in the U.S. (Third world nations, please look away).

On the X axis, "Wealth". On the Y axis, "Wealth". (Hmmm. Something may be wrong right out of the gate, here. Oh well, the charts don't lie....)

Here is the way everyone thinks it is:
................____/
............___/
........___/
.....__/
____/

How everyone thinks it should be:
..................____/
.............____/
........____/
...____/
__/

How it really is:
.....................| <<-- Off the chart!!!!
.....................|
...................../
..................__/
...............__/
______________/



How it really should be:

________________________ 

(You can draw this anywhere the Y axis you like, because it really doesn't matter).

SOCIALISM IS AWESOME!!!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Your wasting your time CR, all people care about anymore is how bad they have it and why they cant have what others have earned. The propaganda encouraging class warfare is alive and well.

Some people have bad luck, some people value purposeful living on little income, some people are lazy and some people just frankly arent very smart or talented and they will never get ahead. 47% of the US population who file income tax returns pay zero net Federal Income Tax, it would be kind of interesting to see a similar chart on the distribution of taxes paid...I suspect it would match the chart in the link.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Chixa ~ Ya beat me to the punch. =) The graph is startling... more so when compared to what it's been in years past... how the numbers just keep growing and growing.

This is the sad state of America today, and not only is it getting worse, but the pace is accelerating. I've said it before, but it's just as true now: This is not about rich vs poor... this is about the insanely wealthy versus everyone else. This is about a playing field so uneven and so exclusive that to even have the opportunity to step foot on it one must already be amongst the upper echelons of wealth (either that, or have a darned good friend that is). 

When companies such as Wal-mart, McDonalds, Wal-Greens, or any number of others are the primary source of employment (outside the government) in this country, our country has problems. 

When people criticize the rank and file simply for looking to make a working wage, while their top management bring in hundreds of millions and their owners tally billions, our country has a problem.

When banks recieve bailouts based on problems they created while the average citizen watches their home slide further in value and ultimately slip into foreclosure, our country has problems. 

When the best the Republican party, in the midst of an economic crisis again largely of their own creation, fields a candidate that doesn't know how many cars he has and considers half the country on the dole... whilst all the while sending money offshore and not exactly opening up about his own finances - this country most definitely has problems.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

skewed unfairly? What is fair? My brother and I went to the same grade school, high school and college. He currently makes 6 to 7 times my income. We each made different decisions in our lives. Do I deserve a part of his wealth simply because someone believes that it would be fair? Where is life fair? A very stupid idea that close minded people keep bringing up. Especially because they have such a misguided veiw of what wealth is. How about instead of wealth we make it health? Should healthy people give up some their health because their are unhealthy people around. Should someone with a lean trim body have to carry a backpack full of car batteries because his neighbor is overweight? Should a marathon runner be forced to walk because someone else has asthma or spent 20 years smoking?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is the American dream to finally "make it" And mostly have worked hard to get where they are, why in the world should they be MADE to share? If they want to share fine, but some just want to built more factories, invest in other ventures, which in turn puts America to work this business of sharing the wealth is pure bunk.
You have the Right To PURSUE HAPPINESS in America, Not have that happiness flung on your plate by the government.
So some don't make it, some do, that is LIFE, pure and simple.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

If socialism was the answer would we not see thriving examples in at least one place in the many that have tried it?

If socialism works why not graduate all students with C's? A's are so unfair to those that got F's.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I wonder why so many spend so much time worrying about other people's wealth instead of increasing their own?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Your wasting your time CR, all people care about anymore is how bad they have it and why they cant have what others have earned. The propaganda encouraging class warfare is alive and well.
> 
> Some people have bad luck, some people value purposeful living on little income, some people are lazy and some people just frankly arent very smart or talented and they will never get ahead. 47% of the US population who file income tax returns pay zero net Federal Income Tax, it would be kind of interesting to see a similar chart on the distribution of taxes paid...I suspect it would match the chart in the link.


Talk about fair? I think everyone should pay the same amount in taxes also!!!

Yea, the graphic ain't as purdy but it says the same thing.










If you add up the bottom 3/5th's of the nation they still have a negative net tax rate!!!!!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> skewed unfairly? What is fair? My brother and I went to the same grade school, high school and college. He currently makes 6 to 7 times my income. We each made different decisions in our lives. Do I deserve a part of his wealth simply because someone believes that it would be fair? Where is life fair? A very stupid idea that close minded people keep bringing up. Especially because they have such a misguided veiw of what wealth is. How about instead of wealth we make it health? Should healthy people give up some their health because their are unhealthy people around. Should someone with a lean trim body have to carry a backpack full of car batteries because his neighbor is overweight? Should a marathon runner be forced to walk because someone else has asthma or spent 20 years smoking?


:clap: :clap: Hear! Hear! :clap: :clap:
(because I could only 'like' it once)


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Exactly what I was talking about blooba, thanks for finding that graph. This is also nothing new in our countries history despite the attempts to state otherwise by those seeking to get a class war going. There have always been the Rockefellers, the Fords, the Vanderbuilts, the Carnegies etc who have had disproportionately enormous wealth and a significant majority of our founding fathers were the wealthiest people in the country when our country was formed. 

They obtained their wealth through hard work, risk taking, and not a little bit of luck but none of them were handed their wealth. I also think that the fact that the wealthy contribute a disproportionate share of contributions to charity and support of institutions of higher learning gets lost on those who seek to vilify them. Ever wonder who those people are that have a university building or scholarship named after them or who get mentioned before your favorite PBS program? Something tells me its not people like me who try to support their Alma mater or PBS with our annual $100 contribution.


----------



## NickyBlade (May 27, 2008)

Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The US has never had this disparity in income. Can a free society exist when 1% controls most of the wealth and funds most political races?
Does a CEO really work 1000% harder than everyone else in that company?
80 yeasrs ago, we had a president that did some monopoly busting. Perhaps it time for another go round?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

NickyBlade said:


> Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


Let me take a stab at it.

Simple question

If it is ok for the goverment to install redistributive tax policies on the very wealthy and creeping that policy downward to feed their leacherous followers, where does it stop?

Read Atlas Shrugged for a possible answer.

Brainwashed. Indeed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

NickyBlade said:


> Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


I agree. 
When the folks at OWS tried to get that message out, the reporters focused on the weirdos and wackos. Sort of made it a joke. Billions of our money went to Banks, Investment Firms and Millionaires, while they wiped out the funds working folks had invested with them.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Let me take a stab at it.
> 
> Simple question
> 
> ...


If you looked at the chart, it stops after about the top 10%, because after that, you run into the turnip blood problem.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

NickyBlade said:


> Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


It's about the right to keep the wealth that one has worked for. 

Was Bill Gates born into wealth and privilege or did he earn his wealth through intelligence and hard work (and a bit of luck)? 

Was Sam Walton born into wealth and privilege? Were the McDonald brothers born into wealth and privilege?

The point is that opportunity is not dead in this country, in spite of what some are claiming. It just seems that some resent the success of others and believe that life is supposed to somehow be 'fair'. 

Newsflash: life will never be 'fair' and social justice is a myth.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Another rather funny fact is that most who are harping about the success/wealth of others have actually helped them gain that wealth by buying their products.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> skewed unfairly? What is fair? My brother and I went to the same grade school, high school and college. He currently makes 6 to 7 times my income. We each made different decisions in our lives. Do I deserve a part of his wealth simply because someone believes that it would be fair? Where is life fair? A very stupid idea that close minded people keep bringing up. Especially because they have such a misguided veiw of what wealth is. How about instead of wealth we make it health? Should healthy people give up some their health because their are unhealthy people around. Should someone with a lean trim body have to carry a backpack full of car batteries because his neighbor is overweight? Should a marathon runner be forced to walk because someone else has asthma or spent 20 years smoking?


No one has a thousand times better health.

Please don't get caught up in some form of socialisim. I don't see anyone calling for that. 

You saw that the richest 1% controled 9% of the wealth a few years ago, but are up to 24% now. If you think that is fair, would you accept the richest 1% controling 60% of the wealth? I'm asking if there is a place where you cry "uncle"?


----------



## NickyBlade (May 27, 2008)

It really is like a monetary monopoly... 

I've read Atlas shrugged. That didn't answer the question. Where did this passion to protect the wealthiest come from? Most conservatives are more passionate about this than they are about stopping child abuse! It's weird! And the thing that bothers me the most about how passionate I used to be about it is that I don't have any idea WHY I felt so passionate about it... When we make between 20 and 60 grand a year, it's never going to trickle down to us. Never! I'm not saying we don't get hit with taxes, etc... But we're on like the second rung up the ladder. There's only one rung below us... and you have people living on two minimum wage incomes preaching from their rooftop about how hard the 1% worked to get where they are. It's odd. The passion is strange... more strange than the topic.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Another rather funny fact is that most who are harping about the success/wealth of others have actually helped them gain that wealth by buying their products.


and working in their factories.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

NickyBlade said:


> It really is like a monetary monopoly...
> 
> I've read Atlas shrugged. That didn't answer the question. Where did this passion to protect the wealthiest come from? Most conservatives are more passionate about this than they are about stopping child abuse! It's weird! And the thing that bothers me the most about how passionate I used to be about it is that I don't have any idea WHY I felt so passionate about it... When we make between 20 and 60 grand a year, it's never going to trickle down to us. Never! I'm not saying we don't get hit with taxes, etc... But we're on like the second rung up the ladder. There's only one rung below us... and you have people living on two minimum wage incomes preaching from their rooftop about how hard the 1% worked to get where they are. It's odd. The passion is strange... more strange than the topic.


Jobs going to China has widen the gap. 

My point on AS was that if you TAKE from the ultra wealthy enough they move outside your reach. Then who do you take from?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HDRider said:


> *Jobs going to China has widen the gap.*


Well don;t Blame the top for that. They don't make the tax laws, they don't pass the EPA regulations that ar forcing companies to go to more friendly countries, don;t blame the top for talking advantage of the tax breaks that the government has in place for ANYBODY to take advantage of. Capital Gains for example ANYBODY that has sock and makes a profit or "Gain" does so at that lower rate. Even I, when cashing in a few thousand dollars worth of stock to help a down payment on a car paid that 14% Capital Gain taxes. It IS there for any and everybody to use~ Not just the top 1%
. And NOW they Raised capital gains to 21% and that is why Many stock holders that had been in Apple Stock SOLD to get out before they were "hit" with a higher at rate.
Can't fault those for that but Apple stock now is trading at Half of the value it was a year ago because of what Obama did.
Now you think that was good for the US Economy? Not when I bet a huge majority of those that cashed out went to foreign traded companies to invest in. That does not hep America at all~! 
And now the Corporate Tax ate is the highest in the World, and people wonder why companies are moving out of the USA. Can't blame them at all with our tax structure as it is now, and the tax policies and epa policies that came into play the last few years.
Ands that is why there is getting more and more spread between the middle and upper class. Simple economics come into play, and this administration is doing nothing to help that matter, in fact they are making it Worse.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I'm listening to the conservative voices, and I feel far far removed from their views. Understand that there's a long ways between Socialism and some monetary redistribution. And do I think there should be monetary redistribution? Ab-so-freakin'-lutely.

This isn't simply a case of working hard and making good. This is a case of it doesn't matter how hard you work, or how well educated you are... the majority in this country will never, ever, ever have even an outside shot at the kind of the wealth that currently runs this country... and run it they do: Whether Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are guilty of building policy around the lobbyists... the majority of which are paid by this uber-rich elite.

To me, if a person wants to talk about Capitalism, my ideal is that of the poor Italian... arriving under the torch of lady liberty, he sets to work in Little Italy NY with his pizza parlor. His kids work there. His wife works there. Some kids from down the street work there. Foot traffic is heavy, so business is brisk. Time goes by, and with so many pizzerias around him, he moves out to the new neighborhood Levittown, and with some money saved buys himself a house and opens another Pizzeria away from the competition. Years pass, and he finally passes what he's built on to his kids and retires in Miami. 

But it doesn't have to be the owner of a pizza parlour. There was a time when a person could get a pharmaceutical degree and start a pharmacy... or with some farm experience they could start a grocery store. Or with a degree in civil engineering they could become a homebuilder.

Those days, at least currently, have passed. The regulations are steep, the code compliance, business licenses, state and local taxes, and insurance all push most to simply put on a nametag. True, there are areas of the country where small business holds out, but large swaths are nothing more than an endless sea of strip malls, franchises, and big box stores. This is the current American reality. This is "opportunity" as we know it.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I don't think people mind others being wealthy as long as they became that way without illegal activities or corruption and by not taking advantage of others as they climb their way up. It sometimes does seem like the world is heavily skewed toward the rich. We often hear about those who do it the wrong way, but don't always know about those who do it the right way.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I will agree w/ resentment toward those who gain their wealth via corrupt, illegal or ruthless means.

But that's not the agenda that's being pushed. The resentment _seems_ to be against all wealthy individuals/corporations, they by the mere fact of their wealth they are somehow obligated to share that wealth. THAT falls under the heading of 'morals', which also seems to be a disputable subject these days.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Well don;t Blame the top for that. They don't make the tax laws, they don't pass the EPA regulations that ar forcing companies to go to more friendly countries, don;t blame the top for talking advantage of the tax breaks that the government has in place for ANYBODY to take advantage of. Capital Gains for example ANYBODY that has sock and makes a profit or "Gain" does so at that lower rate. Even I, when cashing in a few thousand dollars worth of stock to help a down payment on a car paid that 14% Capital Gain taxes. It IS there for any and everybody to use~ Not just the top 1%
> . And NOW they Raised capital gains to 21% and that is why Many stock holders that had been in Apple Stock SOLD to get out before they were "hit" with a higher at rate.
> Can't fault those for that but Apple stock now is trading at Half of the value it was a year ago because of what Obama did.
> Now you think that was good for the US Economy? Not when I bet a huge majority of those that cashed out went to foreign traded companies to invest in. That does not hep America at all~!
> ...


I thought my point on China was more obvious. I presumed too much. 

Some ultras profit my chasing markets and profits in China. 

I am not faulting them. Simply stating a fact. 

Some on lower income levels have lost wealth and income because lowering pressures on wages and even job loss with the migration of jobs off shore. 

Again not find fault. It is what it is. 

Markets move wealth. Every dollar we spend on Chinese goods is a dollar now outside our economy. It moved away from us.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Can't fault those for that but Apple stock now is trading at Half of the value it was a year ago because of what Obama did.


@Arabian ~ c'maaawn. Apple stock is not trading at half it's value because of Obama lol! Apple's been taking a wholloping as competitors push better products into the market. The bloom is off the Iphone and Ipad, and even Itunes is under pressure. I swear folks'll blame Obama for just about anythin' lolz  The Dow Jones is up a few thousand points over what it was a year ago... also up from when Obama took office (although it did bottom out horrendously during those first 365 days before heading north again)


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

... btw, it's the same for the Nasdaq Composite Index... up since Obama was elected, up since a year ago.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Now lets see if I have history correct.
Didn't the stock market reach new highs right before the Great Depression?
Sure seems like we have been in a depression for the past FIVE years... All Due To Obama and his Failed policies.
And many experts are now saying we are OVER DUE for a huge correction. You can't just Print money Print money and print some more, before something is going to hit the fan and it isn't going to smell very good at all. And as low as interest rates are other places sure those have stuck money into a False Security that the SM is these days, just for gains NOW but not for the long haul at all.
So I will just say this 
"Look Out Below".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> I'm listening to the conservative voices, and I feel far far removed from their views. Understand that there's a long ways between Socialism and some monetary redistribution. And do I think there should be monetary redistribution? Ab-so-freakin'-lutely.
> 
> This isn't simply a case of working hard and making good. This is a case of it doesn't matter how hard you work, or how well educated you are... the majority in this country will never, ever, ever have even an outside shot at the kind of the wealth that currently runs this country... and run it they do: Whether Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are guilty of building policy around the lobbyists... the majority of which are paid by this uber-rich elite.
> 
> ...


You speak in such flowery tones with emotion and feeling, and so few facts.


Have you heard of Facebook and a guy named Mark Zuckerberg?

â¦the current entrepreneurial trend, based on calculations and information heâs gathered from the Kauffman Foundation. As of March 2011, there are an average of 320 new businesses launched _every month_, for every 100,000 U.S. adults.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2012/07/22/whos-starting-americas-new-businesses-and-why/


That equates to 543,000 new U.S. companies every month. (We canât annualize this number by simply multiplying by 12, Kauffman notes, since some entrepreneurs are in and out of multiple businesses during that time. However, multiple estimates put the total number of U.S. entrepreneurs at 11.5 million, in sum.)


Entrepreneurial activity among ethnic groups is gaining traction as well. 39.8 percent of the nationâs current 11.5 million entrepreneurs belong to non-Caucasian ethnicities. 22.9 percent are Latino.



All that said, there are overly burdensome regulations, so there is truth in that. The combine of big business and government is harmful to starting businesses, not by accident.

As I have said, though there has been a big shift of wealth outside the US, largely at the expense of the middle, and lower income brackets. This has hollowed out the middle income earners in the last 30 years, enriching those that run large companies. When a guy in India or China makes a million dollars selling in the US, guess what? Someone (or lots of someones) in America sent him a million dollars.
 

Just to point out how unfair life isâ¦ Six members of the Walton family have more wealth than the bottom 30% of the US.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

eesh... so if the stock market was down, it would be Obama's fault. If Apple is down, it's already established it's Obama's fault. But when the stock market is up... that's just Obama pulling an ol' ropeadope and it's still (going to be) Obama's fault?

What amazes me is how republicans can pin all of this on Obama while not assigning an ounce of blame to Bush and his massive tax cuts / expensive wars (?). Tell me what I'm missing so I can understand as well?


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@HD - I liked the way you went from small font to regular to large font (not being sarcastic, it was a cool buildup effect). I agree that big business and government inhibit the growth of small businesses. However, I do believe that government should be part of the solution in helping these small businesses compete against the larger ones. Also, I do have a protectionist streak in me. I wish that these businesses that were sending jobs overseas were in some way penalized for doing so, or that jobs kept at home were somehow rewarded. This is one of the difficulties with globalization... competition isn't simply across the street, but thousands of miles away, and willing to work for a pittance of what an American worker would (although often not burdened by the same costs or taxes that the American worker would be burdened with).


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

One of the greatest "redistibuters" of wealth upwards is probably debt. Of which we are so fond in this country. 
Look at home mortgage loans. A large part of the load repayment for a long time is interest that goes to those who have the money to lend. So a fair share of the amount of income earned by working people is going to those entities and persons.
Look at the Federal debt. Taxpayer's income is again going to pay interest to those same entities or persons. Another redistribution upwards.
Even if you increase taxes to lessen the net redistribution upwards, the amount left over after taxes is still going up. As the Federal debt increases, the amount drifting up increases.
So we have the situation where the Federal government tries to redistribute downwards (though tax credits, subsidies and benefits) but if it is borrowing to do so, then (drum roll) more still goes upward than downward as long as tax rates are less than 50%. The middle is squeezed becasue it gets neither the downward money nor gets the advantage of the upward money.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Some people look at the new car their neighbor has and think, life isnt fair, why should they have that and I dont; others look at it and think, good for them, I like that car and if I work hard and save I can have one too. 

This has nothing to do with conservative -vs- liberal or Democrat -vs- Republican; this trend has been on going across numerous administrations and none of you has a solution. Does it solve anything to redistribute the wealth and decrease the incentive to better yourself? Does it make a lot of sense to stay stuck in the old economic system where you could get by and do okay with little education or skill at a factory job? Or does it make more sense to re-position our system to accept the fact that most manufacturing is moving towards robotics and automation and even if we brought back the majority of off shore manufacturing to this country we still wouldnt have the low skill high paying jobs you nostalgically yearn for? Productivity is up significantly and to me we ought to be focused on preparing for this new reality instead of trying to take us back to the first half of the 20th century.

Good grief half the population is on the dole in some form or another, half pay no net income tax, and over half just do not have the skills or education to compete in a competitive job market. Maybe thats why we have all the tears about how its impossible to live on a minimum wage job...if thats a revelation to you and thats all your ambition reaches for you will never be successful.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Sure seems like we have been in a depression for the past FIVE years... All Due To Obama and his Failed policies.
> .


I've gotta ask. I know that Obama was considered a huge political force, but did he really have impact before he was even President? 

I count back 5 years and I see that Obama hadn't even been elected yet much less chosen by the Democrats to be their guy, so how is it that at the start of this "5 year depression" it is Obama's fault?

Sure, he gets the blame for the time under him, but come on, even simple arithmetic is against your claim.....

But I guess that BOS is flaring up again? (Blame Obama Syndrome)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I will agree w/ resentment toward those who gain their wealth via corrupt, illegal or ruthless means.
> 
> But that's not the agenda that's being pushed. The resentment _seems_ to be against all wealthy individuals/corporations, they by the mere fact of their wealth they are somehow obligated to share that wealth. THAT falls under the heading of 'morals', which also seems to be a disputable subject these days.


I don't think that is the way it is at all. I think that most people want to be recognized for their part of the hard work that makes that wealth and not have the wealthy just skim all the profit right off the top and leave those hard working people with just a small portion of the gain.

Many of the wealthy work harder at finding ways to keep the little guy from making a living wage than they do adding to the value of the service or product.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

It's not about jealousy though. Well, maybe for some, but not for me personally. It's about there being this massive pool of resources that cumulatively is our nations' wealth, and a large segment of society, regardless of their best of efforts, not having the ability to gain a portion of it.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> I'm listening to the conservative voices, and I feel far far removed from their views. Understand that there's a long ways between Socialism and some monetary redistribution. And do I think there should be monetary redistribution? Ab-so-freakin'-lutely.
> 
> This isn't simply a case of working hard and making good. This is a case of it doesn't matter how hard you work, or how well educated you are... the majority in this country will never, ever, ever have even an outside shot at the kind of the wealth that currently runs this country... and run it they do: Whether Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are guilty of building policy around the lobbyists... the majority of which are paid by this uber-rich elite.
> 
> ...


So you are for socialism light? I am for capilisim with no government control. But in the long run nigher will happen. The socialism will keep interfering with capitalism.


----------



## GarlicGirl (Mar 12, 2010)

I don't think anyone begrudges Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates their wealth. What annoys me is when a big corporation holds down wages and reduces employee benefits and then gives their CEO a big bonus for doing so. This is how wealth has been shifted up over the last 25 to 30 years. It's not about having wealth, but how it's obtained.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

This sure is a whole lot of talk to state the obvious... 

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.... Been that way for a long time, and nothing often changes... At least not if the rich can help it...


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Old Vet ~ You're correct, I am for "Socialism Lite". What's funny though is that what one considers socialism is simply another person's smarts'. 

Let me give you an example: People get on Obama over this belief he is taking money from one group and giving it to another... they say he is stoking "class warfare". And yet nobody sees the glaring double standard / hypocrisy when several of this past election's republican candidates were enormously guilty in their own right. Newt Gingrich, a veritable conservative icon if ever there was one, saw his home district of Cobb County and surrounding areas recieve more government pork than almost any other district in the country... and all the while railing against runaway government spending. Heck, even my guy Ron Paul saw enormous funds funnelled into one project or another within his Coastal Texas region... and lobbied aggressively for this, no less!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

GarlicGirl said:


> I don't think anyone begrudges Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates their wealth. What annoys me is when a big corporation holds down wages and reduces employee benefits and then gives their CEO a big bonus for doing so. This is how wealth has been shifted up over the last 25 to 30 years. It's not about having wealth, but how it's obtained.


But Zuckerberg and Gates both have done exactly that. Inventing a product did not make them rich- marketing and manfucaturing made them rich. So yes, people are objecting to both of them. 

You have to ask why corporations do these things you object to. The reason comes down to "they can." You need them for employment- they don't need you except to buy. They need someone to work at the lowest price. They need a Chinese 20 year old woman.

Being annoyed will not bother them at all- they will just shut the gates to their estates. 

So how can the money flow be changed? Don't buy the new IPhone just because it's there. Look to buy products that can be repaired rather than needed to be replaced. 

If you want political action, then exercise your rights of petition, vote for the person who neither favors the corporation nor the unions to excess- the fiscally responsible elected offical who believes in a work ethic. He will vote to support making work available to his constituency. 

If people keep supporting elected officials who either pander completely to the rich or to the poor, nothing will improve.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Warwalk said:


> @Old Vet ~ You're correct, I am for "Socialism Lite". What's funny though is that what one considers socialism is simply another person's smarts'.


Capitalism has spectacular successes and spectacular failures. Socialism only has a slight original success followed by a sure never ending failure.

Greedy dogs always get the largest bite. For socialism to succeed (in theory because it doesn't in practice,) it must ruthlessly suppress the instincts of the population. It must be a dictatorship sooner or later.

But it a theory that sounds so lovely that every generation flutters with it. Clap if you want Tinker Bell to live.............


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

NickyBlade said:


> Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


The passion comes from insignificant little things like personal responsibility, independence, liberty, and self-reliance; trash like that.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

This was the situation in both China and Russia before the revolutions. France also but a hundred years before. The concept of Communism never had a chance to work but it did bind the people together to overthrow the corrupt systems that made them poorer and poorer and a few richer and richer on their sweat and blood. 

The ordinary people just got tired of taking it. The ordinary people of the US (and Canada and Britain) are all afraid to rock the boat - terrified to stand up for their rights and a fair exchange for their labor because everyone is terrified of losing THEIR job. The propaganda (especially that against Unions and to convince the middle class that they are still the best and luckiest in the world) has convinced people that the government is the monster when if reality is it business that is the monster and the government is the enforcer while the people are the slaves. History repeating itself.

The US is a plutocracy where the weatlthy make all the decisions about your life.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> @HD - I liked the way you went from small font to regular to large font (not being sarcastic, it was a cool buildup effect). I agree that big business and government inhibit the growth of small businesses. However, I do believe that government should be part of the solution in helping these small businesses compete against the larger ones. Also, I do have a protectionist streak in me. I wish that these businesses that were sending jobs overseas were in some way penalized for doing so, or that jobs kept at home were somehow rewarded. This is one of the difficulties with globalization... competition isn't simply across the street, but thousands of miles away, and willing to work for a pittance of what an American worker would (although often not burdened by the same costs or taxes that the American worker would be burdened with).


I can't take credit for that font thing. That happens when I copy and past from Word.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I don't think that is the way it is at all. I think that most people want to be recognized for their part of the hard work that makes that wealth and not have the wealthy just skim all the profit right off the top and leave those hard working people with just a small portion of the gain.
> 
> Many of the wealthy work harder at finding ways to keep the little guy from making a living wage than they do adding to the value of the service or product.


The cherished myths promulgated by the class warfare thugs. How eagerly they are accepted by those who choose to live in a state of envy.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

haypoint said:


> and working in their factories.


 *WORKING.* That is the key point. I have never been hired by a poor person. Hate them or not, the wealthy are what keeps America fed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wanderer0101 said:


> The cherished myths promulgated by the class warfare thugs. How eagerly they are accepted by those who choose to live in a state of envy.


Not a myth at all. My area of employment through out the years has given me more than enough first hand experience to know this is fact.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Warwalk said:


> I'm listening to the conservative voices, and I feel far far removed from their views. Understand that there's a long ways between Socialism and some monetary redistribution. And do I think there should be monetary redistribution? Ab-so-freakin'-lutely.
> 
> This isn't simply a case of working hard and making good. This is a case of it doesn't matter how hard you work, or how well educated you are... the majority in this country will never, ever, ever have even an outside shot at the kind of the wealth that currently runs this country... and run it they do: Whether Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are guilty of building policy around the lobbyists... the majority of which are paid by this uber-rich elite.
> 
> ...


*They put the nametag on because its easier than doing it yourself, and chances are you are going to fail at least once. Sam Walton went bankrupt twice and belly up a total of 5 times before he found success, I have found anything truly worth is more satisfying when it was difficult to accomplish.*


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Warwalk said:


> It's not about jealousy though. Well, maybe for some, but not for me personally. It's about there being this massive pool of resources that cumulatively is our nations' wealth, and a large segment of society, regardless of their best of efforts, not having the ability to gain a portion of it.


I know you probably don't want to hear it: but I hear alot of sour grapes in your posts that your business didnt succeed. 
Sometimes your best efforts just aren't good enough, and truly that is the way it should be, if it was easy it wouldn't mean nearly as much when you succeed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> ... btw, it's the same for the Nasdaq Composite Index... up since Obama was elected, up since a year ago.


The market is up because have printed so much money and that is where it went. 

Plus corporate profits are up so it looks all the better. 

Personally I think the market is due a correction. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

In the video there was one person that had more than everybody else. If we only took the highest persion and stripped him of all his wealth and gave it to the poor how long will it take the highest person to accumulate that wealth again? Not long at all. That would be considered too. The poor would be rich for about as long as it took them to spend it all and then some. If you don't believe me look at most lottery winners or sport players.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Not a myth at all. My area of employment through out the years has given me more than enough first hand experience to know this is fact.


The rules of this forum prevent me from giving an adequate response.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NickyBlade said:


> Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


I think there are quite a few of us who like to think we can better our station in life if we keep our freedom to do so in place. Once the freedom to become all you can be is taken from us then no one will be able to move up to the next level. The Rockefellers of today are doing well, but it was just a few generations back that John D. was hustling for pennies off the back of his daddies medicine wagon. I think that people need to have a chance to hustle those pennies, and turn them into dollars. That can not happen in a Marxist world.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Cool ~ Indeed you're correct. There are alot of sour grapes on my part. I knew my business inside and out, I worked hard, not pulling an income from my company for more than two years, and I had a pretty successful business model that allowed me to vault ahead of people that had been in the same business for decades. My cash flow was superb, I owned all my vehicles and equipment outright, I closed my books weekly, and my records were computerized and backed up. I put my life savings into my company, as well as nearly a decade of work.

My final two years in business I watched as it all slid into oblivion, picked apart by a bad economy I do directly blame on big banks. Maybe it wasn't an epiphany but simply a twisting of my prior beliefs, but I did see how certain business models were able to come away free and clear, or were simply able to fold up, restructure, and then get back to business with little more than a ripple to their operations. I saw how the banks, so eager to get the money, handed out loans to people that had no business building houses, and then hedged their bets through fast-tracking foreclosures to re-seize the very properties they sold ~ for massive profits. Then, when the very system they created began to crack at the seams and implode on itself, I watched as they cried all the way to congress and were able to worm their way out of things. Today, those same banks are again making record profits while I probably couldn't get a penny loan on a dollar candy bar ~ even if I fronted 99 cents on it. 

I guess I've just seen firsthand what runamock capitalism can do, and have a great deal of empathy now for those that have needed government services. Again, I personally am not on them, but I can empathize with those that are.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

warwalk I know what you are saying, and to a large degree I agree with it. Just don't say you can't start a business today, because traditionally more businesses are started in a downturned economy than the up economy. 

I also say there shouldn't be any government sponsored welfare corporate or personal. I will add the caveat that there should be a short term safety net for individuals.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> The US has never had this disparity in income. Can a free society exist when 1% controls most of the wealth and funds most political races?
> Does a CEO really work 1000% harder than everyone else in that company?


Its supply and demand. Think about baseball players. How many people out there do you think can hit a 90+mph fastball 30% of the time? How many teams out there want those people on their team because having someone like that means they can make more money because the fans want to watch a WINNING team? That's why the people who can do that make many millions of dollars a year.

Now how many people out there do you think have the education and ability to run a multi-billion dollar company? How many companies out there want these people to work for them? That's why CEOs make the money they do.

There are millions of people out there who can put a nut on a bolt and tighten it. That's why those people make the money they do.




haypoint said:


> 80 yeasrs ago, we had a president that did some monopoly busting. Perhaps it time for another go round?


Why not just have the government mandate how much YOU can make? How much do YOU need? How would you like it if I came in and told you even though you kept your pencil in your pocket during high school and didn't wind up with a kid at 17, then worked hard to make it through college, then risked everything you owned to start a business, then worked 60-80 hours per week to get the business going I was only going to let you have $50K a year of what you are earning now because its not "fair" for you to have $1,000,000 a year? What if you knew that BEFORE you started your business, would you have even tried?


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Seems to me in a healthy economy it would naturally be shared more and I personally don't have anything against AN INDIVIDUAL with what ever wealth they have accumulated. i don't really think this is a taxation issue either.
What i do resent is industry with BILLIONS of dead money, Banks not changing practices, in fact all they did after the first major collapse is collect hand outs and take peoples houses. They continue to lend too much, the only real difference is now(in Canada at least) they ask for way more up front but still lend too much, making it even harder for lower income but far easier for those with more capitol.
We coddle companies, to make sure they stay which is utter nonsense! I say let them go because there will always be a replacement just like the drug trade.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> I'm listening to the conservative voices, and I feel far far removed from their views. Understand that there's a long ways between Socialism and some monetary redistribution. And do I think there should be monetary redistribution? Ab-so-freakin'-lutely.


And where does it stop? Do you think its 'fair' for the government to come in and tell YOU that anything you make over $30K a year will be take from you and redistributed? If so how hard are you going to work to make more than $30K? 




Warwalk said:


> ITo me, if a person wants to talk about Capitalism, my ideal is that of the poor Italian... arriving under the torch of lady liberty, he sets to work in Little Italy NY with his pizza parlor. His kids work there. His wife works there. Some kids from down the street work there. Foot traffic is heavy, so business is brisk. Time goes by, and with so many pizzerias around him, he moves out to the new neighborhood Levittown, and with some money saved buys himself a house and opens another Pizzeria away from the competition. Years pass, and he finally passes what he's built on to his kids and retires in Miami.


Can't happen today. He'd never be able to pay for the fees and permits to open the place on top of all the government mandated regulations he'd have to follow on top of having to pay the government mandated minimum wage plus the government mandated health insurance. And if he did manage to do it the government would tax away a huge chunk of his earnings. Then he can't sell what his customers want because the government mandates what types of food people can buy. And in the end when he tries to pass what he built on the government would tax it all again to the point the kids would have to sell everything to pay the taxes.




Warwalk said:


> IBut it doesn't have to be the owner of a pizza parlour. There was a time when a person could get a pharmaceutical degree and start a pharmacy... or with some farm experience they could start a grocery store. Or with a degree in civil engineering they could become a homebuilder.


And there was a time when a man with a forge could make a fairly good living shoeing horses and repairing wagons. Your point is?




Warwalk said:


> IThose days, at least currently, have passed. The regulations are steep, the code compliance, business licenses, state and local taxes, and insurance all push most to simply put on a nametag. True, there are areas of the country where small business holds out, but large swaths are nothing more than an endless sea of strip malls, franchises, and big box stores. This is the current American reality. This is "opportunity" as we know it.


That's funny. You realize that government is the major part of the problem yet you seem to support the government fixing it.

Think about it. Who benefits the most from heavy and/or strict government regulations? Would it be someone trying to start a business, a small business or a large company in that business? If you think hard you will see why most large companies have very little problems with new government regulations because those regulations prevent or reduce competition.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> @HD - I liked the way you went from small font to regular to large font (not being sarcastic, it was a cool buildup effect). I agree that big business and government inhibit the growth of small businesses. However, I do believe that government should be part of the solution in helping these small businesses compete against the larger ones. Also, I do have a protectionist streak in me. I wish that these businesses that were sending jobs overseas were in some way penalized for doing so, or that jobs kept at home were somehow rewarded. This is one of the difficulties with globalization... competition isn't simply across the street, but thousands of miles away, and willing to work for a pittance of what an American worker would (although often not burdened by the same costs or taxes that the American worker would be burdened with).


What you don't realize is they work for that because in comparison to what they were making its a fortune. Back many years ago when minimum wage was $3.35/hr I had a guy tell me he was quitting because he was moving to Huston (IIRC) to take a job making (again relying on memory here) over $10/hr. In about six months he was back seeking his old job. He said he because everything was so much more expensive in TX he could live better here making $3.35/hr than in Huston making $10.

Think about how much money a person would need to have a good life in the US. Now think about how much a person in Haiti or Zimbabwe would need. Do you think the amounts are just maybe a little different?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I don't think that is the way it is at all. I think that most people want to be recognized for their part of the hard work that makes that wealth and not have the wealthy just skim all the profit right off the top and leave those hard working people with just a small portion of the gain.
> 
> Many of the wealthy work harder at finding ways to keep the little guy from making a living wage than they do adding to the value of the service or product.


I give up what is a living wage? I suggest we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. After all I think that would be a good living wage, don't you?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

GarlicGirl said:


> I don't think anyone begrudges Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates their wealth. What annoys me is when a big corporation holds down wages and reduces employee benefits and then gives their CEO a big bonus for doing so. This is how wealth has been shifted up over the last 25 to 30 years. It's not about having wealth, but how it's obtained.


Ah. . .I maybe wrong but isn't a CEO's job to make as much money for the shareholders as possible? If you do your job really well wouldn't you expect to get a bonus?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> This sure is a whole lot of talk to state the obvious...
> 
> The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.... Been that way for a long time, and nothing often changes... At least not if the rich can help it...


Its math and human nature.

The math tells us someone who invest $10,000,000 and gets a 10% return is going to make more money than someone who invest $1,000 at the same 10%. If both keep reinvesting their earnings you can see why the rich would get richer.

As for human nature look at most rich people. How many of them dropped out of high school? How many of them started having kids at 17? How many of them had criminal records before they were 21?

Take a while and google some stories on lottery winners. You'll find a lot of the winners who were poor before they won were back to being poor not long after they won. Why? Because they kept doing the same things which made them poor.

I had a neighbor who was considered one of the best dry wall men in 3 counties. He did some work for me and he was amazing. I've seen him take his weedwhacker and his wife's sewing machine to the pawn shop so he could buy enough mud to finish some houses. Then after he finished those houses and had some money in his pocket he loaded up the family and took a trip to FL. He'll never be wealthy because he has no idea to nor desire to.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

if only that were the case, Bonuses are written into CEO contracts and they get them regardless of how well they did their job.



watcher said:


> Ah. . .I maybe wrong but isn't a CEO's job to make as much money for the shareholders as possible? If you do your job really well wouldn't you expect to get a bonus?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> @Cool ~ Indeed you're correct. There are alot of sour grapes on my part. I knew my business inside and out, I worked hard, not pulling an income from my company for more than two years, and I had a pretty successful business model that allowed me to vault ahead of people that had been in the same business for decades. My cash flow was superb, I owned all my vehicles and equipment outright, I closed my books weekly, and my records were computerized and backed up. I put my life savings into my company, as well as nearly a decade of work.
> 
> My final two years in business I watched as it all slid into oblivion, picked apart by a bad economy I do directly blame on big banks. Maybe it wasn't an epiphany but simply a twisting of my prior beliefs, but I did see how certain business models were able to come away free and clear, or were simply able to fold up, restructure, and then get back to business with little more than a ripple to their operations. I saw how the banks, so eager to get the money, handed out loans to people that had no business building houses, and then hedged their bets through fast-tracking foreclosures to re-seize the very properties they sold ~ for massive profits. Then, when the very system they created began to crack at the seams and implode on itself, I watched as they cried all the way to congress and were able to worm their way out of things. Today, those same banks are again making record profits while I probably couldn't get a penny loan on a dollar candy bar ~ even if I fronted 99 cents on it.
> 
> I guess I've just seen firsthand what runamock capitalism can do, and have a great deal of empathy now for those that have needed government services. Again, I personally am not on them, but I can empathize with those that are.


Ah. . .no you haven't. You have seen what runamock *government control* can do. The damage was done by businesses completely under government control. The banks had the government grab them by their nether regions and told they would do what the government wanted or the government would tighten its grip. If the government had kept its hands off the banks jewels the banks would have never made such risky loans. After all what business is going to willingly do something it KNOWS is going to lose them vast amounts of money?


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Watcher ~ you'd mentioned 30,000 as a reference point. I think this might be a tad bit low. Nonetheless, by the time a person is making thirty ~million~ dollars, I'd say they're safely able to pay more.

Regarding CEO's. In my opinion CEO's aren't necessarily substantially smarter than anyone else. That's not to say they aren't smart, but just that they're not substantially smarter. If they ~were~ smarter, they'd fail far less often. The difficulty is, plenty of times CEO's wind up doing very poorly for their company, but still rake in enormous profits. Personally, I think that CEO's are extravagantly overpaid.


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

@Watcher ~ we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff, lol


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> @Watcher ~ you'd mentioned 30,000 as a reference point. I think this might be a tad bit low. Nonetheless, by the time a person is making thirty ~million~ dollars, I'd say they're safely able to pay more.
> 
> Regarding CEO's. In my opinion CEO's aren't necessarily substantially smarter than anyone else. That's not to say they aren't smart, but just that they're not substantially smarter. If they ~were~ smarter, they'd fail far less often. The difficulty is, plenty of times CEO's wind up doing very poorly for their company, but still rake in enormous profits. Personally, I think that CEO's are extravagantly overpaid.


Why aren't you one?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

What exactly is wealth? Based on the scale for Americans, Im a working class person. Compared to the average earner worldwide I am incredibly wealthy. Are those so concerned motivated by fairness or envy? Are the limosine liberals concerned by fairness or guilt. They may feel guilt, but still keep their wealth. I've never seen Oprah at Aldi's. And again, what is wealth? By a monetary standard I am working class, however in a personal satisfaction and happiness standard I am a very wealthy person. Ever wonder why rich people commit suicide? Doesn't seem to make any sense if monetary wealth is all its cracked up to be. How could someone with tons of money ever dream of taking their own life? In my working class life I have wonderful hope for the future yet with all their money they don't. Any redistribution folks, please explain.


----------



## GarlicGirl (Mar 12, 2010)

watcher said:


> Ah. . .I maybe wrong but isn't a CEO's job to make as much money for the shareholders as possible? If you do your job really well wouldn't you expect to get a bonus?


You totally missed the point. Some businesses (Costco comes to mind) make excellent profits without reducing wages and benefits. I think those CEOs deserve the bonus, not the ones who drive their employees into poverty.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Markets move wealth. Every dollar we spend on Chinese goods is a dollar now outside our economy. It moved away from us.


Than you need to stop buying Harley's since they make many of the parts in China.

For that matter don't buy any autos from the big 3.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Why aren't you one?


And there's a line on your income tax return Warwalk where you can pay more taxes if you choose...so pay up.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Warwalk said:


> @Watcher ~ you'd mentioned 30,000 as a reference point. I think this might be a tad bit low. Nonetheless, by the time a person is making thirty ~million~ dollars, I'd say they're safely able to pay more.
> 
> Regarding CEO's. In my opinion CEO's aren't necessarily substantially smarter than anyone else. That's not to say they aren't smart, but just that they're not substantially smarter. If they ~were~ smarter, they'd fail far less often. The difficulty is, plenty of times CEO's wind up doing very poorly for their company, but still rake in enormous profits. Personally, I think that CEO's are extravagantly overpaid.


I think a lot of CEOS are over paid. But the only company where i had enough ownership to demand the CEO have a more reasonable salary, I was the CEO. 

I don't think you manage your homestead properly so I've decided to change what you grow, where you plant, and how you tend your animals. What's that you say? It's your farm and i have no right to force you to farm it how I prefer? 

Hmmmm....you have a point and i guess that means i don't have the right to tell the CEO of Bank of America what his salary is either. 

I think LOTS of pro athletes, musicians, and actors are overpaid, but i don't own a basketball team, a record company, or a movie studio. So I just have to be content with letting the democratic capitalist marketplace determine their pay.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> It is the American dream to finally "make it" And mostly have worked hard to get where they are, why in the world should they be MADE to share? If they want to share fine, but some just want to built more factories, invest in other ventures, which in turn puts America to work this business of sharing the wealth is pure bunk.
> You have the Right To PURSUE HAPPINESS in America, Not have that happiness flung on your plate by the government.
> So some don't make it, some do, that is LIFE, pure and simple.


Sure, there's some wealthy who don't 'share'. Who use every loophole to avoid paying 'their fair share'. So then how does it come out to be that the top 1% pays 90-some % of all the taxes? Y'all think this is 'fair'? Should they pay 100%? & why?

Do y'all know the stats on who donates the most? Who 'funds' the 'arts'? On&on&on.

Or who ascribes to the teachings: "...from each according to their means to each according to their need..."
Who likes the idea of 'share the wealth', 'spread the wealth around', take from the rich & give it to...who?
Who thinks like Van Jones, that the ideal world would be the secenario when you draw straws & EVERYONE's straw is the same, meaning all have the same am't of wealth, regardless of who works?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> If socialism was the answer would we not see thriving examples in at least one place in the many that have tried it?
> 
> If socialism works why not graduate all students with C's? A's are so unfair to those that got F's.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> The US has never had this disparity in income. Can a free society exist when 1% controls most of the wealth and funds most political races?
> Does a CEO really work 1000% harder than everyone else in that company?
> 80 yeasrs ago, we had a president that did some monopoly busting. Perhaps it time for another go round?


 Really? Really? Are you saying the top 1% of wealthy controlled the last 2 POTUS elections? 
GIven that Dems are richer than R"s", given that dems are most likely to be in acedemia, and given that 47% of the country doesn't pay taxes...waht are you saying, anyway?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> It's about the right to keep the wealth that one has worked for.
> 
> Was Bill Gates born into wealth and privilege or did he earn his wealth through intelligence and hard work (and a bit of luck)?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

NickyBlade said:


> It really is like a monetary monopoly...
> 
> I've read Atlas shrugged. That didn't answer the question. Where did this passion to protect the wealthiest come from? Most conservatives are more passionate about this than they are about stopping child abuse! It's weird! And the thing that bothers me the most about how passionate I used to be about it is that I don't have any idea WHY I felt so passionate about it... When we make between 20 and 60 grand a year, it's never going to trickle down to us. Never! I'm not saying we don't get hit with taxes, etc... But we're on like the second rung up the ladder. There's only one rung below us... and you have people living on two minimum wage incomes preaching from their rooftop about how hard the 1% worked to get where they are. It's odd. The passion is strange... more strange than the topic.


 Ask yourself why you think you are entitled to their wealth...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

NickyBlade said:


> Having always been a conservative, I've spent the last few months evaluating my own opinion on this type of topic. Why is it that the working class are so passionate about defending the most wealthy? I think we've been brainwashed, and I don't say that lightly. It's just so odd the people defending a playing field that they'll never even be in the nosebleed seating section. I don't get it. People really need to ask themselves where this passion is coming from.


Well see here's the problem with giving handouts out and raising others taxes. When I was unemployed I guess I could have said yes take that working guy's hard earned money and give it to me BUT now that I am that hard working guy that is paying 60 cents of every dollar in taxes to "support" that non working guy the tables are turned. 

I love how you say its the "working class" defending the rich,maybe its because they are working to become rich. Why should the "non-working class" become rich? Apparently they don't want to become rich or they would join the "working class". Oh wait!!, they do want to be rich they just don't want to be "working".....


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Do y'all know the stats on who donates the most? Who 'funds' the 'arts'? On&on&on.


Some people need it put into a purdy picture to understand.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Warwalk said:


> @Cool ~ Indeed you're correct. There are alot of sour grapes on my part. I knew my business inside and out, I worked hard, not pulling an income from my company for more than two years, and I had a pretty successful business model that allowed me to vault ahead of people that had been in the same business for decades. My cash flow was superb, I owned all my vehicles and equipment outright, I closed my books weekly, and my records were computerized and backed up. I put my life savings into my company, as well as nearly a decade of work.
> 
> My final two years in business I watched as it all slid into oblivion, picked apart by a bad economy I do directly blame on big banks. Maybe it wasn't an epiphany but simply a twisting of my prior beliefs, but I did see how certain business models were able to come away free and clear, or were simply able to fold up, restructure, and then get back to business with little more than a ripple to their operations. I saw how the banks, so eager to get the money, handed out loans to people that had no business building houses, and then hedged their bets through fast-tracking foreclosures to re-seize the very properties they sold ~ for massive profits. Then, when the very system they created began to crack at the seams and implode on itself, I watched as they cried all the way to congress and were able to worm their way out of things. Today, those same banks are again making record profits while I probably couldn't get a penny loan on a dollar candy bar ~ even if I fronted 99 cents on it.
> 
> I guess I've just seen firsthand what runamock capitalism can do, and have a great deal of empathy now for those that have needed government services. Again, I personally am not on them, but I can empathize with those that are.


(without really seeing what your business was)

ok, so you kinda see what happened but you never got to see what would have happened in a true capitalism marketplace. So your blame is misplaced.

When the housing bubble collapsed you would have had a hard time staying in business BUT if the "too big to fail" banks wouldn't have gotten a welfare check from the .gov they would have gone under and so here you would sitting with your business without much competition. What happens when you have no competition? You thrive!!! 

There have been booms and busts throughout history. There are always winners and losers. When we step in the way of capitalism we reward the losers and this is what we get. So you can blame capitalism but what was at play was not capitalism(don't believe everything your told)


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

New generation employer?
This story comes from my friend who landed a dream job after many years of struggle and insecurity working in traditionally run companies.
The new employer is a management training company in the oil industry, relatively new in the industry but setting new standards and growing quickly(too quickly).
Her new employer is a conscientious Christian family man. He provides employment above and beyond industry standard, from his truck drivers to his management staff, all are paid far more than normal, health insured and regular bonuses. His attitude is that without his employees his business would not be what it is, he sees his employees are a valuable investment/asset. He has never had an employee leave the company for greener pastures! As a result of this he has built a team that has propelled his company so far beyond what he even expected/wanted that he has recently sold to a European company for what my friend said is an obscene amount of money.
In doing so, he has secured all of his employees jobs for the next 5 years, exactly the same benefits and a clause that if let go, the employee will be paid in full plus compensation for contract termination.
My friend does have her masters in business admin plus a degree in art which does make her perfect for her job but she has told me that his business model, despite what could be considered excessive spending on his employees, has paid off and could be seen as a new standard.
This is only part of the whole story but the point is that the current standards in business can be improved. The owner of this company attributes his success to his very dedicated TEAM and my friend has never had a job she enjoyed more.
This in my opinion is a perfect example of sharing the wealth and it seems to have paid off quite well for all involved.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

haypoint said:


> The US has never had this disparity in income. Can a free society exist when 1% controls most of the wealth and funds most political races?
> Does a CEO really work 1000% harder than everyone else in that company?
> 80 yeasrs ago, we had a president that did some monopoly busting. Perhaps it time for another go round?


Being as monopolies are created by government interference, it doesn't make sense to me that government would be the solution. Here's how it works...big corporations can lobby government ( which is empowered to interfere with the market place ) to pass regulations and give tax breaks that give them competitive advantages. A perfect example of this is the corn industry with Archer Daniels Midland lobbying to have a tariff on imported sugar, making their product more competitive. Also the gasoline/ethanol requirements which create a whole new artificially contrived market for corn. These types of bought and paid for legislation creates artificial demand for products and stifles real competition.

A monopoly is the result of a mixed economy, where government influence is too large ( due to the socialist element ), and can be peddled to the highest bidder ( due to the capitalistic element). If we want to destroy monopolies, we have to remove the government created obstacles that prevent entry into the market and restore competition.

Looking to government for the solution is like asking Al Capone to fix organized crime. Government cannot fix the problem, government IS the problem.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Really? Are you saying the top 1% of wealthy controlled the last 2 POTUS elections?
> GIven that Dems are richer than R"s", given that dems are most likely to be in acedemia, and given that 47% of the country doesn't pay taxes...waht are you saying, anyway?



Aaah...yes. The wealthy funded the candidates, without which they never made it to the primaries. Tell me which candidate was not funded by large corporate interests? Romney or Obama?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wanderer0101 said:


> The cherished myths promulgated by the class warfare thugs. How eagerly they are accepted by those who choose to live in a state of envy.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think there are quite a few of us who like to think we can better our station in life if we keep our freedom to do so in place. Once the freedom to become all you can be is taken from us then no one will be able to move up to the next level. The Rockefellers of today are doing well, but it was just a few generations back that John D. was hustling for pennies off the back of his daddies medicine wagon. I think that people need to have a chance to hustle those pennies, and turn them into dollars. That can not happen in a Marxist world.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

There some smart things said in this thread. 

There some dumb things said on this thread. 

I will leave you to decide which is which. 

I have firmly made my decision. 

Let me know if you need my help. Happy to oblige.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Can't happen today. He'd never be able to pay for the fees and permits to open the place on top of all the government mandated regulations he'd have to follow on top of having to pay the government mandated minimum wage plus the government mandated health insurance. And if he did manage to do it the government would tax away a huge chunk of his earnings. Then he can't sell what his customers want because the government mandates what types of food people can buy. And in the end when he tries to pass what he built on the government would tax it all again to the point the kids would have to sell everything to pay the taxes.


BS

I see many new small businesses opening regularly, especially food businesses. 

A lady opened a hot food trailer, at a small trucks stop. She has plenty of permits and health dept requirements, but she is making money and is building an enclosure for the winter months.

True entrepreneurs, as has always been the case, do whatever it takes, to make money, running their own business.

Everyone else, as has always been the case, sits at the sidelines and whines about how impossible the task is.


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

What the graphic doesn't do is try to explain WHY the income disparity exists. I think the real reason has less to do with tax policy or "fairness" or "corruption," though all of those are factors. I think the biggest factor is what I like to call "the death of distance." Which is, people can run businesses from anywhere in the world today.

30 years ago if you had a large manufacturing business in India, you pretty much had to live in India. Today, you can run it from anywhere.

Wealthy people can live wherever they want. Because of the desirable living conditions and security in America, many of the very wealthy choose to live here, but their businesses are global. As America has become more punitive in the regulatory and tax arena, businessmen are ENCOURAGED to take their businesses to places with a more pro-business climate. But because of the death of distance, they can still live in the US. Thus, the "jobs heading overseas" phenomenon.

This is the government's fault, people. Not the mean, selfish capitalists.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> Boy that is true true and here is what some are saying about it.
> *SUBWAY FOUNDER BLASTS GOVâT REGULATIONS: âSUBWAY WOULD NOT EXISTâ IF I STARTED MY BUSINESS TODAY*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck (Oct 27, 2003)

Case in point: Apple's products are made in China because the regulatory environment, labor costs and tax rates are conducive to profitable business. Yet their CEO and officers live in the U.S. If the government concerned itself with making it easier for Apple to make a profit here rather than "fairness," more jobs would stay in the US, more tax revenue would accrue here, and everyone in the US would benefit.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Chuck said:


> Case in point: Apple's products are made in China because the regulatory environment, labor costs and tax rates are conducive to profitable business. Yet their CEO and officers live in the U.S. If the government concerned itself with making it easier for Apple to make a profit here rather than "fairness," more jobs would stay in the US, more tax revenue would accrue here, and everyone in the US would benefit.


Apple has made some changes though. iMacs are going to made In The USA.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Chuck said:


> Case in point: Apple's products are made in China because the regulatory environment, labor costs and tax rates are conducive to profitable business. Yet their CEO and officers live in the U.S. If the government concerned itself with making it easier for Apple to make a profit here rather than "fairness," more jobs would stay in the US, more tax revenue would accrue here, and everyone in the US would benefit.


Eliminate Income taxes and emplace tarriffs and watch this country become a economic powerhouse again. BUT to do that reasonably we would have to cut spending.

It's not a spending problem its a revenue problem......lol :hysterical:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Chuck said:


> What the graphic doesn't do is try to explain WHY the income disparity exists. I think the real reason has less to do with tax policy or "fairness" or "corruption," though all of those are factors. I think the biggest factor is what I like to call "the death of distance." Which is, people can run businesses from anywhere in the world today.
> 
> 30 years ago if you had a large manufacturing business in India, you pretty much had to live in India. Today, you can run it from anywhere.
> 
> ...


 
Here is a list of the top ten countries with the highest per capita income and the richest people in the world:

1. Luxembourg
2. Qatar
3. Norway
4. Kuwait
5. United Arab Emirates
6. Singapore
7. United States
8. Ireland
9. Equatorial Guinea
10. Switzerland

http://www.pfhub.com/top-10-countries-with-the-richest-people-in-the-world/


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Here is a list of the top ten countries with the highest per capita income and the richest people in the world:
> 
> 1. Luxembourg
> 2. Qatar
> ...


1. Luxembourg
2. Qatar No personal income tax, 10% business tax (35% to gas and oil)
3. Norway 50% pipeline tax
4. Kuwait No personal income tax, 15% business tax
5. United Arab Emirates No personal income tax, oil gas 50%-55% tax
6. Singapore 17% business tax
7.United States
8. Ireland 12% business tax
9. Equatorial Guinea
10. Switzerland 8.5% business tax

Do you see how wealth is linked to taxes? Let's keep raising taxes and not allowing those big bad gas and oil companies to do their thing and see how low we get on this list!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Here is a list of the top ten countries with the highest per capita income and the richest people in the world:
> 
> 1. Luxembourg
> 2. Qatar
> ...


Interesting, that countries 1-5, all appear to rely on various levels, of Government economic intervention, some of which would be considered "socialistic".


----------



## Warwalk (May 25, 2011)

I think a distinguishment needs to be made between income versus wealth, as the two are, to a certain extent, like comparing apples and orange. Income has taxes levied against it. Wealth has none (well, unless a person dies or sells something for a profit). 

It's interesting that people such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, two of the richest men in this country, can lecture about how we should raise income tax rates... primarily as it's not how they derive the majority of their money. Most people ~think~ it is, as they are considered "rich", but the reality is that most of their income is derived through long-term capital gains (same as with Romney). And it's smart. And completely legal. But it's also how the "haves" are rapidly outpacing the "have-nots".

Now, to me, I don't think someone should be punished for being smart with their money ~ for investing it wisely rather than spending. But at the same time I don't necessarily think they should be eligible for tax breaks above and beyond the average citizen either. I don't think that a person that goes to work on scaffolding, or working a power saw, or investing in an education should be taxed at a much higher rate than someone that invests in stocks or bonds. Sure, an investor takes risks, but so too do many others.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting, that countries 1-5, all appear to rely on various levels, of Government economic intervention, some of which would be considered "socialistic".


Most on that list have a high per capita income because they have natural resources to sell. I suspect the others sell tax havens. Socialism may be something some of them can afford as their capitalistic activity allows the indulgence.
Beside a high per capital income does not mean that everyone had that income. It's just taking the income and dividing by the number of people. If the head of state has 90% of the income then all the rest of the country is poor.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Chuck said:


> What the graphic doesn't do is try to explain WHY the income disparity exists. I think the real reason has less to do with tax policy or "fairness" or "corruption," though all of those are factors. I think the biggest factor is what I like to call "the death of distance." Which is, people can run businesses from anywhere in the world today.
> 
> 30 years ago if you had a large manufacturing business in India, you pretty much had to live in India. Today, you can run it from anywhere.
> 
> ...


You can blame government for regulations, but praise the government for providing a safe place to live. The biggest cost to business is not regulations. It is wages. For 200 years we protected our workers with tarriffs. Now we are open to everyone, while China restricts our imports. 
As soon as we get used to living on a handfull of rice, pedal a bike to work and three generations living together in a three room apartment, we will be able to compete.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> As soon as we get used to living on a handfull of rice, pedal a bike to work and three generations living together in a three room apartment, we will be able to compete.


True. But what is the solution now? We have the worldwide infrastruction to allow constant shipping of goods. 
Since the floodgates have opened, and Obama is continuing what Clinton started with NAFTA, who can we sell our goods to if we get into a tariff war? Only ourselves and we have too much debt to buy much.
Obama is trying to orchestrate a Pan-Pacific treaty area to contain China's growing dominance. That means more free trade, not less.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

tariffs are another case of liberal feel good wants trumping logic and history. In the vast majority of cases all over the world, tariffs and protectionist regs that act to exclude competition result in less employment, lower quality goods, higher cost goods, and an inability to compete in world markets. 

Despite all the min wage increase due to liberal feel good wants, logic and history show they have had no real improvement in living standards. 

despite all the money thrown at public schools based on the liberal feel good wants, history and logic show that gov't monopolies produce lower quality products and services at a higher cost. Schools have got more and more money over the last 50 years and the results have gone down.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Warwalk said:


> @Watcher ~ you'd mentioned 30,000 as a reference point. I think this might be a tad bit low.


Why? You don't think you could live on $30K a year? You might not be able to buy a new car or have a boat or NFL Sunday Ticket but the government might decided you don't NEED these things.




Warwalk said:


> Nonetheless, by the time a person is making thirty ~million~ dollars, I'd say they're safely able to pay more.


If you give the government the power to tell them how much your neighbor can make or pay you have given it the power to tell you how much you will be allowed to make. Again I ask would you like it if they came to you and said you no longer had the right to make more than $30K?




Warwalk said:


> Regarding CEO's. In my opinion CEO's aren't necessarily substantially smarter than anyone else. That's not to say they aren't smart, but just that they're not substantially smarter. If they ~were~ smarter, they'd fail far less often. The difficulty is, plenty of times CEO's wind up doing very poorly for their company, but still rake in enormous profits.


How can a CEO do poorly and the company "still rake in enormous profits"?




Warwalk said:


> Personally, I think that CEO's are extravagantly overpaid.


I think unionized auto workers "are extravagantly overpaid", how much skill does it take to put a wheel on the lugs and tighten it down? I'm fairly sure that out of 1,000 people picked at random at the local mall 999 of them would be able to do that job. How many of the 1,000 do you think could run a multi-billion dollar company Heck lets expend it to a town of 10,000 people. How many people in that town do you thin could do it? CEOs are not just picked at random. CEOs are not paid just because they look good. They are picked because the company thinks they can run the company in such a manner as to make LOTS of money. They are paid so much because there are very few people out there who can do the job and do it well.

Say you have a company which has been doing poorly for the last several years. How are you going to get someone really good to come in and try to turn it around? Go back to the sports team. There's a really good player out there who is looking to leave his current team. You want him because your team stinks and you think he will be able to make it into a winner. But there are a couple of teams who want him who have a good chance of winning a title next year which means publicity for him which means big time endorsement contracts. How are you going to get him to play for you? You do it by offering him big bucks and huge bonuses if he plays well. If he plays well and your team becomes a winner you pay him his bonus and everyone is happy. But your team still winds up at the bottom of the standings it doesn't matter you still have to pay him his bonus. To do otherwise would mean your team would be in the cellar forever.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

GarlicGirl said:


> You totally missed the point. Some businesses (Costco comes to mind) make excellent profits without reducing wages and benefits. I think those CEOs deserve the bonus, not the ones who drive their employees into poverty.


Ok then spend your money there. But you don't have the right to determine what Jack in the Box pays its CEO or order taker. Neither does the government. Once it takes that power it has the ability to tell you how much you are allowed to earn. If it thinks you are making too much it would then have the power to take the 'extra' from you. 

BTW, if someone doesn't like what he's being paid there's no law forbidding him from finding another job.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sure, there's some wealthy who don't 'share'. Who use every loophole to avoid paying 'their fair share'. So then how does it come out to be that the top 1% pays 90-some % of all the taxes? Y'all think this is 'fair'? Should they pay 100%? & why?


That is their fair share. I use the example of using coupons? Aren't coupons just a "loophole" which allows someone to pay less than their "fair share" for the product?

I use "loopholes" when I do my taxes and I'm WAY below what anyone would call wealthy. The last time I checked these loopholes allowed me to have a 3-6% federal income tax rate. That's my fair share.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> BS
> 
> I see many new small businesses opening regularly, especially food businesses.
> 
> ...


Funny but the owner of Subway thinks differently. 

_Fred Deluca founded Subway in 1965 and grew it into one of the biggest fast food restaurant chains in the nation. Appearing on CNBC on Wednesday, the entrepreneur said if he tried to start the very same business today âSubway would not existâ due to burdensome government regulations that seem to continuously increase._

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...uld-not-exist-if-i-started-my-business-today/


Rules and regulations always favor established business over start ups. Most of the times established business are either grandfathered in or are given time to slowly make changes to meet any changes. A new company has to do it NOW.


----------



## pilot_34 (Aug 8, 2002)

Chuck said:


> Case in point: Apple's products are made in China because the regulatory environment, labor costs and tax rates are conducive to profitable business. Yet their CEO and officers live in the U.S. If the government concerned itself with making it easier for Apple to make a profit here rather than "fairness," more jobs would stay in the US, more tax revenue would accrue here, and everyone in the US would benefit.


So If I understand you correctly your proposal is for the average American to make wages comparable to those in China and to live under similar ecological and work welfare regulations so that Companies will make more products here?
Ok I see that as handy for the CEO's and officers so they don't have to make the commute to china but how does that help the average American worker?


----------



## pilot_34 (Aug 8, 2002)

I find it hard to believe that Bill Gates has worked MILLIONS of times harder than me or most people I know.
He got lucky. We know that, HE KNOWS that.. Most wouldn't even deny that he SHOULD benefit from his insight. But most also intuitively know theres something wrong in the system that is so disparate.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Funny but the owner of Subway thinks differently.
> 
> _Fred Deluca founded Subway in 1965 and grew it into one of the biggest fast food restaurant chains in the nation. Appearing on CNBC on Wednesday, the entrepreneur said if he tried to start the very same business today &#8220;Subway would not exist&#8221; due to burdensome government regulations that seem to continuously increase._
> 
> ...


More BS. 

Please show where opening *any* new Subway franchise store, has health code, building code, or any other regulatory _rules and regulations _"grandfathered in".

One would have to take Fred Deluca's yammering, with a grain of salt, especially since *Subway has opened at least 2900 new U.S. franchise stores,* since Obama has been in office.

Just because it was easier for Fred, to open a business *52 years ago*, does not necessarily mean that it is impossible now, because most of us see it being done.

Personally I don't believe - for a minute, that a true entrepreneur like Fred, would pass on an opportunity, even if it was a difficult one, to achieve.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/subway/282839-0.html


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> More BS.
> 
> Please show where opening *any* new Subway franchise store, has health code, building code, or any other regulatory _rules and regulations _"grandfathered in".
> 
> ...


Some politicians create an environment against food service businesses like Chick-Fil-A because of their religious beliefs.(remember that?) Here, they keep food businesses from opening because they say it's a "health concern" having to many food service businesses in their area.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Let's step back from the arguing. Seems there are many vocal folks that think this is all simply envy of the rich.



I don't see a way that we, the people, or our government can tax people that earn a million dollars an hour. The tax codes are written with them in mind, they paid good money for it. They can live in safe USA, make their products in China and Mexico, while storing their money in the Caymin Islands. Sweet. 



But we know, that this steep disparity in wealth has been unheard of in this country. The richest 1% have grown from controlling 9% to 24% in a few short years.



So, let's ride this bus down the road a bit. Is there a point when the wealthiest 1% have too much control over our country? As those in poverty continues to take on millions of displaced middle class workers, is there a point where you say, "Enough is enough"? Look at that chart again. You can see that free trade has ruined this country. You can see the rich and middle class sliding into poverty. 



How long do we let this play itself out? Do we wait until every person has a dollar and the unreachable 1% have endless piles of cash. The US dollar woun't fall victim to inflation. With 75% of the population scrambling for a job, the dollar becomes more solid than ever. If you were planning on SS, better start friendlying up to your children.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

As long as we keep measuring wealth with federal reserve notes ( the paper things that we call money), we will need a new chart every few days as the value of the dollar keeps on falling.

I am on the far left of the chart and I do consider myself to be wealthy. However i do not consider FRN's in my figures.

Now if we could get a world chart put up, we might find out that even the poorest of us are wealthy compared to the millions who live on $2 a day or less. Then we could move to the other side of the chart and no money would need to change hands.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Haypoint, I don't care what anyone else has as long as I have a real opportunity. Rockefeller was WAY more rich than Gates using inflation adjusted dollars, but lots of people came after Rockefeller and have done well. In spite of the wealth of rockefeller, carnegie, morgan and others, the middle class grew. I still see America as the land of opportunity and I've done well enough owning my own biz and assisting others who have gone from nothing to success in their businesses. I've seen good people and unethical people, whites, blacks, Indians, Asians, poor folks, wealthy folks, highly educated and barely educated people do well in their own businesses. Opportunities exist for those willing to take the risks. 

This might not be about envy, maybe it is about your greed, or are those the same thing? You seem to want someone to give you something, either tax dollars to spend or a job that pays a certain amount. When i hear people complain because no one will give them a job or a raise, i ask, why should they GIVE you anything? People who have something of good value in the form of skills, knowledge, or abilities have something to trade for a good wage and good jobs. 

There is a shortage of trained auto mechanics from what I've heard from folks who run car dealerships. If you have good people skills and good mechanic skills, in northern VA you can make over $100K as a lead mechanic. If all you can do is brain dead assembly line work (as SOME assembly line work is) and you demand high union wages, you're going to find your job moving to China or Mexico. 

So why should i worry how much wealth someone else has? I'm happy with a farm that Bill Gates can buy with an hour's wages and I have a few neighbors who think I must be unholy rich to have bought the place. What others have or don't have does not figure into me building and growing that farm to the best of my abilities.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Chuck said:


> This is the government's fault, people. Not the mean, selfish capitalists.


Actually, it is the people's fault, after all, isn't that who elects the government?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

haypoint said:


> You can blame government for regulations, but praise the government for providing a safe place to live. The biggest cost to business is not regulations. It is wages. For 200 years we protected our workers with tarriffs. Now we are open to everyone, while China restricts our imports.
> As soon as we get used to living on a handfull of rice, pedal a bike to work and three generations living together in a three room apartment, we will be able to compete.


Ross Perot said something similar.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pilot_34 said:


> I find it hard to believe that Bill Gates has worked MILLIONS of times harder than me or most people I know.
> He got lucky. We know that, HE KNOWS that.. Most wouldn't even deny that he SHOULD benefit from his insight. But most also intuitively know theres something wrong in the system that is so disparate.


I guess being smart has nothing to do w/anything. 
& I'll BET ya Gates worked harder than most.

Where do you suppose Gates would be if he dropped outta H.S, had a kid or 2 b/4 he was out of teen yrs...?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

joseph97297 said:


> Actually, it is the people's fault, after all, isn't that who elects the government?


Yep, gotta love the people who vote one way and then complain about it. Although the problem starts with the parties themselves. Not a single candidate has the same views as I so unfortunately I (and many others) have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils.

But I figure me picking the lesser of the 2 evils is better than not voting at all. The people who don't place a vote should not be allowed to complain one bit!!!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

haypoint said:


> How long do we let this play itself out? Do we wait until every person has a dollar and the unreachable 1% have endless piles of cash. The US dollar woun't fall victim to inflation. With 75% of the population scrambling for a job, the dollar becomes more solid than ever. If you were planning on SS, better start friendlying up to your children.


So what's you plan? take all their money over $30,000 and "redistribute" it? 

Look, if you don't like how a company compensates their CEO, DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCT!!!! If people stop buying their stuff they will lose money and realize something is wrong. Everyday before I goto spend a dollar I think about where I am going to spend it. Things like the store level employees,the manufacturer, the CEO's, tax district, and where my money will go all are in my thought process. Maybe if more people would do that companies would be a little more responsible.

Or, you could buy a controlling interest in the company and vote for a CEO pay cut. 

A company is just like the government where the shareholders vote for Board of Directors and certain company policies. The only difference is, the amount of stock you own determines how many votes you get.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

" The only difference is, the amount of stock you own determines how many votes you get. "

Whereas with an election the amount of money you give generally determines the outcome.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

haypoint said:


> " The only difference is, the amount of stock you own determines how many votes you get. "
> 
> Whereas with an election the amount of money you give generally determines the outcome.


Well yea, that because of stupid people that do anything the TV tells them to do. You can play the same game against a company also.

If you don't have the money to purchase a controlling interest in a company you could run an advertising campaign to reach all the shareholders to vote your way. I've seen it done before(although rare).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQQPPNFFTmo


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess being smart has nothing to do w/anything.
> & I'll BET ya Gates worked harder than most.
> 
> Where do you suppose Gates would be if he dropped outta H.S, had a kid or 2 b/4 he was out of teen yrs...?


I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.

But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


Do you have a retirement account through a brokerage firm? IRA, 401k?
Do you have a interest bearing checking/savings account?

You are contributing to that guy's bonus, If ya don't like it control your own investments.

That Wall street broker makes millions of people billions of dollars. If you think you can do it, then do it with your own money instead of letting him do it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


Its not always about who works the hardest.... its much more about who works the smartest. And remember, the winner doesnt have to be ten times as smart.... just a little bit smarter usually works. Kinda like with a gunfight... the guy who is just a hair faster, and accurate will walk away, the other guy.... not quite the same.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


Once you are using your brain or relatively rare skills, it isn't about how hard you work, but how much value you create. If I have extraordinary skill to play football or attract people to a movie or lead a company to extraordinary profits, there are people that will value that and pay me an extraordinary wage. 

If I could make you $2M this year off your investment of $10K, and make you twice as much as you will earn in your entire life, what do you believe would be a fair wage for my labors? What if it only takes me one day to do that? Does how hard I worked really matter? 

I realize my example is exaggerated, but when a really good CEO like Jack Welch builds GE into a financial powerhouse billions of dollars larger in revenues and profits than when he started, why shouldn't the people who employ him and value his unique abilities pay him an extraordinary amount?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The basic idea that people seem to put forth as a justification for their position that the world is full of evil rich people who spend their time keeping down the innocent poor is that there are rich people and poor. Therefore the rich people need to be suppressed and the poor uplifted. 
However being poor doesn't confer sainthood and being rich doesn't mean evil. Everyone knows of poor people who steal, bully, murder, abuse, hoard, etc etc. And their are rich people who spend altruistically. 
So instead of wasting time arguing for this nonsense, it would be better to decide what would make a good world for the most people. 
There is a fair percentage of any population that will not be competetive or even competent. No matter how much money is thrown at them, they will screw up their lives. 
There is a much smaller percentage of people who have the instincts of pitbulls- they work constantly looking for something to grab and they never let go. They are a smaller percentage only because they eat each other until only a few are left.
The largest percentage falls somewhere in the middle, willing to put in enough effort to be self-sufficient and fairly secure but not work so obsessively that they can't have time to enjoy family, friends and hobbies.
So who should be encouraged the most to gain a stable, realtively happy society? Not the poor- they are pretty miserable yet have not found a way out and want to blame someone else. Not the rich- because they would eat everything and create an miserable populace.
Moderation should be the goal. Yet, in the weak thinking of many, if you are not for me, you are against me. So moderate beliefs will have the poor lumping it into the enemy camp and the rich doing exactly the same. No self-control in either camp.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

The answer has been given, but people don't want to hear it.

Many of us "protect" the wealthy because we believe people ought to have a right to keep what they earn. It is why many of us support a flat tax rate. 

Anecdotal story:

I served in the Marines back in the 70's with a fellow. He and I had a lot in common.

Our enlistments were up at about the same time. We both got out and earned college degrees.

Fast forward 35 years. I am retired and as secure as money can make you. He is going through bankruptcy, is badly upside down on his house, drives an old car that is on its last leg, has zero saved for retirement.

The difference? Fiscal discipline. I said no to temporal desires and saved money. He blew through money like it would never stop coming in.

As he finds himself in trouble, I have helped him, but of my own free will. Would it be "fair" for the government to tax me to support him?

Some may say, "We are not talking about you...a middle-income earner, we are talking about the really wealthy".

I ask, who gets to decide which citizens benefit from this fairness you espouse, and which will have to support it? Where do we read in any founding documents where only some of the people deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

If you want "rich" people to support "poor" people, then work your butt off, become rich and give your money to the poor.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


If you do something this year to earn your company an extra $20,000 and they gave you 10% or $2,000 of it as a bonus would you say you didn't work hard enough to earn it? Well if next year you happened to do something which earned the company $20,000,000 would you think $2,000 would be adequate bonus for your work? Or might you just think $2,000,000 would be a more correct figure?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


Perhaps it's not that he worked harder, necessarily, but rather that he worked _smarter_ and those results paid off for the company/stockholders.......and they're willing to pay large sums for those results. :shrug:


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

How hard you think you work has nothing to do with it. Nobody owes you anything. I think some people here actually believe that there is somebody ( or should be somebody ) sitting back and controlling everything and making sure that everyone gets 'what he deserves'. 

If you want to work hard go dig ditches in your yard until your back breaks, and see if anyone will give you a dime for it. Nobody cares how hard you work, or how easy you take it. Its none of anyone else's business. You should be compensated by an employer based on the value that you bring to that person/persons. You will succeed in business if you offer a product that people value and have a cost schedule that maximizes profits. Period.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Perhaps it's not that he worked harder, necessarily, but rather that he worked _smarter_ and those results paid off for the company/stockholders.......and they're willing to pay large sums for those results. :shrug:


OK,
did anyone work smarter in one year than I could in a life time or any other intelligent middle class American? Many of those $2,000,000 bonus checks went to companies that failed and required bail outs. The investors (mom and pop saving for retirement) lost out, but with the bail out, the Investment Firms are sound. 
I wonder if our grandchildren will forgive us for allowing the collapse of this nation when all that is left is 311,000,000 poor people and 3,000,000 super wealthy?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Let's step back from the arguing. Seems there are many vocal folks that think this is all simply envy of the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We all agree that there is a disparity, it is bad, and it is getting worse. What many of us are trying to explain to you is that the remedy will not be more government intrusion into the market. We have more government involvement in the market now, than we did when the rich controlled 9%. Now we have more government and the rich control 24%. That is not a coincidence. Its because more government intrusion creates an environment where major companies are not successful due to their intelligent business practices but because of government contracts they receive, regulation they lobby for, government subsidies they receive, and bailouts that eliminate their risk while compensating for their losses.

By trying to reject a free market, and inject more government to 'solve the problem of wealth disparity' you have progressively made it worse. You have created exactly the type of conditions that result in greater and greater wealth disparity.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

haypoint said:


> OK,
> did anyone work smarter in one year than I could in a life time or any other intelligent middle class American? Many of those $2,000,000 bonus checks went to companies that failed and required bail outs. The investors (mom and pop saving for retirement) lost out, but with the bail out, the Investment Firms are sound.
> I wonder if our grandchildren will forgive us for allowing the collapse of this nation when all that is left is 311,000,000 poor people and 3,000,000 super wealthy?


 Do you understand why the investors risked their money in the market instead of keeping it in the bank to earn interest like they used to? Because the Fed keeps interest rates artificially low. They do that to discourage savings and encourage investment ( risk ). Again, its interference with the free market. Mom and Pop are not owed a return, they are rolling the dice and risking their savings. They have to to stay ahead of the artificially created inflation due to money printing and interest rate manipulation.

If our grandchildren are angry it will be for poisoning the free market and adopting the intellectually lazy policies of envy. It will be for taking the easy way out and crying for government to fix the problem instead of doing our homework to understand the underlying problems and fixing them ourselves.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

haypoint said:


> OK,
> did anyone work smarter in one year than I could in a life time or any other intelligent middle class American? Many of those $2,000,000 bonus checks went to companies that failed and required bail outs. The investors (mom and pop saving for retirement) lost out, but with the bail out, the Investment Firms are sound.
> I wonder if our grandchildren will forgive us for allowing the collapse of this nation when all that is left is 311,000,000 poor people and 3,000,000 super wealthy?


You keep avoiding what is explained repeatedly. It isn't harder work. See ditch digging example above. Smarter is good, but really efficient ditch digging where people don't want ditches isn't going to get you more pay either. Higher pay, in spite of a few notable exception, should be tied to higher value created. And YES, there are people that create more value in one day than you and I will do in our lives. 

I''m glad people like that exist because that creates more wealth for everyone. If you build houses, you want a rich guy out there buying a big new house in your area. If you farm, you want some preppy yuppy BMW driving socialite buying your grass fed peaches or hydroponic cows, or whatever else you can sell at premium prices because she wants to impress her friends.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> Your wasting your time CR, all people care about anymore is how bad they have it and why they cant have what others have earned. The propaganda encouraging class warfare is alive and well.
> 
> Some people have bad luck, some people value purposeful living on little income, some people are lazy and some people just frankly arent very smart or talented and they will never get ahead. 47% of the US population who file income tax returns pay zero net Federal Income Tax, it would be kind of interesting to see a similar chart on the distribution of taxes paid...I suspect it would match the chart in the link.


I would like to see a chart that shows total income vs total taxes (income, sales, etc.) paid. Considering that most middle class and under Americans spend all or nearly all of our income and thus subject to taxes I would think that the top 1% or 10% would pay a much smaller amount of their income in taxes than the bottom 90%.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

fishhead said:


> I would like to see a chart that shows total income vs total taxes (income, sales, etc.) paid. Considering that most middle class and under Americans spend all or nearly all of our income and thus subject to taxes I would think that the top 1% or 10% would pay a much smaller amount of their income in taxes than the bottom 90%.


Are you saying percentage of income or dollar amount?


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Percentage.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

fishhead said:


> Percentage.




Then I think you will not find disagreement with that. It's the very nature of non-progressive taxes. For income taxes, it's easier to maneuver income to minimize taxes when you are not salaried in a typical job. 
Property taxes would be another story but since they are not indexed, it's impossible to tell whether the tendency to have more valuable property such as cars and houses would be a larger or small percentage.

But if a poorer person pays 50% of their income on various taxes and fees, does that mean that a richer person should pay the amount plus 50% of everything they make more than the poorer person, just so they pay the same percentage? What if a poorer person finds themselves not paying 10%, due to the lack of income? Should the richer person pay 10% too?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> OK,
> did anyone work smarter in one year than I could in a life time or any other intelligent middle class American? Many of those $2,000,000 bonus checks went to companies that failed and required bail outs. The investors (mom and pop saving for retirement) lost out, but with the bail out, the Investment Firms are sound.
> I wonder if our grandchildren will forgive us for allowing the collapse of this nation when all that is left is 311,000,000 poor people and 3,000,000 super wealthy?


They went to people who had been promised if they met specific standards they would be paid for them. As I pointed out if you have a company which is sinking you are going to have to offer a lot to get a good person to come in and try to save it. Think about it this way. You have a company which has lost 1 billion dollars each year for the last 5 years and looks like its going to go under in the next 2. You hire someone and tell them if they can cut the company losses by 75% in one year you'll give them a million dollar bonus. The losses for the company that year are down by 75% so you pay him his million dollars. Buy someone comes in and demands you not pay him a bonus because the company lost $250 million dollars that year. Do you think its right not to pay him?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


It's not just hard work, it's working smart, as Gate etc has done. They probably never wnet home with a sore back, or blisters, on their hands. 

How much money, did the Wall Street broker, make for his clients, or for his Company, to earn him/her, that $2 million bonus? Maybe $10's of billions.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I agree, a guy that worked harder than average should earn more than average. Among us average folks, that is the way it has been. Yes, someone that failed to complete a standard basic education and has duties that distract them from their employment, are worth less.
> 
> But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the exceptions in that top 1%. But when a Wall Street Broker collects a $2,000,000 Bonus, I can't believe that in that year he worked twice as hard as I will in my entire life.


Now you are confusing pay with rate of pay. Do you work harder than a worker on minimum wage and then turn half of you wages to the one that only works at minimum wage? I have seed a lot of hypocrites here but you take the cake.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Old Vet said:


> Now you are confusing pay with rate of pay. Do you work harder than a worker on minimum wage and then turn half of you wages to the one that only works at minimum wage? I have seed a lot of hypocrites here but you take the cake.


I make quite abit more than minimum wage but don't work any harder. Actually I work less now than back when I made minimum wage. Although I use my head and work smarter now.

Let's take this ditch digger making min wage.
Don't ya think an excavator operator makes more than that digger?
Does that mean he works harder?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

blooba said:


> ILet's take this ditch digger making min wage.
> Don't ya think an excavator operator makes more than that digger?
> Does that mean he works harder?


He obviously works harder.... he gets a lot more ditch dug!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

blooba said:


> I make quite abit more than minimum wage but don't work any harder. Actually I work less now than back when I made minimum wage. Although I use my head and work smarter now.
> 
> Let's take this ditch digger making min wage.
> Don't ya think an excavator operator makes more than that digger?
> Does that mean he works harder?


I quite agree with you on this but what *haypoint was taking about was somebody that was pays a lot and not working hard to get it.*


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I cannot recall what solution the folks who want the rich to give up their $$ have offered.
PLEASE! Tell us what you think should be done!??? All we hear is '...the rich don't pay their fair share...". In many instances, the very rich have 50% taxes. That's FAIR? I guess since they make 100 Xs more than us average folks they should pay 99%? Do you want them to pay until they have only as much $$ as the rest of us do? "Rs" offered to cut most of the 'loopholes' in the income tax laws...but NOOOOOooo. Not enuf for the libs.
B/c that is what is sounds like you want.

Bad. Evil. Envy.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This is inside a 4 story, 7,000 square foot Pent House in NYC. Full sized horse statue Lamps~! The video only shows these two but I am sure there are more throughout the place.
Now How many out there want that person to GIVE UP at least One Of them to give to the poor? And WHY would ANYBODY even think that he should? 
Why should this person who is RICH give up One of those statues anymore then the person should give up some PAY so the poor can share? Same thing, That person wants to have 4 and THAT is just what he should have.
That person also makes X amount and THAT is also what that person should have and KEEP.
IF he wants to give to a charity that is THAT PERSONS RIGHT.
But it is NOT RIGHT for the Government and the left to DEMAND that he give or even share his wealth away.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-penthouse-with-slide-inspired-by-math-2013-3


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The issue is always, for those who do not spend their time checking out what other people have, is having enough for a comfortable, secure life. 
The trouble comes from the divide between those who think that the opportunity to have a comfortable life is sufficient versus the people who think a comfortable life is a right of birth owed to them.
The trouble with the right to comfort people is that, once comfortable, who will want to work for it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

fishhead said:


> I would like to see a chart that shows total income vs total taxes (income, sales, etc.) paid. Considering that most middle class and under Americans spend all or nearly all of our income and thus subject to taxes I would think that the top 1% or 10% would pay a much smaller amount of their income in taxes than the bottom 90%.


Just wondering why you think the poor & mid class spend all/nearly all their $$. Those that do are destined to remain poor. I was both & always saved $$.
I'm not sure what you are referring to,BTWE< b/c the rich pay taxes on all theri pretties/toys/etc. And it usually adds up to a pretty big %.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I'm also thinking of the Baylor Lady Bears/ BBall game we watched yesterday.
Great game, great team. Wonder how they got there?

They played K-State. Tallest gal on that team- 5'11". Hardly fair. Yet both these teams were in the tournament, both great teams. Baylor has a great center, Britany Griner: 6'8". Always has 'triple doubles' and is ( I think) the #2 hi scorer of all time.

Those of you who want to "even the playing field", why not here? Why not take 30 points from Baylor right off the bat? They earn sooo many. Always beat their opponents by at least 30.
Its just not FAIR.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

It's not rocket science why the disparity keeps growing. Half the population is content to live off the labor of others. The working half has to work more, in order to take care of their own, and the other half that doesn't.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

texican said:


> It's not rocket science why the disparity keeps growing. *Half the population is content to live off the labor of others. * The working half has to work more, in order to take care of their own, and the other half that doesn't.


 What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of the working poor? Maybe you're talking about the suits on wall street with soft hands who are content to drive up prices, and commit robbery with pens instead of guns.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

greg273 said:


> What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of the working poor? Maybe you're talking about the suits on wall street with soft hands who are content to drive up prices, and commit robbery with pens instead of guns.


He talking of the half that is on welfare. When you make handouts easier and more lucrative than working, why would people work and amass wealth?

I do like the definition of the "working" poor though, "people who are working or looking for work". Just like the unemployment number, its all skewed to make it seem better for socialists.

P.S. There are only 7% of "working poor" according to BLS


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of the working poor? Maybe you're talking about the suits on wall street with soft hands who are content to drive up prices, and commit robbery with pens instead of guns.


 Have you seen the work force #s? 63% are working. What are the other 37% doing?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Have you seen the work force #s? 63% are working. What are the other 37% doing?


They are robbing the working class with taxes and welfare!!!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Have you seen the work force #s? 63% are working. What are the other 37% doing?


I'm assuming your source was the same as is mentioned here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_113390.html

Remember, it takes into account the number of children and the elderly, who normally wouldn't be in the workforce. Overall employment actually peaked a decade or so ago, at around 49 percent.

Our workforce and economy are in a state of flux, moving from a time when a great many low- to moderately-skilled people earned a decent living, due to a robust manufacturing sector and strong unions that made sure workers received their due. 

Nowadays, more low- to moderately-skilled workers find themselves in lower-paying, non-union service-oriented jobs. There are fewer high-paying jobs, and they're going primarily to highly-educated folks, or those with exceptional talents and abilities (the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world). 

The people hit hardest by this shift are men with no more than a high school diploma ... the traditional family breadwinner. 

I don't think we'll see a return to the days when a man like my father, who spent his life working as a custodian, could retire owning a home, with savings in the bank and a nice pension. Nowadays, the outfit he worked for outsources their cleaning to subcontractors who pay their employees a bit over minimum wage. 

It's a different world.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> I'm assuming your source was the same as is mentioned here:
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_113390.html
> 
> ...


There are no children or elderly in these figures

people ages 20-65 76% workforce participation rate
with a 7% unemployment rate
brings us down to around 40% of the able bodied population sitting on their duffs doing nothing that are capable of working.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

^here's the stats


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> I don't think we'll see a return to the days when a man like my father, who spent his life working as a custodian, could retire owning a home, with savings in the bank and a nice pension. Nowadays, the outfit he worked for outsources their cleaning to subcontractors who pay their employees a bit over minimum wage.
> 
> It's a different world.



I agree.

It appears both of our fathers benefited from a relatively short-lived and unsustainable period in the labor market where low-skilled workers could end up in this position.

There is a reason it only lasted a little while (pretty much those who retired in the mid 70's to mid 90's?). Companies and municipalities were/are going broke trying to pay for it.

My uncle is a prime example, even better than our fathers.

He spent 22 years or so as a Police officer. Retired 30 years ago and is still collecting a very nice pension. He also has had what has to be at least a half-million dollars worth of cancer and heart surgeries. He is a very expensive retiree!

I am happy for him, but I realize that very few people could reap this sort of retirement without collapsing the system. Heck, he even admits it is crazy.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

8% of Americans receive 'welfare', as in foodstamps, WIC, and TANF. Its nowhere near 'half' or '40%' like some of you are claiming. 



> The strictest sense of the term though would be those getting income directly from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services which is about *8% of the total population that receives some form of assistance *and 1.7% that receive most of their income (50% or more) from these programs.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_US_are_on_welfare


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

greg273 said:


> 8% of Americans receive 'welfare', as in foodstamps, WIC, and TANF. Its nowhere near 'half' or '40%' like some of you are claiming.


Umm, last I checked HUD,Medicaid,Energy Assistance,Obamaphones and many many more programs are still funded. A handout is a handout, doesn't have to be foodstamps.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And as you see by that chart that only went to 2010. It IS MUCH higher now, more then 50% now receive some form of Government Monies.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Yeah grab the money from the wealthy and redistribute it. Ask Putin how that worked out in the Soviet Union..why I do believe Putin was just advising the US last year that "you don't want to do that, look how we ended up"..

Every country that has tried to "redistribute" the wealth has not succeeded. Name me ONE country that has taken from the wealthy and given to the poor and survived. I can name you many who failed. Socialism and this is exactly what wealth redistribution is - because communism has failed miserably all across the board the few times it has been tried in it's pure form - only works as long as there is access to OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

Why do people think they are entitled to something they did not work for? Just because you exist is not good enough. 

When wealth redistribution happens, I will be laughing when all the RICH folks grab their cash and move out of the country. Heck they already are moving the cash and businesses overseas due to regulations, it is only a matter of time before they, themselves, move too.

Or you can go hit up a few movie stars and football players and ask them for a hand out..tell me how that goes.

Regarding passion: I am extremely passionate about my money. I am not wealthy and know I will never be Zuckerburg wealthy, but I understand the slippery slope of "the wealthy have left the country, so lets see how much Sidepasser has and take some of hers and give it to X".

Not happening, I still know the way out of the country as well and when all the people take their wealth and leave..there will be no one else's money to fund your playground. (your and you used in the broad general sense).

You want more, work harder. New businesses being built every.single.day right here in the US. Take a look at crowd funding..look at all the entrepreneur's out there making it. No one can sit here and tell me you can't do it. Hell my own kid is doing it. Makes 50 bucks an hour fixing computers, ran his own grass company till he left for college and earned over 3,000 during the summer and if he can do it, anyone can do it. He isn't living on "inherited" wealth, he saw a need and filled it and that was way the heck out in the country too.

Nope I am not buying that "we can't do that anymore" because I see people who do it every day. It is not easy and the hours are long, but it can be done.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Plus that 8% does not include the two programs you mentioned WIC and foodstamps. They are administered by Dept of Agriculture not HHS.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I wonder why so many spend so much time worrying about other people's wealth instead of increasing their own?


Which explains why so many never succeed. Takes a lot of work to complain about what you don't have.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

bruce2288 said:


> Plus that 8% does not include the two programs you mentioned WIC and foodstamps. They are administered by Dept of Agriculture not HHS.


 Ah, good catch.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

blooba said:


> Umm, last I checked HUD,Medicaid,Energy Assistance,Obamaphones and many many more programs are still funded. *A handout is a handout, doesn't have to be foodstamps.
> *


 I support welfare reform, and that goes for corporate welfare also. You know who some of the biggest proponents of foodstamps are? The big food processors, Cargill, ADM, heck even Monsanto. That money that you complain about going to all those po'folk , a large portion of it ends up in the hands of those companies. So yeah, lets work on reducing welfare. Good luck outbidding the lobbyists from the big food processing conglomerates.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

greg273 said:


> I support welfare reform, and that goes for corporate welfare also. You know who some of the biggest proponents of foodstamps are? The big food processors, Cargill, ADM, heck even Monsanto. That money that you complain about going to all those po'folk , a large portion of it ends up in the hands of those companies. So yeah, lets work on reducing welfare. Good luck outbidding the lobbyists from the big food processing conglomerates.


See the thing is, we don't need to outbid lobbyists. We just need the American people to wake up and not believe the propaganda that only 8% are on welfare when the true number is close to 50%. Frankly I don't care where the money ends up all I know (and care) is it is coming out of MY pocket and MY pocket is getting awfully empty.

We need people to wake up and smell the roses, we can't keep spending like this and taxing who's left, we're gonna run out of people to tax!!!!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Very interesting show "Park Avenue, Money, Power and the American Dream". People need to wake up and stop believing that the America that was, still is.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niWzomA_So[/ame]


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Frankly I don't care where the money ends up all I know (and care) is it is coming out of MY pocket and MY pocket is getting awfully empty.
> 
> We need people to wake up and smell the roses, we can't keep spending like this and taxing who's left, we're gonna run out of people to


Actually the government is borrowing something like 40 cents of every dollar it spends.

So it's not coming out of your pocket (or mine) so much as it is out of our grandchildren's.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

greg273 said:


> 8% of Americans receive 'welfare', as in foodstamps, WIC, and TANF. Its nowhere near 'half' or '40%' like some of you are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_US_are_on_welfare


And yet, 47 million people are on Foodstamps. Almost double (from 26 million in 2007) since Obama came to office.

I'd gladly make a trade to my progressive friends. End all welfare, corporate and private, and let the chips fall where they may. End all those evil subsidies (taking less taxes away from the productive concerns in society) to big business... and have us some good ol fashioned tax reform... so that progressive's corporate darlings, such as Apple, are forced to pay a few pennies to the treasury (they pay no taxes, sheltering their wealth in NV and offshore). And, we also do away with all forms of welfare... no more food stamps, no sec. 8 housing, public housing, medicare/medicaid, and no more walking around money. Of course, if we do away with giving people everything they need without having to work for it, we might not need to have effective tax rates of over 50%.

It doesn't matter which agency distributes it, welfare is still welfare. Something for nothing.

Now I realize, that there's zero chance of welfare ending, at least on the private side... it's a known fact (maybe unspoken, but known) that if the welfare checks didn't arrive on time, millions of people would go on a binge of rioting/looting, taking from those who have, because of course, it is 'owed' to them. Also, Obama would love to destroy every American business, and have the govt take over the means of production. His mentor and spiritual guide, Karl Marx, guides him in his quest.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Very interesting show "Park Avenue, Money, Power and the American Dream". People need to wake up and stop believing that the America that was, still is.


I got as far as the rigged monopoly game.... and noticed the false premise.... that there is a finite amount of wealth to be divided among all the players. This is one of the great myths spouted by far too many. Our national economic structure is NOT a zero sum game... anyone can still play, and create their own wealth today, just like they did 100 years ago, or 240 years ago when it was first established. And yes, we had the whiners back then too... guys like Thomas Payne... pretty much a ne'r do well that had failed at nearly everything he tried, and wound up dying broke, and would have been homeless had not some of the more prosperous founders granted him a small plot of land with a house on it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> What on earth are you talking about? Ever heard of the working poor? Maybe you're talking about the suits on wall street with soft hands who are content to drive up prices, and commit robbery with pens instead of guns.


Again why are the poor poor? I know several people who started out poor and now are at least middle class and a couple most people would consider rich.

I also know many people who started out poor and are still poor.

What's the difference in the two groups? *Personal decisions!* The ones who are no longer poor payed attention in school, they worked hard and didn't do booze nor drugs. The ones who are still poor either dropped out, flunked out or just barely made it out of high school, most of them spend a large chunk of their pay checks on smokes, booze and/or other drugs, I'd say 90+% of them had at least one kid before they were 21.

FYI, there is one exception to staying in school. One of the guys I went to school with graduated 8th grade (the school only with to 8th after that you had to pick a city high school) and within a week went to work as a janitor at the school he just graduated from. He is still working there and is making a good living.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

texican said:


> And yet, 47 million people are on Foodstamps. Almost double (from 26 million in 2007) since Obama came to office.


 Yep. Gotta be Obamas fault. I guess he caused that obvious trend back in 2002, before he took office. Amazing the powers of the 'Evil One'...









I do agree though, it is *unsustainable*.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Yep. Gotta be Obamas fault. I guess he caused that obvious trend back in 2002, before he took office. Amazing the powers of the 'Evil One'...
> I do agree though, it is *unsustainable*.


You don't think that HUGE jump isn't abnormal?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

blooba said:


> We just need the American people to wake up and not believe the propaganda that only 8% are on welfare when the true number is close to* 50%.* Frankly I don't care where the money ends up all I know (and care) is it is coming out of MY pocket and MY pocket is getting awfully empty.


 I agree, its too high. But even your own link says 108 MIL on government aid. That is NOT 'close to* HALF'* of the US population... And that number counts ALL 'program benefits'... that covers a lot of ground.. plenty of USDA largess being thrown about as well in subsidies,'cost share' programs, and other handouts.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

blooba said:


> You don't think that HUGE jump isn't abnormal?


 Did you notice the recession, on top of the upward trend?? Regardless, the scary part is the trend shows little sign of DECREASING.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Did you notice the recession, on top of the upward trend?? Regardless, the scary part is the trend shows little sign of DECREASING.


You mean 4 years of Obamanomics has done nothing to reverse the trend?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> You mean 4 years of Obamanomics has done nothing to reverse the trend?


----------

