# The Evil of Being Wealthy



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

The Occupy Wall Street group is apparently going to take a tour of the ultra-rich of NYC today, to protest in front of their homes.  Which led me to the question, what is wrong with the ultra-rich?

Is it legally or morally wrong to be rich or 'ultra-rich'?  Some politicians have been quoted in the past as believing that at a certain point, a person has 'enough' money and should not be allowed to have any more of it.  Is that the case?  If so, how much is 'enough'?  Who decides?

I have also heard arguments that many of the rich and ultra-rich did not earn their money, but inherited it.  I don't know the statistics of earned-versus-created wealth, but even if it is true that many of the rich and ultra-rich inherited their money, does that make it somehow less moral for them to have it?  Is there a law or moral rule that says that you can only keep the wealth you personally created by working?  If I win the lottery, should I give that money back, because I did nothing more to 'earn' it than by a $1 lottery ticket, as compared to someone like George Soros?

And what of Bill Gates versus Warren Buffett?  Two of the wealthiest men in the world; but one built his wealth in his company, which he created from scratch; while the other merely reaped the profits from investing (wisely, as it turns out) in the stock of other companies, eventually buying but never personally running any of them?  Buffett, the new darling of the higher-taxes-for-the-rich crowd, never physically 'worked' for any of his money, not a dime of it was by lifting a shovel or turning a screwdriver; not even by running a company personally.  Is their right to keep their money - or not keep it - somehow morally different?

And that brings me to the idea of taxation.  I'm sure that the wealthy prefer not to pay taxes; heck, I prefer not to pay taxes.  And the wealthy have advantages I do not; they can pay for lawyers and tax accountants who can cleverly shield their money from taxation.  I'm not talking about illegal tax dodges, but just by using the loopholes and shelters that are legal.  And, I'm also willing to agree that the ultra-rich and huge corporations spend a lot of money to lobby Congress to keep taxes low on the ultra-rich and to keep those loopholes and tax shelters going.  However, as long as they are paying the amount of taxes they are legally obligated to pay, are they breaking the law by doing so and not voluntarily paying more?  Are they somehow immoral for wanting to pay as little tax as they legally can?  I pay my taxes and fill out my return honestly each year, but if I have a tax break coming, I take it.  Am I being immoral?  Am I a bad person for that?  Should I ignore legal ways to lower my tax bill and pay the highest amount I can instead?  Would that make me a moral person then?

Finally, the very notion of being wealthy.  It seems to me that there is an immense anger and resentment of people who have more money than oneself.  Especially if that number is some exponential multiplier, like 10X or 100X or 1000X more than oneself.  If I earn X dollars per year, and some CEO earns 100 times X, it is seen as 'wrong'.  Yet, corporations hire CEOs and determine their salary, just like any other employee they hire.  Like a baseball team that signs million-dollar contracts with star atheletes and pays the run-of-the-mill player much much less (and minor league players get a pittance compared to that).  For those who see that as 'unfair' or 'morally wrong', I have to ask - what's wrong with it?  And if it is indeed wrong, what do you propose as a solution?  I have asked some of the OWS people that.  I get conflicting answers.  Some seem to want to see government regulation forcing CEO's to earn no more than a certain multipe of the highest-paid employee in the company.  Others have said that they don't want to have the government force anyone to do anything, but they want to someone how bring public pressure to bear on stockholders to insist that CEO's not be paid so much, and to insist that the corporations they invest in be more interested in the workers than in profit or return on investment.  I have to laugh at that last one; good luck!  If I invest in a stock, it's not to make sure the employees are happy; it's to make money!  That being kind of the point of investing.

Anyway, just some random thoughts about picketing the homes of the ultra-rich.  I still don't know why or what they hope to accomplish.  Your thoughts?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2011)

In the Victorian times here it was considered your civic duty if you were rich to be philanthropic. Schools, hospitals,orphanages, libraries and many public buildings were raised and maintained by rich men. Charity was also considered to be a duty. Now, whether this was a way of showing off your wealth instead of the conspicous consumption we have now I don't know, certainly these Victorian ladies and gentlemen seemed very serious about the amount of good works they did.I doubt they paid much tax either personally or through their properties/businesses but perhaps they gave to the country more than if they had paid? However times change and we are living in what to me seems a much more selfish age in many ways. 
An interesting article on 'philanthrocapitalism'. I've not tried pronouncing that!

http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/


----------



## Jenna (Oct 12, 2011)

Is it immoral to accumulate wealth per se?  Well that is up to the individual wealth collector to sleep well with their own consciences.  All I can say is that such actions are perhaps not the most compassionate.  As you say though, it is _their _money earned by whichever means legal or no and it does not state anywhere on the dollar or any other currency that it must be either accumulated or spent with compassion.  

In terms of tax _evasion_, I think that is unacceptable behaviour from ultra-wealthy even when the economy IS sound.  I find it distasteful that the those from the Rothschild and Rockefeller bracket down to the brackets of the Buffets and Gates (though not those specifically as I do not want to argue philanthropies) are evading tax when the great mass of the populus are struggling to make ends meet and are STILL required to pay their own revenue dues (which in turn would offer its hand in the form of government help should the unlikely event occur that those ultra-wealthy people needed it).  Is that immoral behaviour?  I do not know.  I do think it shows ZERO compassion towards those dupes like myself that have purchased their wares or deposited money in their institutions.

One story that for me since typified this kind of behaviour from a while back was the band U2 who moved their money offshore where it was sheltered from Irish taxation while that much lauded home nation of theirs off whom they made their living both literally and lyrically ran out of funds.  Is it for Bono and U2 to rescue Ireland?  Of course not.  Their money made fair and square.  I would suggest that it was perhaps just distasteful though.  Immoral?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2011)

There is no inherent nobility in poverty, but, boy, do people act as if there was...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> In the Victorian times here it was considered your civic duty if you were rich to be philanthropic. Schools, hospitals,orphanages, libraries and many public buildings were raised and maintained by rich men. Charity was also considered to be a duty. Now, whether this was a way of showing off your wealth instead of the conspicous consumption we have now I don't know, certainly these Victorian ladies and gentlemen seemed very serious about the amount of good works they did.I doubt they paid much tax either personally or through their properties/businesses but perhaps they gave to the country more than if they had paid? However times change and we are living in what to me seems a much more selfish age in many ways.
> An interesting article on 'philanthrocapitalism'. I've not tried pronouncing that!
> 
> http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/



Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are well-known philanthropists, but (for example), Steve Jobs was not only not a philanthropist, he put a stop to the Apple Philanthropic Trust after he came back to power at Apple.  Do Bill Gates and Warren Buffett then get a 'pass' from the OWS folks, and Steve Jobs doesn't?  I'm just curious how this is supposed to work.  As I understand it, we judge the rich by how much of their money they give to charity?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Is it immoral to accumulate wealth per se?  Well that is up to the individual wealth collector to sleep well with their own consciences.  All I can say is that such actions are perhaps not the most compassionate.  As you say though, it is _their _money earned by whichever means legal or no and it does not state anywhere on the dollar or any other currency that it must be either accumulated or spent with compassion.



Actually, I wasn't referring to money earned illegally, like through drug dealing or rum-running (the latter is how the Kennedy family got their money, remember).  I mean whether they earned it themselves, personally, or inherited or otherwise legally acquired it (say through the lottery).



> In terms of tax _evasion_, I think that is unacceptable behaviour from ultra-wealthy even when the economy IS sound.  I find it distasteful that the those from the Rothschild and Rockefeller bracket down to the brackets of the Buffets and Gates (though not those specifically as I do not want to argue philanthropies) are evading tax when the great mass of the populus are struggling to make ends meet and are STILL required to pay their own revenue dues (which in turn would offer its hand in the form of government help should the unlikely event occur that those ultra-wealthy people needed it).  Is that immoral behaviour?  I do not know.  I do think it shows ZERO compassion towards those dupes like myself that have purchased their wares or deposited money in their institutions.



In terms of tax evasion, I have to ask you to to clarify what you mean.  Legal or illegal?

I get a 'standard deduction' on my income tax return every year.  That's a tax shelter set up by Congress.  Should I not take it? I get a tax deduction on the interest I pay on my student loan.  Should I not declare that?  I am allowed to contribute a portion of my income to my 401(k) retirement fund and that is sheltered from taxes until I withdraw it, after I retire.  Should I not do that?  If I were wealthy and could afford to invest in municipal bonds, many of them are tax-free because the government wants to encourage people to invest in city bond issues to help keep cities running.  Should wealthy people not do that?

I guess what I'm saying is that there are all kinds of ways to legally avoid paying some taxes.  If it is not moral for the wealthy to use those tax shelters, what about me?  I'm not wealthy, can *I* use them?  If it's immoral for them, why would it be moral for me?



> One story that for me since typified this kind of behaviour from a while back was the band U2 who moved their money offshore where it was sheltered from Irish taxation while that much lauded home nation of theirs off whom they made their living both literally and lyrically ran out of funds.  Is it for Bono and U2 to rescue Ireland?  Of course not.  Their money made fair and square.  I would suggest that it was perhaps just distasteful though.  Immoral?



If it is legal to move one's money overseas to avoid taxation, then what is to be done about that?  We could try to make it illegal to do so; I could support that.  Does marching on the rich people's houses do that?  If it does, then maybe I see the point.  

I did note something interesting the other day - I don't know the truth of it, so I won't repeat it as if it were true, but the concept was that if the richest 1% of the entire country had ALL their money confiscated, it would fund the federal government for approximately 90 days.  After that, the money would be gone, the 1% would be poor, and what would have been accomplished?  It's not like taking away their money will fix anything, is it?  The thought occurs to me that it would just make some of us feel better about it.  So that's a legal reason to take people's money away now?  Because it makes poor people feel better?  Seems contrary to a just society to me, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Big Don said:


> There is no inherent nobility in poverty, but, boy, do people act as if there was...



I don't know if I buy that statement directly, but the contrary certainly seems to have some credence; ie, it is immoral to be wealthy.  I guess I never quite understood that.

It's not that I'm ever going to be rich or even aspire to it.  I'm 50 years old.  I earn a good income but I'm in serious trouble financially.  I won't ever be rich, and I will probably be borderline poor when I retire, if I even can retire voluntarily.  I've lost a home due to foreclosure, I've lost a job.  I'm putting off dental work because I can't afford it.  I just filled out my health insurance for FY 2012 and my premiums have gone up 250% (yes, that's right, 250%, not joking).  You'd think I'd be one of the ones out there waving around a placard and screaming for the heads of the rich people on a platter.

But I am not.  Yes, there is inequality in the system; lots of it.  Yes, there are many broken aspects of our society and our government, and we need to find solutions to them sooner rather than later.  Yes, we stand on the precipice of a dangerous economic disaster of epic proportions.  And no, I don't have those solutions myself.  But I don't think that tearing it all down is the solution; and I fear those who seem to be leaning towards that.  And yes, for the record,_ 'canceling of all debt everywhere'_ is tearing it all down.  No economic system can withstand that.  I'm no expert, but I know that much.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 12, 2011)

It's evil until the people complaining are rich, then it's ok.

At least that seems to be the double standard.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2011)

Many people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with whether or not something is "deserved."  This happens at all levels.  Some people are very angry that the rich don't deserve a billion or two.  Some people are very angry that the poor might get a hundred dollars a month in food assistance unless they have somehow shown themselves blameless - like by being disabled.  Everyone is obsessed with fault and just desserts.

I don't care.  I really don't.  It doesn't matter to me if Paris Hilton never has to work a day in her spoiled, useless life.  It doesn't matter to me if a drug addict and all around useless human being gets a little tax money for food every month.  I'm not going to waste my energy and anger judging the mass of humanity.

What does concern me is a well functioning, safe and prosperous society that allows the opportunity to be rich, and prevents total disaster for those who can't make it.  That is what is important.  That the most people possible have opportunity and happiness and won't starve in the streets.  Does that mean higher taxes on the rich right now?  Yes, of course it does, we have a major revenue and debt problem, and bringing the top bracket back up 4.6% to Clinton era levels is not communism, confiscation, or class warfare.  Does that mean we might have to engage in trade protectionism, curbing offshore holdings, or other measures to boost local business and production?  Yeah, it might.  But it shouldn't be a moral response to the moral status of others, it should be a rational and fair choice in pursuit of rational and fair goals.


----------



## cdunn (Oct 12, 2011)

There is no inherent evil in becoming wealthy. However, the backlash comes out of a three-fold problem: 

The wealth of the country has become hyper concentrated. The economy is a cycle of money. In the capitalist system, as businesses expand to meet rising demand, they spend money throughout all levels of the economy, effectively distributing the wealth of the capitalist class to the consumption classes. The consumption classes, in turn, produce goods and services to gain money, with which they create the demand. *In the US, this cycle has been broken*. The consumption classes have not gained income since Reagan got into office, and we've had a startling decline since 2008 - The previous 30 years were financed by personal debt, and it stopped working. Now, a handful of people have all the wealth, invested in the corporations, _who aren't spending it, _because the investors demand more profit than the system can bear. The money does not cycle - it just accumulates at the top. Corporations aren't hiring because the demand's not there. The demand's not there because they laid us all off and won't pay those of us that do have jobs more than subsistance wages. Those who have the money have to be the ones that prime the money pumps and start the levers of activity. 

Second, the financiers of the nation are, entirely rightly, percieved as having perpetrated an evil on the nation, entirely apart from being wealthy. In their urge to collect wealth, _those participating in the mortgage industry defrauded us _in at least three layers, first by approving loans to buyers who did not have income to pay back loans, second by laying pressure on appraisers to inflate the value of properties so that they could squeeze interest and fees on loans that weren't backed by real collateral, and thirdly, by being too incompetant and greedy to even be bothered to keep track of who paid on time and repossessing our homes at, essentially, random. 

Finally, a lot of us believe _we have been lied to_. We were told that if we conformed and got our educations, that there would be reasonable jobs available for us, and that we could be not wealthy, but reasonably comfortable. So we hunkered down, took out our student loans, did the work to go through college - and there's nothing for us, because the cycle is broken. What we want is for the promise to be kept, to have work, and for our work to be accompanied by rewards to us. Meanwhile, we have been told for decades that if we give the rich more money and take away the rules that keep them from ****ing us, they'll give us good jobs and let us earn money while leading us to rationalist paradise - and yet, here we are floating around 10% unemployment and the lowest real wages in decades. So...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Many people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with whether or not something is "deserved."  This happens at all levels.  Some people are very angry that the rich don't deserve a billion or two.  Some people are very angry that the poor might get a hundred dollars a month in food assistance unless they have somehow shown themselves blameless - like by being disabled.  Everyone is obsessed with fault and just desserts.
> 
> I don't care.  I really don't.  It doesn't matter to me if Paris Hilton never has to work a day in her spoiled, useless life.  It doesn't matter to me if a drug addict and all around useless human being gets a little tax money for food every month.  I'm not going to waste my energy and anger judging the mass of humanity.
> 
> What does concern me is a well functioning, safe and prosperous society that allows the opportunity to be rich, and prevents total disaster for those who can't make it.  That is what is important.  That the most people possible have opportunity and happiness and won't starve in the streets.  Does that mean higher taxes on the rich right now?  Yes, of course it does, we have a major revenue and debt problem, and bringing the top bracket back up 4.6% to Clinton era levels is not communism, confiscation, or class warfare.  Does that mean we might have to engage in trade protectionism, curbing offshore holdings, or other measures to boost local business and production?  Yeah, it might.  But it shouldn't be a moral response to the moral status of others, it should be a rational and fair choice in pursuit of rational and fair goals.



I can't disagree with anything you've said here.  I believe that the OWS thing has a lot more to do with the first item you mentioned than the second, though.  But I like what you're saying here.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are well-known philanthropists, but (for example), Steve Jobs was not only not a philanthropist, he put a stop to the Apple Philanthropic Trust after he came back to power at Apple. Do Bill Gates and Warren Buffett then get a 'pass' from the OWS folks, and Steve Jobs doesn't? I'm just curious how this is supposed to work. As I understand it, we judge the rich by how much of their money they give to charity?




I have no idea about the modern Americans but the whole attitude was different in past times here, it was a case of people having a duty to others, it's making money and appreciating what you have by spreading wealth. The main thing in Victorian eyes was to 'better yourself', to raise yourself out of poverty and when you had to enable others to do the same, more along the lines of the principle of teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish. There was a great push then for the working man to educate himself, education became compulsory for children, evening classes were held for adults, all to give people the chances to rise. Charity after all is a cold thing.
I think the Labour movement is more accepted here because of that Victorian attitude of civic and national duty, America had always seemed more 'everyone for themselves' as patriotic as Americans are.
Perhaps in modern terms it would mean the rich pay their pay share of taxes. I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Btw I don't know who the OWS is.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, I wasn't referring to money earned illegally, like through drug dealing or rum-running (the latter is how the Kennedy family got their money, remember).  I mean whether they earned it themselves, personally, or inherited or otherwise legally acquired it (say through the lottery).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a very interesting question as ever and you know I appreciate exactly the inference you are drawing and your logic is accurate in that what is either fair or immoral for one is fair or immoral for all.  And I agree with that inference in principal though I cannot help but feel that these things taken out of theory and into context are affected by scale, would you see that, no?  

I am ok with the idea that values pertaining to wealth should NOT be affected by scale and but I still feel that they are.  

I mean, if you earn $100 and are taxed a percentage then that is your fiscal duty taken care of.  If I am a tax advisor and suggest a way that you can avoid paying your tax by either "legal" loopholes or other less savoury means then fair enough, that is for you to reckon with your own conscience (me as your tax advisor, I have ceded my conscience anyway per my terms and conditions ).  Is the treasury at a loss? Yes.  In the scheme of things is that either any less acceptable or any more forgivable that similar fiscal manoeuvres on behalf of say JP Morgan Chase?  Well no.  Still, when we scale that up such that those $100Bn profits are skilfully dodged by me as tax advisor as if I am some quickstepping footballer or magickally swept away to Swiss / Cayman accounts or filtered through some distant business interest (ethical, legal or not), then the picture seems to become all the more distasteful, especially if we ourselves have given up a portion of our income in what we perceive as our fiscal duty to our nations.  I would ask why do the ultra-wealthy have no qualms about unscrupulous activities like these theirselves?  Do they feel no owing at all to their nations?  Or are they so globalist that the idea of nationality is nothing to them?  I cannot know.  It puzzles me.

Regarding avoidance and evasion, yes, I am sorry and I am aware of the legal difference in semantic however again I feel that on the largest scales the delineation between the two is increasingly blurred. (And I as tax advisor tend to use my jargon and sleight of hand to prove that shifting money cannot be illegal anyway )

Here one of the giant telecomms companies Vodafone recently managed to avoid / evade (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs) a tax liability of not just $103.60 out of a state minimum wage and but of £7 billion (GBP) and were able to kind of and sort of "negotiate" that down to a far more respectable-to-vested-interests £1 billion.  I think in THAT scale of things and in THIS particular economic situation we are currently in, that is something of a bitter pill in my personal opinion.  I do not know if I am making proper sense and I hope that is not diverging from the OP and if it is I am sorry. I do not think that wealth is -or holders of wealth are- evil, as I think there is immense potential within vast wealth to act for the benefit of a great many.  

Yet I can only ever ponder from my position down here among the dregs about when is enough wealth enough for some.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

cdunn said:


> There is no inherent evil in becoming wealthy. However, the backlash comes out of a three-fold problem:
> 
> The wealth of the country has become hyper concentrated. The economy is a cycle of money. In the capitalist system, as businesses expand to meet rising demand, they spend money throughout all levels of the economy, effectively distributing the wealth of the capitalist class to the consumption classes. The consumption classes, in turn, produce goods and services to gain money, with which they create the demand. *In the US, this cycle has been broken*. The consumption classes have not gained income since Reagan got into office, and we've had a startling decline since 2008 - The previous 30 years were financed by personal debt, and it stopped working. Now, a handful of people have all the wealth, invested in the corporations, _who aren't spending it, _because the investors demand more profit than the system can bear. The money does not cycle - it just accumulates at the top. Corporations aren't hiring because the demand's not there. The demand's not there because they laid us all off and won't pay those of us that do have jobs more than subsistance wages. Those who have the money have to be the ones that prime the money pumps and start the levers of activity.



I have to disagree here.  Money is not money if it is not being spent.  If I have a billion dollars and do not spend a penny of it, I have no more impact on the system than a person living in a cardboard box.  Nor does anyone have LESS money because I have a billion dollars in a shoebox and refuse to spend any of it.

However, since no one lives without spending ANY money, unless they are entirely dependent on others, we can assume that a billionaire does spend money.  He has a house, a car, the trappings of wealth.  All of those things are spent and go into the economy, employing builders, farmers, merchants, bankers, and so on.  The more he spends, the more goes into the economy, of course.  The person who lives in a box, he doesn't put anything into the economy except that which he gets from others already, in the form of social assistance, charity, and so on.



> Second, the financiers of the nation are, entirely rightly, percieved as having perpetrated an evil on the nation, entirely apart from being wealthy. In their urge to collect wealth, _those participating in the mortgage industry defrauded us _in at least three layers, first by approving loans to buyers who did not have income to pay back loans, second by laying pressure on appraisers to inflate the value of properties so that they could squeeze interest and fees on loans that weren't backed by real collateral, and thirdly, by being too incompetant and greedy to even be bothered to keep track of who paid on time and repossessing our homes at, essentially, random.



I absolutely support vigorous prosecution of those who have broken the law.  If the law was not broken, no matter how egregious the 'moral offense', we have no means in a just and law-abiding society to punish people for being 'greedy' or 'evil'.  To do so puts us outside the laws we claim to support.



> Finally, a lot of us believe _we have been lied to_. We were told that if we conformed and got our educations, that there would be reasonable jobs available for us, and that we could be not wealthy, but reasonably comfortable.



*No no no no no.*  We were 'told' by whom?  Show me that contract, please.  There is no such thing, express or implied.  I got that from a OWS protester on Twitter the other night; my head nearly exploded.  He said he went to college and got a degree, but now he can't find a 'decent' job he likes, and society 'promised him' that if he went to college, he would find a job he liked.  Oh dear me.  People believe this?  Horrifying.

I got a degree in computer science.  There are jobs in computer science.  I am happily employed.  My pal got a job in art history (true story).  He is a flight attendant.  He's lucky to be one; the airlines have not been hiring for a long time.  He hates his job, but can't quit.  *AND THAT IS THE FAULT OF SOCIETY HOW?*

Pardon me for being blunt, but nobody promised you jack.  Nor me.  If I had chosen a different field (I originally went to college for law enforcement), I would have had to deal with the consequences of my decision, good or bad.  That's someone else's fault how?



> So we hunkered down, took out our student loans, did the work to go through college - and there's nothing for us, because the cycle is broken. What we want is for the promise to be kept, to have work, and for our work to be accompanied by rewards to us. Meanwhile, we have been told for decades that if we give the rich more money and take away the rules that keep them from ****ing us, they'll give us good jobs and let us earn money while leading us to rationalist paradise - and yet, here we are floating around 10% unemployment and the lowest real wages in decades. So...



I'm 50 years old.  I am still paying off my last student loan - it ends this December, FYI.  I've lost my house.  I lost a job.  I had to live apart from my wife for three freaking years, from late 2006 to early 2010, because she was in our house, which we were struggling to keep, in one state, while I took the only job I could find, 800 miles away.  I saw her twice a year in person. I'm a service veteran who served during a time when where was no GI Bill; veterans before me got it, and those afterwards got it, but for me, nada.  I get NO help from anyone; not dollar one.  I'm not complaining, because I am not starving, and I know that things could change any time and I'd be sucking wind.  But I am not a victim.  I may win, I may lose, but everything I do have, is mine; I earned it, I paid for it, it belongs to me.  I won't apologize for that.  Nor will I demand other people's money or property if my life goes south again.  I do not understand this victim mentality.

There are no promises.  Not for me, not for you.  There are some safety nets, but not many.  And it's unfair in many ways; life is unfair.  And while I don't have a problem with efforts to make things better for those whom life has chewed up and spat out, nobody got any promises.  If you think you got one, you're mistaken, IMHO.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I have no idea about the modern Americans but the whole attitude was different in past times here, it was a case of people having a duty to others, it's making money and appreciating what you have by spreading wealth. The main thing in Victorian eyes was to 'better yourself', to raise yourself out of poverty and when you had to enable others to do the same, more along the lines of the principle of teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish. There was a great push then for the working man to educate himself, education became compulsory for children, evening classes were held for adults, all to give people the chances to rise. Charity after all is a cold thing.



First, that's a romantic notion, but I do not know if it is true.  Read Charles Dickens.



> I think the Labour movement is more accepted here because of that Victorian attitude of civic and national duty, America had always seemed more 'everyone for themselves' as patriotic as Americans are.
> Perhaps in modern terms it would mean the rich pay their pay share of taxes. I see no reason why they shouldn't.



Again; if you took ALL of the wealth from ALL of the wealthy, it would fund the US federal government for 90 days.  I keep asking THEN WHAT?  I don't seem to be getting any response.



> Btw I don't know who the OWS is.



"Occupy Wall Street."  Sorry, shorthand.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, that's a romantic notion, but I do not know if it is true. Read Charles Dickens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Charles Dickens was the first person quoted and talked about in the link I put up to prove that philanthropy in victorian times was workable and not romantic.

I can't debate with you about US taxes and the wealthy, I don't know enough, I think you'll have to wait for an American or a knowledgable outsider for that one.

I can't say anything about the Occupy Wall Street lot either as I have only seen it on the televion with no great depth of reporting. Our big thing is that the MoD minister has been up to things he didn't oughter and really needs to resign.

Sorry, can't contribute much more than that.

It depends on what you taxes are for ( I've just asked on the other thread) here the very rich still use the police, fire and ambulance services as well as the sewage, roads, street lighting and cleaning etc that the poor do, taxes here pay for all that so damn right the rich should pay their share of taxes. For Americans, I don't know how it works.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 12, 2011)

Big Don said:


> There is no inherent nobility in poverty, but, boy, do people act as if there was...


Rhetorically I would posit the contrary position that there _is_ inherent nobility in (excessive) wealth?  What would be your thoughts?


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have to disagree here.  Money is not money if it is not being spent.  If I have a billion dollars and do not spend a penny of it, I have no more impact on the system than a person living in a cardboard box.  Nor does anyone have LESS money because I have a billion dollars in a shoebox and refuse to spend any of it.



Not true, unless the government is rapidly printing money - which ours is not.  Spent money has a multiplier effect, which fuels most of our economy.  Money taken out of the system represents a loss of aggregate demand.  Granted, the corporations are not keeping their money in shoe boxes, and there is a multiplier effect from even very conservative investments, but it can't match capital investment and expenditures.  It especially can't match using that money for new hiring, which is what our economy needs the most right now.

Of course, I don't blame the corporations for holding onto cash reserves.  Demand is down, and those left in the work force have improved productivity, new hiring is not justified.  That is where the government should be stepping in to solve this collective action problem and stimulate demand.  Government can't, however, because half of the country has made the ideological decision that government cannot be allowed to intervene in the economy in any meaningful way.  So here we languish.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2011)

Nothing at all wrong with being ultra-wealthy.  While they say money can't buy love, I'd like to try it for myself to make sure.  

I am a huge fan of Bill and Linda Gates.  The Gates foundation does great work and he is to be commended.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Jobs or Apple, either.  While it's great when influential companies have philanthropic interests, it's not, IMO, a requirement.  However, Gates and others have shown that philanthropy can be good business.  The Red project has been a huge hit.  Who knew?  Create a red iPod or a red t-shirt, put Bono's name on it, sell it for a few dollars more and it generates sales and increases brand recognition and loyalty for your other product lines, as well.  Komen's pink campaign is another one.  Sell a pink version of something and you're almost guaranteed a boost in sales.

Ultimately, I agree with your points in the other thread, Bill.  We should create laws that make sense and hold everyone accountable to these laws.  I don't blame anyone for working within the current tax structure.  I think we should change that structure to make it more equitable.  But when it all shakes out, the richest and most powerful among us are doing better than ever, and there's no incentive for them as a block to push for equitable change.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 12, 2011)

It isn't immoral to be rich.  I don't think any of us would turn it down if we somehow managed to become rich.  Just like any oncome bracket, there are those that are moral and those that aren't.  I would say it is immoral to earn you money with the get paid at all cost mentality.  I also think it is wrong to take advantage of people, and twist good bussiness practices completely on its head in order to make a buck, like some of our financial insitutions have done recentley.  Where myself and others will probably disagree is that I also think it is a responsibility of the better off in our society to give somethng back to those less forunate.  No, I don't mean handing over money to people that don't want to work, but rather give back to the community through charity, time, or contribution.  No rich person ever became rich by themselves, no matter where thier money came from. Also, it is just good common sense that if the lower class have hope and a chance to make thier own way, they will spend more money on bussinesses' goods and services, making both bussinessmen and investors more money in the long run.

I do think that many people when they become rich tend to forget that we are all interconnected.  When one person suffers, so does another, even if the connection is not immediately seen and aware of.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Not true, unless the government is rapidly printing money - which ours is not.  Spent money has a multiplier effect, which fuels most of our economy.  Money taken out of the system represents a loss of aggregate demand.  Granted, the corporations are not keeping their money in shoe boxes, and there is a multiplier effect from even very conservative investments, but it can't match capital investment and expenditures.  It especially can't match using that money for new hiring, which is what our economy needs the most right now.
> 
> Of course, I don't blame the corporations for holding onto cash reserves.  Demand is down, and those left in the work force have improved productivity, new hiring is not justified.  That is where the government should be stepping in to solve this collective action problem and stimulate demand.  Government can't, however, because half of the country has made the ideological decision that government cannot be allowed to intervene in the economy in any meaningful way.  So here we languish.



My point here was a little less systemic and more literal. If I have a billion dollars in a box and refuse to spend any of it, I'll starve to death, the same as someone with no money at all.  You have to spend money for it to have any value; otherwise, it is meaningless paper.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My point here was a little less systemic and more literal. If I have a billion dollars in a box and refuse to spend any of it, I'll starve to death, the same as someone with no money at all.  You have to spend money for it to have any value; otherwise, it is meaningless paper.


The irony is that the more money you have, the less you have to spend.  Truth is, if you were ultra rich, you'd be comped at most restaurants.  They would make more money off of your patronage than from your dinner.  At some point, you become a brand, and at that point you get lots of free stuff.  

And because your salary comprises a relatively small portion of your overall income, you pay a relatively small amount of income tax.  

Wealth isn't just about money.  It's about power and influence, and these are currencies that are inaccessible to most of us.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 12, 2011)

I wish I was comped at restaurants.  I can't even get a free tee shirt at karate camps anymore.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The irony is that the more money you have, the less you have to spend.  Truth is, if you were ultra rich, you'd be comped at most restaurants.  They would make more money off of your patronage than from your dinner.  At some point, you become a brand, and at that point you get lots of free stuff.



Reminds me of the Mark Twain short story (made into several bad movies), "The £1,000,000 Bank-Note":

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/MilPou.shtml

However, I think you may be confusing wealth with fame here.  While the two often go hand in hand, many very wealthy people are utterly unknown.  Honestly, I have no data to prove it, but I suspect that they do not get too much in the way of 'free stuff'.



> And because your salary comprises a relatively small portion of your overall income, you pay a relatively small amount of income tax.



Quite true.  The tax on Capital Gains was an attempt to fix that issue.



> Wealth isn't just about money.  It's about power and influence, and these are currencies that are inaccessible to most of us.



I don't know how to change that, do you?  And it's not entirely true in any case.

On an individual basis, I am more afraid of a big dog than a small one.  More afraid of a man with a gun then a man with a stick.  Countries are more afraid of enemies with nuclear weapons that those without any.  In a financial world, money and power are often interchangeable.

On the other hand, I'm more afraid of every Chinese citizen in the world with a rock his hand coming after me than every citizen of Luxembourg coming after me with machine guns.  Numbers also bring power.  There are certainly more poor than rich, more middle class than rich.  But the problem is, they don't seem to all pull the oars at the same time, or want to go in the same direction.  Power they have if they choose to use it.  So far, it seems not.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 12, 2011)

As to some of the comments about society and being told that if you do X you will get a good job.

Ben Franklin one time wrote, "We have the right to pursue happiness, but not everyone will catch it".

I used to want to be rich and then I met several people I would consider wealthy.  All of them worked really long hours and never really got to spend free time with their family.  I realized that I would rather be comfortable than wealthy if that was the trade off.

As to people who can't find a job, what you really mean is that you can't find a job that you want.  The two are VERY different.  My dad had a very good paying job and when the union voted to go on strike and he wasn't getting paid he took a job cleaning out the city bus garage to put food on our table and make sure that we were taken care of.  I'm sure all of us know people or have had family that did what it took working more than one job or cutting back on luxuries to take care of things.

We have this odd standard that we expect things to be given to us because it's owed to us, and then badmouth the people that built up their wealth as well.  Reminds me of the biblical parable of the talents.  One guy takes the money and works hard at investing it and is praised for what he did with the money and then there is the guy who does nothing with it except bury it in the ground and is taken to task for mismanaging the money, but then people will misquote the bible and say that money is the root of all evil.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 12, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> As to people who can't find a job, what you really mean is that you can't find a job that you want.



Nationally, there are about 3-4 people looking for work for every job opening.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 12, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Nationally, there are about 3-4 people looking for work for every job opening.



True.

But I know people who have found 2nd and in a couple cases 3rd jobs, while others can't find 1.  So, they are out there, if you look hard enough and widen your parameters enough.  

Comments I've heard include "its too far", "I don't want to do that", "its boring", and such.
Hell, I'm bored a lot of the time, and part of my job is a 'dream' for some. 
Sometimes it's a combination of things. No transportation, local area is bone dry, and even trying to cut grass isn't worth the bother. I do get that, and understand it. But, when there are tens of thousands of jobs currently going unfilled because candidates aren't showing up, it's hard to say there are 'no jobs'.

Google Sample:


*RealClearMarkets - Why Are So Many Jobs Going Unfilled?*www.realclearmarkets.com/.../why_are_so_many_*jobs*_*going*_*unfille*...
Jun 20, 2011 &#8211; Why Are So Many _Jobs Going Unfilled_? By Robert Samuelson. One puzzle of this somber economy is the existence of unfilled jobs in the midst *...*
*Microsoft: Thousands Of IT Jobs Going Unfilled ...*www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft.../231002904
Jul 29, 2011 &#8211; Software maker wants Congress  to raise cap on green cards so it can import more hi-tech help.
*There are 2.6 million unfilled jobs in the U.S. Why?? - BusinessWeek*www.businessweek.com/the_thread/.../2009/.../there_are_26_mi.html - Block all www.businessweek.com results
Jul 10, 2009 &#8211; How could there be so many _jobs going_ begging, when so many Americans *....* I also believe these '_unfilled_' _jobs_ are actually fabricated to gain *...*
*Why good jobs are going unfilled - CNN*articles.cnn.com/.../frum.skills.mismatch_1_lowest-literacy-level-basi...
Jul 6, 2010 &#8211; We're getting to the point where even good news comes wrapped in bad news.Good news: Despite the terrible June _job_ numbers (125000 _jobs_ *...*
*Factory jobs going unfilled*www.daytondailynews.com/factory-*jobs*-*going*-*unfilled*-1235137.html
Aug 21, 2011 &#8211; DAYTON &#8212; For many area residents, finding _jobs_ right now is tough. But for Rob Baker, manager of the local Behr Thermal Products plant, *...*


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Rhetorically I would posit the contrary position that there _is_ inherent nobility in (excessive) wealth?  What would be your thoughts?


Money, lots of it or very little of it has little effect on the character of an individual. Paris Hilton has lots of money, but, I wouldn't call her behavior noble...
I know several people with very little money, fixed income, in fact who donate time and a fair portion of their retirement savings and pension payments to charities.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Nothing at all wrong with being ultra-wealthy.  While they say money can't buy love, I'd like to try it for myself to make sure.


 You can rent a reasonable facsimile, although that may not be 100% legal...





> We should create laws that make sense and hold everyone accountable to these laws.  I don't blame anyone for working within the current tax structure.  I think we should change that structure to make it more equitable.  But when it all shakes out, the richest and most powerful among us are doing better than ever, and there's no incentive for them as a block to push for equitable change.


Before we go writing new laws, lets get rid of some, shall we? Bad laws weaken necessary laws.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 12, 2011)

The job market is tough, there is a large pool of educated, hirable, qualified, experienced people who how have been dumped into that pool. This is great for many companies. Companies can be very choosey shopping to get the most out of their money, "the right fit." Also, as a result of the economy going south has dumped people in that pool as well. The Real Estate business, and related industries, and institutions, for some examples. 

Now on the other hand, there are people out there who don't want to work for their living and just be given it. While the rest of us poor slobs have to pick up the tab. People who manipulate the system. Some of those people become rich, most don't. Those who don't for what ever reason should get off their asses and get a job. But, they don't, whether there is or isn't opportunity, the condition of the economy, etc. The number of these people are less than the qualified ones put out of work.  

With that said my comment, people are not happy clearly with Wall Street. It is or has become have vs. have nots. If don't know your history, or are aware of what is happening globally, you are bound to be experiencing what you fear the most. People taking your money, everything, away from you.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Before we go writing new laws, lets get rid of some, shall we? Bad laws weaken necessary laws.


I didn't intend otherwise.  I'm all for simplifying the tax code.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I didn't intend otherwise.  I'm all for simplifying the tax code.


Why stop with the tax code?


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Why stop with the tax code?


Why are you putting words in my mouth, Don?  We're talking about wealth and taxes.  Where have I ever, in this thread or any other, suggested we "stop with the tax code?"


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 12, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> The job market is tough, there is a large pool of educated, hirable, qualified, experienced people who how have been dumped into that pool. This is great for many companies. Companies can be very choosey shopping to get the most out of their money, "the right fit." Also, as a result of the economy going south has dumped people in that pool as well. The Real Estate business, and related industries, and institutions, for some examples.
> 
> Now on the other hand, there are people out there who don't want to work for their living and just be given it. While the rest of us poor slobs have to pick up the tab. People who manipulate the system. Some of those people become rich, most don't. Those who don't for what ever reason should get off their asses and get a job. But, they don't, whether there is or isn't opportunity, the condition of the economy, etc. The number of these people are less than the qualified ones put out of work.
> 
> With that said my comment, people are not happy clearly with Wall Street. It is or has become have vs. have nots. If don't know your history, or are aware of what is happening globally, you are bound to be experiencing what you fear the most. People taking your money, everything, away from you.



* by "haves" I mean those who can and want a job and are tired of being thrown back into the pool.  Not those who don't want to work.


----------



## shinbushi (Oct 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> In the Victorian times here it was considered your civic duty if you were rich to be philanthropic. Schools, hospitals,orphanages, libraries and many public buildings were raised and maintained by rich men. Charity was also considered to be a duty. Now, whether this was a way of showing off your wealth instead of the conspicous consumption we have now I don't know, certainly these Victorian ladies and gentlemen seemed very serious about the amount of good works they did.I doubt they paid much tax either personally or through their properties/businesses but perhaps they gave to the country more than if they had paid? However times change and we are living in what to me seems a much more selfish age in many ways.
> An interesting article on 'philanthrocapitalism'. I've not tried pronouncing that!
> 
> http://www.philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/


Republican contribute far more to charity than Democrats do.  But to be fair if you break it down my religious vs non-religious religious democrats give more than non-religious Republicans.  It is just that the religious tend to be Republican.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2011)

shinbushi said:


> Republican contribute far more to charity than Democrats do.  But to be fair if you break it down my religious vs non-religious religious democrats give more than non-religious Republicans.  It is just that the religious tend to be Republican.


I'd say the truly religious tend to be conservative, the fake religious, the Clintons, Obamas, Kennedy's...


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2011)

shinbushi said:


> Republican contribute far more to charity than Democrats do. But to be fair if you break it down my religious vs non-religious religious democrats give more than non-religious Republicans. It is just that the religious tend to be Republican.



It shouldn't be about charity though, as I said charity is cold, it should be about civic duty, wanting to benefit others, helping others to help themselves and that perpetuating. It's about community spirit and if that means paying your taxes if not with a smile as least with understanding then so be it.


----------



## shinbushi (Oct 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It shouldn't be about charity though, as I said charity is cold, it should be about civic duty, wanting to benefit others, helping others to help themselves and that perpetuating. It's about community spirit and if that means paying your taxes if not with a smile as least with understanding then so be it.


When we get our Federal (Actually we really no longer have a Federal Government it has become a National Government) down to within Constitutional parameters then maybe.  Now we are paying for a lot that OUR Federal Government was not supposed to have.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2011)

shinbushi said:


> Republican contribute far more to charity than Democrats do.



there is absolutely no basis for a statement like that.  I'd say it's impossible to quantify in a meaningful way.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2011)

I think "religious" is code for Christian in this context and it's presumed by some here to be inherently good.  The last couple of posts are all kinds of fail.


----------



## shinbushi (Oct 12, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> there is absolutely no basis for a statement like that.  I'd say it's impossible to quantify in a meaningful way.


Wrong there are statistics on everything!  the main research comes from Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, &#8220;Who Really Cares,&#8221; but there have been others.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2011)

shinbushi said:


> Wrong there are statistics on everything! the main research comes from Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, &#8220;Who Really Cares,&#8221; but there have been others.
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html



absolutely wrong.  there are many many many many many (did I say "many"?) ways to be charitable that cannot be collected, counted, nor accounted for statistically.

You (and nobody else) have any idea who is being charitable, and to whom.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2011)

The Jewish idea of the best kind of charity is to give aid etc anonymously so the recipent doens't know where it came from so cannot be made to feel bad about having to take charity. It seems though that perhaps your government is working the other way around, you know who's taken the money but not where it's gone!


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 12, 2011)

and you would be wrong, it is a proven FACT

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html



Flying Crane said:


> there is absolutely no basis for a statement like that.  I'd say it's impossible to quantify in a meaningful way.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 12, 2011)

"having a kind thought" doesnt count.....


liberals give less to charity, it is a proven fact



Flying Crane said:


> absolutely wrong.  there are many many many many many (did I say "many"?) ways to be charitable that cannot be collected, counted, nor accounted for statistically.
> 
> You (and nobody else) have any idea who is being charitable, and to whom.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 12, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> but not where it's gone!


Here in CA a law was passed to keep people from spending welfare benefits at casinos and strip clubs.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 12, 2011)

if they passed a LAW it must have been a problem. its like warning labels on products, they dint put them there for no reason....


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if they passed a LAW it must have been a problem. its like warning labels on products, they dint put them there for no reason....


personally, I think most States have too many laws on the books.  I'd like to see some of the dumber ones get repealed.  Double this for California.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 13, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Reminds me of the biblical parable of the talents.  One guy takes the money and works hard at investing it and is praised for what he did with the money and then there is the guy who does nothing with it except bury it in the ground and is taken to task for mismanaging the money, but then people will misquote the bible and say that money is the root of all evil.


Exactly so!

I think there are those in the upper strata of our wealth systems that take Matthew 25:29 a little too literally and as usual out of its context.

Likewise, the Bible is in general wholly disapproving of usury as a means of gathering wealth.  And in my eyes our financial systems are utterly founded on a myriad usury variants and that in itself is at the root and core of this whole entire problem in our financial world.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Here in CA a law was passed to keep people from spending welfare benefits at casinos and strip clubs.



I did mean where your government is spending it rather than the people!

The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Exactly so!
> 
> I think there are those in the upper strata of our wealth systems that take Matthew 25:29 a little too literally and as usual out of its context.
> 
> Likewise, the Bible is in general wholly disapproving of usury as a means of gathering wealth.  And in my eyes our financial systems are utterly founded on a myriad usury variants and that in itself is at the root and core of this whole entire problem in our financial world.



If you cannot lend money at interest, there is no money to be made lending it.  Without that, no lending takes place at all. No bonds; they are just reverse loans.  No stock market.  End result; no Western Civilization.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you cannot lend money at interest, there is no money to be made lending it. Without that, no lending takes place at all. No bonds; they are just reverse loans. No stock market. End result; *no Western Civilization*.



You say that like it's a bad thing lol!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 13, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing lol!



Pretty much, yeah.  I hate the idea of wiping my butt with leaves.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Pretty much, yeah.  I hate the idea of wiping my butt with leaves.



On the other hand, we'd be free to crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Tradeoffs man, tradeoffs.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Pretty much, yeah. I hate the idea of wiping my butt with leaves.



That's what newspapers are for! 'Western' civilisation isn't the only one that any good you know. I rather think though you mean American civilisation not European, Eastern or Antipodean. I'd go for life in New Zealand or Oz, depends who wins the rugby at the weekend.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2011)

It's not the only good one, Tez, but it's mine.  While I can appreciate the value of other cultures, there is also value in my own.  Besides, I'm kind of fond of it.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> It's not the only good one, Tez, but it's mine. While I can appreciate the value of other cultures, there is also value in my own. Besides, I'm kind of fond of it.



The trick is remembering that others feel the same about their cultures and countries. Not aimed at you Steve, I promise!


----------



## Jenna (Oct 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you cannot lend money at interest, there is no money to be made lending it.  Without that, no lending takes place at all. No bonds; they are just reverse loans.  No stock market.  End result; no Western Civilization.


Yes, I agree exactly, though I would not say usury itself is the problem, I would say the extent to which -as you have rightly ennumerated- our financial system is based almost wholly on forms of usury is the issue.  I think usury itself is a given in our kinds of speculative trading systems I just think that it is a tool which has been horrendously abused and has led us into this singular financial mess that neither we nor any of our forefathers have been in before.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 13, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Here in CA a law was passed to keep people from spending welfare benefits at casinos and strip clubs.



That was dumb, how is the state going to get their money if poor people thinking to get rich don't gamble how they going to get off welfare?   If you don't let the poor people in the strip clubs and casinos all what you would have is an exclusive... club... for....the...rich ....people!..... Oh I get it now.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 13, 2011)

If the love of money is the root of all evil, how do we explain all the evil acts that are performed for free?


----------



## zDom (Oct 13, 2011)

I have nothing against the wealthy being wealthy. What I object to is how they are systematically whittling away the possibility of a comfortable standard of living for the middle class.

Taxing them at higher rates so that the government controls more of that wealth isn't the answer.

Offering incentives for them to provide a comfortable standard of living for their workers instead of treating them like disposable assets so they can toss another coin in their McDuck Money Bin would be nice.


----------



## billc (Oct 13, 2011)

The middle class is losing ground because of the encroachment of the federal government.  The government, through taxes and over regulation is killing jobs and nickle and diming every American.  The rich can absorb every little increase in taxes and fees, from Chicagos 25% increase on the water bill for example, to every other thing the politicians think of to extract money from us.  The middle class doesn't have the extra money and so their standard of living slowly disolves.  It isn't the rich getting richer that does this, it is the government getting greedier and greedier.  I would have to say, stop complaining about the rich, they are paying most of the bills anyway, and turn your anger on every politician in office.  The politicians are the ones causing the problems.  If the politicians had less control over every aspect of our lives, there wouldn't be the need to buy so many of them to make them leave business alone or to give one business an advantage over its competition.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The middle class is losing ground because of the encroachment of the federal government. .



It's partially true, but you have to remember that the period of the middle-classes' greatest growth in the U.S. was due to the federal government: the G.I. bill made education and self-improvement available for a whole generation. Home ownership was made easier-a realizable goal for many, regardless of class.And you won't like the other thing the U.S. owes post-WWII growth of the middle-class to: _*unions*_, which made it possible for anyone to earn a middle-class wage with just a high-school education.


The diminishing of the middle class is not nearly as attibutable to the government as it is to _corporations_, for whom a "middle-class' is anathema....

More to follow....


----------



## billc (Oct 13, 2011)

then there is this view:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/greece_not_egypt.html



> In other words, the middle class was not created by unions in the 1930s but through laissez faire capitalism beginning as early as the 1700s.
> Collective bargaining certainly increased the wages of union members, particularly in the 1940s and 50s, the union heyday. The success of unions during those decades was partially due to the fact that most of the industrialized world had just blown itself to smithereens in World War II. A lack of international competition allowed private American unions to continually bargain for higher salaries. Once Europe and Japan rebuilt their industrial base, American labor was exposed as overpriced, causing many industries to move to other countries.



and this:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511



> The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market.
> Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid&#8212;thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements&#8212;more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.
> Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.
> In the Third World today, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.
> ...


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 13, 2011)

The problem with the disappearing middle class is a complex problem. I don't care who is to blame, I want to see it come back. I want to see the politics against a middle class disappear.  I want to see this anti-middle class movement disappear. Do I have anything against the "rich" well I am more concern with this country having a health class.  I want young people's degrees to mean something other than a glorified high school diploma facing the unemployment pool. I want people who work and want to work to have a steady job.  I want to see only one parent working, and not two. And so on.  I want to see a better society. I don't want to see a equally proportional haves and have nots, with no one in the middle. I want small business, inventors and entrepreneur better opportunities with less interference from government/corporations. And more things like this and less of what is happening now.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 13, 2011)




----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 14, 2011)

college degrees mean nothing these days becasue any jackass can get one.

it used to be, even in my day, only two types went to college:
the brains who got the grants and what not cuz they were. well, BRAINS

and the rich kids

but now?

more kids than ever go to college, and that means more people with degrees out there

college degrees are like printed currency: the more floating around out there, the less each is worth.

a high school diploma used to be worth something because there were not many people with something better.

now MASTER'S degrees are the new Bachelors

not to mention the fact that kids today get a 4 year degree and think that qualifies them to start halfway up the ladder

it doesnt. 


JohnEdward said:


> I want young people's degrees to mean something other than a glorified high school diploma facing the unemployment pool.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 14, 2011)

I'm in a position to offer some rather unique perspectives on all this.First, I'll try to tackle the "nobility of poverty" My mom grew poor in a way most people in the U.S. can't really imagine today-though she'd deny (and I'd debate) that they were at or below the poverty level. Her father was a coal miner, they lived in a company town in Wyoming, and sometimes grandpa had to poach deer and antelope to put food on the table. My father, on the other hand, was a child of privilege, and grew up what most people would call "rich," though his family lived rather modestly for their means, as most Cuffees have....more on that later. I think my mom, though, was quite surprised to find that "people of color" lived the way my grandparents and my dad did, and I think she thought, on some level, that my dad was "spoiled." 

She and my grandmother did their level best to make sure my siblings and I were not "spoiled." This sometimes meant having pancakes or fritters for dinner-not because we did not have meat, but so that we knew that others didn't, and what it was like for them. It meant constant admonishments like,_Do you know how lucky you are to have your own *bicycle/room/radio/books/fill in the blank*? We had one bicycle for six brothers and sisters._ or _Aren't you going to *share* that? You can't have that and *not* share with your brother and sisters...._ And the inevitable stories about walking to school through hip-deep snow.....uphill.....both ways....:lol: 

Somehow, people like my mom-no matter what socioeconomic status or education level they achieve, think more of people who have lived at a subsistence level-it's true for a lot of people who grew up during the depression. Likewise, I regularly encounter people who think that someone who works as a laborer or craftsman is the one doing "real" work, and that it's a crime that I get paid so much more than they do.Which is BS-I have to put up with it regularly from some of my artist friends, or the people I pray with (some of whom are my artist friends...:lol: )

When I first started keeping fire for Anthony, and we started making trips onto the reservations, he had me go out and buy a car that didn't really cost very much. I got a Tercel 4WD, in part because of the roads most places we were going, but, for the most part, that it didn't cost three or four times what my potential hosts might make in a year, or, in some cases, a lifetime. While he *loved* the Porsche (someday I'll tell the story of going to the peyote farms in Texas in the Porsche) he thought-rightly-that showing up in such a car would be rude, or seen as rude. 

On the other hand, some of the poorest people I've ever been around have *never* hesitated to share what little they had-if I show up at my (distant) cousins on the Wind River Reservation, they'll_ always _kill a puppy or a chicken for dinner. Likewise, when I've hung nout with the Huichols or Tarahumara in Mexico, they have been renarkably generous hosts, in spite of their relative poverty-not likely I'll be seeing any of them in the near future, with the drug troubles in their areas. And I'll never forget how this woman who had seen her sons and husband executed, her home burned down, and been raped repeatedly herself, insisted on making tea for us-_in cracked china she'd rescued from the ruins of her home_- when I was in Bosnia back. How much more poverty can their be to have truly lost _everything_? And yet she *insisted* on sharing. This is one _true_ nobility of poverty. The other, of course, is knowing that you have enough.(I'll add here-as a bit of an aside, so that you know where *I'm* coming from, that I pray for all these people, every day. I'd send money, but most of them would be insulted.)

I'll enjoy a buffet, from time to time, but I don't enjoy watching other people at the damn thingsiling food onto their plate till it's four inches thick, making return trips-eating a boatload of food_ just because it's *there*_. Understandable behavior in a child or growing boy, but adults should know the meaning of "all you can eat." Because that's what I'll have when I go to the buffet: *all I can eat,*_ and no more than that_. I've known people that live on the road, or on boats, or in the woods-my friend Aldred's grandmother lives in a hogan waaaay out on the Navajo reservation-had to pull water up from a well, had-until fairly recently-no electricity or running water, and still uses an outhouse that you have to rattle with a stick to chase off spiders and rattlesnakes. She keeps a small herd of sheep, lives each day pretty simply, and feels blessed that she has....._enough,_ just as those people I've known on the road, or in boats, or in the woods did. In fact, I think many of them-Aldred's grandmother, the Huichols and Tarahumara, the cruisers on their sailboats-would laugh at the idea that they were in poverty, though most of them will never see $10,000 a year, let a lone $40,000.Because they have enough.

So, is poverty noble? Not so much-I'm rather glad I don't have to worry too much about living at that economic level. There is something, though, to the idea of knowing when you have "enough," and there is something noble in how so many of the poor share what they have, when they have so little.

Can "Wealth" be evil? Money itself, of course, is completely amoral-it is neither evil, nor good. What a person does with it can be, as well as they accquire it.

I've posted elsewhere about how many of the founders of our nation felt that inherited wealth was a great evil-they saw it as a potential instrument of oppression: that's what their experience with it in and from England, Ireland and Scotland had been. Many wealthy men and families will put controls on their legacy, so that their children won't inherit too much, or their wealth can go on doing good work without their children's control. This is what Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have publicly stated that they intend to do. 

My family made their initial fortune in whaling and shipping. Neither my father, nor my grandfather-who did no whaling-thought that whaling was evil. Not many people of their generation did. *I do.* It was an evil thing, and, for the most part, still is-an evil way to accquire wealth-though one could argue that they knew no better, and so my great grandfather and all the Cuffee men back to 1795 were not "evil" men, merely ignorant. On the other hand, one can argue that the decisions made that led to the BP Gulf oil spill, or the pursuit of natural gas with fracking(if it does, in fact, contaminate  groundwater and the people who do it are aware that it does) could be seen as evil. And, I'm not even going to get into the whole drug lord thing-clearly, one can accquire wealth in evil ways.

My family's wealth is controlled by a trust-I'm the chief trustee *and* executor, for as long as I'm alive-my mother is a coexecutor for as long as I have her. There are pretty strict controls set in place as to how and when I can access the fund, and some _interesting_ traditions and obligations. For about a hundred years now, though, it's been a rule that during economic times such as we're experiencing now, part of the fund should be used for the accquisition of real estate. Thus it was that my grandfather bought property in Fairlfield, Conn., and my father grew up next door to a mansion, and the house that was built for the chauffeur of the owner of that mansion-she was land rich, but cash poor, and my grandfather-who appeared rather Asian to most-was able to buy land from her, in 1930, as well as our summer home in Sag Harbor, NY-the port Cuffees sailed from. He bought that house in foreclosure, or for back taxes-it had owned to some antique dealers who were sisters. Since 2008, I've bought a few properties-an apartment complex that was foreclosed on in the last stage of construction, a smaller complex, and a few houses-*all* the produce of someone else's misfortune. Is that evil? I don't think so, but I also don't always feel good about it. 

Corporate wealth, though? Large banks? I'm not talking about what their CEOs make here, but the entities themselves? If corporations are "persons," they're generally evil persons, because that's what an _amoral_ person is. While those protesters can rail against the faces and real flesh and blood people that make up that corporation-and, I think, wrongly-and against how much they make (again, wrongly) they are quite right to protest against the corporations themselves as the very engines of the economic crisis that so many are now burdened with, and the evil of their engineering a bailout, and placing the burden for it squarely upon the shoulders of all of us, and our children, and our children's children (though, in some cases, those bailouts have been paid back well enough) that fits the very definition of evil.

BTW-in spite of sharing some of the details of my relative fortune, I should say that I'm probably smack dab in the middle of the 90th percentile of that 99% they're talking about.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 14, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> college degrees mean nothing these days becasue any jackass can get one.
> 
> it used to be, even in my day, only two types went to college:
> the brains who got the grants and what not cuz they were. well, BRAINS
> ...



I disagree. You basically saying only the rich can have a college opportunity. But being rich has nothing to with being the best and the brightest. Parental income has nothing to do with intelligence. Now, money does offer benefits of affording more opportunity and quality of education, tis true. It give an advantage over those with less income to afford "the best."  Going to an Ivy League because your family is tied into certain circles or has influence will get you on the fast track. But it doesn't equate intelligence. Look at our last Pres. Bush for example. He had the best of everything and his I.Q. is questionable.  Money provides you opportunities, and freedoms. It is a means of power. 

The value of a degree marks learnedness. More qualified people in the pool, less training, less training equates money saved. The purpose of Universities are to train those going into professional fields. The more in the pool the better shopping. 

Universities despite their purpose have another, it is to make money. More students accepted the more money for the University, the bigger the budget. The less students, the less money, the smaller the budget.  It wouldn't make sense to reduce the number of students only to the wealthy. A smaller wealth pool  expects 7 figure salaries after graduation. 

The real facts are more students, more money for the Universities, and a large flooded employment and unemployed pool willing to work for less, etc. reduces business costs. It's good for business.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 14, 2011)

Also when you have less educated public, governments/corporations get away with more, see third world dictatorship, and see uneducated consumers and lack of rights. It is dangerous to those with your Twin Fist "every jackass can get [degree]" view to have everyone educated.  When I said what I said, I meant those who do the work in college, rather than sucking off the tit of the government, should not be faced with unemployment after graduation, or viewed as a disposable and dispensable workforce.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 14, 2011)

did you not pay attention to what i actually wrote?

re-read what i actually wrote

it used to be, even in my day, only two types went to college:
*the brains who got the grants and what not cuz they were. well, BRAINS*

and the rich kids

NOWHERE DID I SAY ONLY THE RICH SHOULD GO TO COLLEGE

learn to read





JohnEdward said:


> I disagree. You basically saying only the rich can have a college opportunity. But being rich has nothing to with being the best and the brightest. Parental income has nothing to do with intelligence. Now, money does offer benefits of affording more opportunity and quality of education, tis true. It give an advantage over those with less income to afford "the best."  Going to an Ivy League because your family is tied into certain circles or has influence will get you on the fast track. But it doesn't equate intelligence. Look at our last Pres. Bush for example. He had the best of everything and his I.Q. is questionable.  Money provides you opportunities, and freedoms. It is a means of power.
> 
> The value of a degree marks learnedness. More qualified people in the pool, less training, less training equates money saved. The purpose of Universities are to train those going into professional fields. The more in the pool the better shopping.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2011)

I'm not quite following the conversation.  It seems like some are suggesting that college degrees are worth less (not worthless) than they once were.  And this is so because more people are getting them.  But I also get the impression that everyone who's said this has a college degree, or in Twin Fist's case, is actively working on one.

Couldn't the ready access to advanced education be considered a good thing?  I mean, that college is attainable for so many is good.  Right?

I actually think that one of the great things about our country is that a college degree is within just about everyone's reach.  I practically flunked out of high school.  Got the GI Bill, went to a community college, got good grades, transferred to a four year college and got a BA.  I don't know if I'm part of the 53%'ers or not.  While I worked the entire time, I took every dollar of financial aid I could get.   

The biggest barrier to improving one's station in life is debt.  Kids or even adults without a lot of debt can afford to do the college thing.  It's the people who get saddled with debt and can't afford to quit the crappy job they have who end up stuck.


----------



## Darksoul (Oct 14, 2011)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy

-I'd like to offer a different perspective that ties into this conversation. And this link is simply one person's thoughts, not necessarily representative of all who fall into the 99% or into the OWS movement. I think Bill pointed out something very important earlier, that for quite some time the system has been engineered to benefit certain individuals or groups. What I mean by that is, we the people have elected politicians, who get into power, make changes to the gov't, to regulations, to finance and so forth, influenced by non-gov't forces, like lobbyists, and so on till you get to what we have today. The issue is that it has been, for the most part, legal. Want to see change, change the system. Elect different people, who will make different choices...

...easier said than done...I think we all feel the system is broken in some way, whether its the regulations, the way we vote and elect people, the way we spend tax dollars...I think at this point, the system is corrupted enough that simply voting in new people will not actually change much. Rich people, corporations, they have money, money that can influence above and beyond what the majority can hope to. How do you change something against such awesome odds, barring a revolution? I can't imagine they'll allow changes to loop holes and tax breaks if they can avoid it. (And that isn't directed at all who are rich and powerful.)

-One last thought, about what Elder and someone else posted, and that is concerning the accumulation of wealth. Some of these corporations look like hoarders. Now when I think of hoarders, I think of the t.v. series, showing often poor people, with a mental disease that compels them to acquire and keep things. Isn't that what has happened within that 1%? Are they not hoarders? Just speaking personally, it seems that if I somehow make a fortune in business, supported by a gov't that provides tax breaks and loopholes, then surely I must reinvest into the economy somehow. To me, that is the moral thing to do. The gov't is, in part, charged with looking out for the welfare of the people. Is it just the rich they're looking out for? I think the gov't should close down those loopholes. I'm sure for those corporations and whoever, if their product or services is good enough, they don't need to stand on the shoulders of gov't to succeed.

-And I think it is important to share, to lift up our fellow Americans. But no one should be compelled to, they should want to. When the middle class is strong, I believe it is so much more benficial to the rich and that kind of cycle leads to prosperity for the majority, and to a stronger nation.


Just an opinion, love this thread!


Andrew


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 14, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> college degrees mean nothing these days becasue any jackass can get one.
> 
> it used to be, even in my day, only two types went to college:
> the brains who got the grants and what not cuz they were. well, BRAINS
> ...


 


Twin Fist said:


> did you not pay attention to what i actually wrote?
> 
> re-read what i actually wrote
> 
> ...


 


I was just furthering my point of needed a health middle class. That when you make education available only to the rich there is a greater opportunity for quality education at the primary and secondary levels, kids get into the best schools at these levels that are tied to top universities and all the perks that go with it. That doesn't  When you make quality education available to those willing to take the opportunity, you are broadening the scope of education to all the best and brightest at ever economic level. Education was a status symbol, and opportunity only for the rich. Someone with a brain said, to be a world leading country to find the future movers and shakers, the best and the brightest you must tap every the level of economic level, race, creed or color. And just not limit education to a the privileged.  This helped create a middle class.  

Now you missed what I was saying.  That creating a large labor pool of educated unemployed professionals diminishes their worth, their education. This makes degrees worthless. And when those who do get jobs have to take one for less pay, below their qualification level this too diminishes a degree to say the least. It is all to the advantage of corporations; more for less. A corporation would rather by a second yacht a 4th summer mansion, and into bragging rights, than see the importance of their impact on society and the benefit to the country. Not what you said.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 14, 2011)

you said you wanted degree's to mean something

i pointed out, correctly that degrees mean less now becasue more people have them

lets put it in martial arts terms

40 years ago a blackbelt meant "he can kill you"

NOW a black belt means "the 5 yr olds parents wrote a check that cleared"

the black belt means LESS when ANYONE can get one.

so do college degrees

you want them to mean something again, you will need to make it so that fewer people have one


----------



## elder999 (Oct 14, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you said you wanted degree's to mean something
> 
> i pointed out, correctly that degrees mean less now becasue more people have them
> 
> ...




I don't agree, dude. I'm not that much older than you-what, a year?

When I was a kid, college was a lot more accessible than it is now-there was no such thing as a "student loan" until I was about 15, because no one really needed such a thing, if they really wanted to go. There were colleges for people at every level of scholastic ability-still are-and many of them were nearly free. It only cost $350 a _semester_ for an out of state student to attend a California university, and they were _free_ for  in state students. It wasn't much more for SUNY schools-even when I attended one in the 80's, it only cost something like $650 a semester. 

College degrees still depend upon what institution is conferring them for how much they mean.


----------



## Steve (Oct 14, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you said you wanted degree's to mean something
> 
> i pointed out, correctly that degrees mean less now becasue more people have them
> 
> ...


The quality of a black belt has nothing to do with how many people have them.  It has to do with a reduction in standards. 

I see your point, and agree that if standards are being lowered, they mean less, and this may be happening.  But access to education is not the same thing. 

If everyone who had a black belt was a competent black belt, exclusivity wouldn't matter.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 14, 2011)

totally different experience here in texas.

the people i went to school with, the ones that went to college, either thier parents had money, OR they were the brains that got the scholarships



elder999 said:


> I don't agree, dude. I'm not that much older than you-what, a year?
> 
> When I was a kid, college was a lot more accessible than it is now-there was no such thing as a "student loan" until I was about 15, because no one really needed such a thing, if they really wanted to go. There were colleges for people at every level of scholastic ability-still are-and many of them were nearly free. It only cost $350 a _semester_ for an out of state student to attend a California university, and they were _free_ for  in state students. It wasn't much more for SUNY schools-even when I attended one in the 80's, it only cost something like $650 a semester.
> 
> College degrees still depend upon what institution is conferring them for how much they mean.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 15, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you said you wanted degree's to mean something
> 
> i pointed out, correctly that degrees mean less now becasue more people have them
> 
> ...



You didn't read what I said did you? The devaluation of a degree isn't equated to the number of people attending a university or those who attend, standards etc. It is how those who hire the holder that makes a value determination. Respectfully your black belt analogy doesn't apply. Your views are archaic and prejudicial to all except those privileged who you see add value to degrees.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 15, 2011)

You're the 99%? Isn't that precious?
The top 1% that has been so reviled lately, pays OVER THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT of ALL Federal income taxes.
That isn't enough?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 15, 2011)

Who implement that, wasn't me?  Often times when I would teach kids, some wouldn't have dues. Some kid's parents struggled and wanted to give their kid an opportunity no matter how much of a financial strain it was on the family. Some kids wanted to train, parents didn't have the money. Other kids did have the money but didn't want to pay, and would justify it by saying they didn't have the money. Or complain about the other kids who didn't have money and where discounted. I would pull out two $10 dollars in bills and give the rich kid $1.00 in change and the poor kid the rest. I would this  this is the money you will use to pay dues for this and next month. I will change each of you 75 cents per month to train.  The I would say to the rich kid after taking his money now how are you going to train the rest of the year with only a quarter. The I turn to the other kid will all the money, and say to the rich kid with the quarter how much should I him? Should I charge proportionally to income?  I'd say when I change a poor kid too much they will not come back because they don't have the money too.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> You're the 99%? Isn't that precious?
> The top 1% that has been so reviled lately, pays OVER THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT of ALL Federal income taxes.
> That isn't enough?



...and they make over 40% of the total money made in this country.  I mean as long as we are throwing out stats.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 15, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> ...and they make over 40% of the total money made in this country.  I mean as long as we are throwing out stats.


They pay more with the Bush tax cuts (for the rich) than they did without them...
Why should 1% of the population pay nearly 40% of the taxes? Is that fair? I don't think so.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 15, 2011)

In Atlas Shrugged, the character of James Taggert comes to mind when I think about this thread.  How many James Taggerts do you see on Wall Street?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> You're the 99%? Isn't that precious?



No, it's not precious. It's just the truth. I'm have a net worth of less than the $25 million I need to build my submarine. It'll never happen, unless I win the lottery, which I only play when the prize is that high-I play the lottery for "submarine money." Seriously :lfao:

Bill Gates just went to U.S. Submarines and bought one for that much a few years back. I don't resent it or begrudge it-I just offer it up as I offered up my own story-as a matter of perspective. _He's_ in that 1%. We're somewhere near the top of the 99%. The gulf between that and the 1% is vast-far more vast than the gulf between us and the lower 50% of that 99%. Understand? Just perspective. 




Big Don said:


> The top 1% that has been so reviled lately, pays OVER THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT of ALL Federal income taxes.
> *That isn't enough? *



Well, no, Don-it's not. Bill Gates doesn't think so. Warren Buffet doesn't think so. The tax rates that they pay are the same one I pay at, and they're pretty much as low as they've ever been since WWII. Hell, during the Eisenhower administration-the Republican paradise of the 50's, a time of unprecedented economic growth, and _the greatest growth of the middle class_, we'd have been paying more than 90% income tax. While I don't expect or desire a return to that, with a U.S. national debt of $14 trillion dollars , some sort of increas makes sense. The Bush tax-cuts do not. Not under the current way taxes are structured, anyway. Something like Cain's "9,9,9" plan would be an even bigger _income_ tax cut, but really boils down to what will essentially be a 20-30% tax rate for everyone *but* corporations, who will truly only pay 9%-and it's *they* that should be taxed most severely, in my opinion, not the Bill Gateses and Warren Buffets of this world, and certainly not people in my income bracket, or the middle class-it's simply criminal that GE can take jobs overseas and pay no income tax for years, and make a profit-and Boehner and my other fellow Republicans will complain about taxing "job creators." Of course, they'll bring those jobs back once the middle class has been reduced to poverty, and education is only for the elite. 

That's why Obama made former GE CEO, Jeff Immelt his "jobs czar." :lfao:

We're all so screwed-most of us don't even know it enough to even bother asking for a reach around. :lfao:


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> They pay more with the Bush tax cuts (for the rich) than they did without them...
> Why should 1% of the population pay nearly 40% of the taxes? Is that fair? I don't think so.



ummm Lets see, the top 1% pay 38% of the taxes while they get a tad over 40% of the total income.  Your right, its not fair, there is a 2% descrepency there IF you believe everyone should pay at the same rate.  Another way of looking at it is the people who get a little less than 60% percent of the total income in the US pay 62% of the taxes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 15, 2011)

So raise the taxes 3%, take that money and issue monthly stim checks to the folks making under 14k a year, who bothered to file tax returns.  It'll equal an extra $700 a year per person then.  Wealth, redistributed.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> You're the 99%? Isn't that precious?
> The top 1% that has been so reviled lately, pays OVER THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT of ALL Federal income taxes.
> That isn't enough?


The top 1% accounts for about 35% of the total net worth in the country.  The top 20% accounts for around 85% of the total net worth in the country.  

The top 1% accounts for over 42% of the total financial wealth in the country.  The top 20% puts that number up to about 93%.

The top 1% owns about 50% of the investment assets.  The top 20% owns 88% of them.  

The top 1% makes about 21% of the income.  The top 20% makes over 60% of the income.  In order to be a top 1%'er, you'd need to make about $380k per year.  If you make over about $80k/year, you're in the top 20%.  

In contrast, the top 1% only has 5% of the total debt.  The top 20% has just over 25% of the total debt.

Are you part of the 80%?   If you make less than $80k/year, you are part of the 80% that owes 75% of the debt, but makes only about 40% of the income (not 40% of what they make... as a group, total, adding all of your 80%'er income together, the sum is 40% of the total income for the country).  Your investments total about 12% of all of the investments in the country.  That includes your 401ks.  And your total net worth is in the 15% range.

So, the answer, Don, is no.  It's not enough.  The concentration of wealth in our country is appalling and getting worse.  

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html 
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/cwed/wp/wealth_in_the_us.pdf


----------



## billc (Oct 15, 2011)

Warren Buffet would have a lot more credibility if he wasn't a tax cheat...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45889



> Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being&#8230; shall we say&#8230; _disingenuous _when he claimed his &#8220;leaders&#8221; never got around to asking for his &#8220;shared sacrifice.&#8221;  His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.
> How much of the State&#8217;s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip?  Oh, only about *a billion dollars* or so.  Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government





> tallies up the bill:
> Using only publicly-available documents, a certified public accountant (CPA) detailed Berkshire Hathaway&#8217;s tax problems to ALG researcher Richard McCarty.  Now, the American people have a better idea of how much in back taxes the company could owe Uncle Sam.
> According to page 56 of the company report, &#8220;At December 31, 2010&#8230; net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million&#8221;, or about $1 billion. McCarty explained, &#8220;Unrecognized tax benefits represent the company&#8217;s potential future obligation to the IRS and other taxing authorities.  They have to be recorded in the company&#8217;s financial statements.&#8221;
> He added, &#8220;The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway&#8217;s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.&#8221;



And it has been pointed out by numerous Pundits, that corporations are never going to actually pay taxes.  They pass their tax burden onto the people who buy their products, so, increase the tax rate on corporations, and you are increasing the taxes on what you actually buy, further hurting your bottom line, not theirs.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2011)

Yeah.  Warren Buffet's such a loser.  A rich guy advocating tax reform and a accountability among the top 1%.  What a jerk.  Can you believe that guy?   :BSmeter:


----------



## billc (Oct 15, 2011)

It would be nice if he actually paid the taxes he already owes, and then pulled out his check book and signed over all the money he wants to the federal government.   What exactly is stopping him from giving 80 percent of his wealth to the government now, without having to force an unfair tax increase on everyone else.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 15, 2011)

Prompted by post#89, a pertinent point to consider is why corporations can so abrogate the rules of the free market game as to get away with that.  

Capitalism's greatest virtue is that anyone is supposed to be able to play but that only the lucky and the good get to walk away from the table with more in their pocket than when they started.  For that principle to work, you have to have something like a level playing field with barriers to entry to the game that are not prohibitive.  Corporations and cartels skew that field such that they not only do not have to make an efficient profit to stay in business (they just manipulate markets and politicians (or consume other lesser businesses if things get too tight)) but they prevent others from entering the game.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It would be nice if he actually paid the taxes he already owes, and then pulled out his check book and signed over all the money he wants to the federal government.   What exactly is stopping him from giving 80 percent of his wealth to the government now, without having to force an unfair tax increase on everyone else.


Or he could advocate for tax reform, which is his right.  I don't know the guy, so I can't say whether everything he does is above board, but a rich dude advocating that rich dude's pay more taxes is like the president of the NRA advocating for a national gun registry.  

It's a glimpse behind the curtain.  I think it's great.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 15, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Prompted by post#89, a pertinent point to consider is why corporations can so abrogate the rules of the free market game as to get away with that.
> 
> Capitalism's greatest virtue is that anyone is supposed to be able to play but that only the lucky and the good get to walk away from the table with more in their pocket than when they started.  For that principle to work, you have to have something like a level playing field with barriers to entry to the game that are not prohibitive.  Corporations and cartels skew that field such that they not only do not have to make an efficient profit to stay in business (they just manipulate markets and politicians (or consume other lesser businesses if things get too tight)) but they prevent others from entering the game.



Bravo!

The one thing I would add is that corporations and cartels use the government as a tool to skew the playing field.  If it was just naked competition, without interference, they couldn't do what they do or grow to the leviathans they have because they can't control innovations.  

Corporations can't exist like they do without the force of law...which is a legalized monopoly on the use of force.  

I posted about Ayn Rand's character, James Taggert, in post 84 and what people need to understand is that real James Taggert's exist.  These are not good people and they are very, very wealthy.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Yeah.  Warren Buffet's such a loser.  A rich guy advocating tax reform and a accountability among the top 1%.  What a jerk.  Can you believe that guy?   :BSmeter:


When he complains that he pays too little taxes, when his company is A BILLION DOLLARS in arrears, yeah, he's full of ****, alright.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 15, 2011)

This relates to what others have said about the playing field skewed by corporations and cartels, and Wall Street where people get ridiculously wealthy and not being good people, Joe Kennedy, Charles Ponzi, Bernard Madoff, Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow, Jeff Skilling, etc. We know them because they got caught.


----------



## Steve (Oct 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> When he complains that he pays too little taxes, when his company is A BILLION DOLLARS in arrears, yeah, he's full of ****, alright.


Don't change the subject, Don.  You said that those poor little rich guys in the top 1% were being picked on.  Do you honestly believe that they're victims?  After seeing the stark reality about how much the top 1% actually owns, do you still think they're victims?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2011)




----------



## WC_lun (Oct 19, 2011)

Acording to law now, corporations are people.  Some people need to pay thier fair share of freaking taxes!  Oh wait, those people (corporations) make lots of money.  Guess they don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2011)

Here's an interesting statistic.  We all know that there are people who have an effective tax rate of 0%.  But would it surprise you to learn that over 1,500,000 of those people had an adjusted gross income of over $50,000 in 2008?

Another 6 million people with an AGI of over $50k had an effective tax rate of under 5%.  

Over 16 million people with an AGI of over $50k had an effective tax rate of between 5 and 10%.  

It's not just corporations.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Here's an interesting statistic. We all know that there are people who have an effective tax rate of 0%. But would it surprise you to learn that over 1,500,000 of those people had an adjusted gross income of over $50,000 in 2008?
> 
> Another 6 million people with an AGI of over $50k had an effective tax rate of under 5%.
> 
> ...



And if you could, you would. These are mostly legal, and one of the things that probably need to be changed.


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And if you could, you would. These are mostly legal, and one of the things that probably need to be changed.


Absolutely.  Not trying to suggest otherwise.  In fact, there is a handy spreadsheet on IRS.gov that shows details on the deductions taken by people with AGIs over $200,000 who paid no income tax.  The first is the spreadsheet from which I got the stats I mentioned before.  

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11hi.xls
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in03hi.xls

Once again, please don't get me wrong.  It is absolutely understandable that people work within the system to make as much as they can, and to avoid paying unnecessary cash to Uncle Sugar.  I get it and don't for one minute blame them.

I'm really simply pointing out that when we talk about people who end up netting 0% taxes, you're talking not just about the extreme poor, where it's understandable even if you don't agree.   We're also talking about a significant number of people at every income level.  

While we might not think it's right that someone who makes $200,000 or more should pay 30%, 40% or 40%, do we believe it's just for this person to pay 0%, or even less than 10%?  Can't we all agree that something's up there?  At least, that we should take a look?  I'm confident that there is middle ground. 

Some things I think we all agree on:

1:  That everyone should pay their fair share.  No free lunches, but nothing that will place undue burden on any household.
2:  That the tax code needs to be simplified.
3:  That the middle class needs to be supported.

We do a lot of debating on areas where we disagree, but I'd be interested to learn where we all agree.  Does anyone disagree with the three points I posted?  Can anyone else think of common ground here?  

Personally, my tax obligation is much higher than nil.  I do what I can to reduce it, but I get nailed for a pretty sizeable chunk of dough each year.  I'm not complaining.  I'm simply suggesting that everyone pay their fair share.  

And I've said enough times, I'm sure you guys are tired of hearing it.  Rich people are not victims.  It's just not constructive, in my opinion, to move from one extreme to another.  They aren't victims.  But they aren't villains either.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> While we might not think it's right that someone who makes $200,000 or more should pay 30%, 40% or 40%, do we believe it's just for this person to pay 0%, or even less than 10%? Can't we all agree that something's up there? At least, that we should take a look? I'm confident that there is middle ground.
> 
> Some things I think we all agree on:
> 
> ...



Steve, I've got to respect your patience, but you are trying to talk sense to some people who lack the capacity.



> Rich people are not victims...
> But they aren't villains either.



In the main, this is true.  But I'd say that in some casese there are those who are villains.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 19, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> In the main, this is true.  But I'd say that in some casese there are those who are villains.


For the most part, those people are POLITICIANS.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> For the most part, those people are POLITICIANS.



in some case yes, they are part of that group.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 19, 2011)

9-9-9

it makes more sense every day


----------



## elder999 (Oct 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 9-9-9
> 
> it makes more sense every day



I like it, but it needs a lot of tweaking. 

*State* sales tax in Parts of New York is as high as 8.75% already. Add on 9% to that, and you're looking at nearly 20% sales tax. In Nevada, I think it's right around 8% in Clark county(synonymous with one of my favorite places, _Vegas!!_) and in your home state, Texas, sales tax rates are much lower, but in some places, the tax placed on the purchase of goods and services would near 20%. That's in addition to the 9% income tax each individual would pay-it's a net increase across the bow of the middle class in some states. 

Frankly, I tend to think Rick Perry's proposed flat tax will prove to be a better plan, but neither of them matters: the corporate overlords that hold sway over both parties and *all* candidates want the majority of the tax burden on the already overburdened middle-class, and there it will remain, until they've achieved their goal........and the middle class is no more.....


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 19, 2011)

i am middle class, i get a refund every year, i dont feel overburdened


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 19, 2011)

One of the problems with 9-9-9 id that tthe sales tax 9 will be implemented immediately. The other 2 require a complete ovrhaul of the tax code. Not going to happen in our lifetime.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 19, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i am middle class, i get a refund every year, i dont feel overburdened


your not middle class on a nurses salary. the middle class is the doctors you work for. Unless your married to a doctor. If that is the case you don't get a refund.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

I don't get it.  Twin fist, you think a new national sales tax is good and have no problem with the taxes you currently pay?  Are you trying liberalism on for size?  I think that introducing a national sales tax is a bad idea in general, but disasters us if done prior to abolishing the nome tax.  No way I would support both.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> *9-9-9
> 
> *it makes more sense every day



You want to call the UK emergency services?


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 20, 2011)

what i have heard of your hospitals? no thanks


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> what i have heard of your hospitals? no thanks



Really, that's somewhat snarky considring we actually have some of the best in the world and they are FREE, the ambulance that picks you up is free, the paramedics that treat you are fre, the drugs are free, the surgery and the stay in hospital even if you are a visitor we don't charge you for saving your life. No system is perfect but we do a lot better than most. You shouldn't believe everything you read you know but then many people take their opinions from political leaders with agendas, cer tain American politicians will run down UK hospitals because they don't want you to have good free care so if they make us look bad the American public won't want anything similar. Of course when you're perfect, give us a ring why don't you.


----------



## crushing (Oct 20, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You want to call the UK emergency services?



You should know that the UK emergency services number has changed to 0118 999 881 999 119 7253.

[yt]ab8GtuPdrUQ[/yt]


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i am middle class, i get a refund every year, i dont feel overburdened



I thought you said you had no money, which is why you got into nursing school?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 20, 2011)

The evil of being wealthy is not paying your fair share, or not paying at all and not thinking you have too. i.e. Exxon/Mobile, GE etc. What is worse expecting others to pay, and being able to influence government to support that.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Really, that's somewhat snarky considring we actually have some of the best in the world and they are FREE, the ambulance that picks you up is free, the paramedics that treat you are fre, the drugs are free, the surgery and the stay in hospital even if you are a visitor we don't charge you for saving your life. No system is perfect but we do a lot better than most. You shouldn't believe everything you read you know but then many people take their opinions from political leaders with agendas, cer tain American politicians will run down UK hospitals because they don't want you to have good free care so if they make us look bad the American public won't want anything similar. Of course when you're perfect, give us a ring why don't you.


Well.  Free only in the same way our libraries are free.  Free in this context meaning no "out of pocket" expense. 

I'm 100% pro-single payer health care.  But "free" is a powerful word.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I thought you said you had no money, which is why you got into nursing school?


And as a student in nursing school, it's pretty unlikely he's middle class.

But all of that aside, I'm shocked that so many conservatives are in favor of introducing a NEW tax.  Seriously, I'm completely confounded. 

Here in Washington, we have a very high sales tax along with very high property taxes.  And Governor Gregoire pushed very hard for a State Income Tax.  Excuse me, but no effing way.  Sure, it's only for people who make above a certain amount...  NOW.  But 3 year from now, the bottom limit for the tax will creep lower... and then a little lower... until it's across the board and everyone's paying just a little.  Until it's no longer just a little.  It's a lot.  Screw that.  Better not to start.  Is there anyone who disagrees with me on this?  Anyone?  Liberal or Conservative?  I don't think so, but you never know.

It's like an ex-smoker saying he'll take one puff.  Or a teenage boy saying he'll only put it in a little.  Give me a break.

But because Black Walnut is fatherly, charismatic, black and most importantly, a darling of the tea party, introducing a NEW tax is just great.  Best idea ever.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Well. Free only in the same way our libraries are free. Free in this context meaning no "out of pocket" expense.
> 
> I'm 100% pro-single payer health care. But "free" is a powerful word.



I pay with taxes and National Insurance but if you, as a visitor came over, collapsed/were taken ill it would be completely free for you. If we are out of work, an old age pensioner, disabled, a student etc it is totally free for us to use. There is no cost to those at all so yes it is free.
However the amount of taxes and National Insurance I pay no way covers the actual cost of any medical treatment I have had in the past or would need again. I get free prescriptions because of a medical condition I have, I don't have to pay for my drugs. I'm not sure what you mean by 'no out of pocket expenses' though. 

We have thousands of hospitals here and you hear of reports from three or four of them and people decide our hospitals are rubbish? It's sheer ignorance to insult our National Health system just to try and score points on the sarcasm scale.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I pay with taxes and National Insurance but if you, as a visitor came over, collapsed/were taken ill it would be completely free for you. If we are out of work, an old age pensioner, disabled, a student etc it is totally free for us to use. There is no cost to those at all so yes it is free.
> However the amount of taxes and National Insurance I pay no way covers the actual cost of any medical treatment I have had in the past or would need again. I get free prescriptions because of a medical condition I have, I don't have to pay for my drugs. I'm not sure what you mean by 'no out of pocket expenses' though.
> 
> We have thousands of hospitals here and you hear of reports from three or four of them and people decide our hospitals are rubbish? It's sheer ignorance to insult our National Health system just to try and score points on the sarcasm scale.


Tez.  I agree with you on the cheap points and sarcasm.  I was just pointing out that it's not free.  Someone's paying for it.  If I, as a tourist, end up in your hospital, I might pay nothing out of pocket, but I'd owe the tax payers of your country at least a hearty handshake and a polite thank you.  No cost to me does not equal no cost.   

I only point this out because "free" is bandied about a lot in the USA.  Glenn Beck implied at one time that our libraries were free, for example.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 20, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Really, that's somewhat snarky considring we actually have some of the best in the world and they are FREE, the ambulance that picks you up is free, the paramedics that treat you are fre, the drugs are free, the surgery and the stay in hospital even if you are a visitor we don't charge you for saving your life. No system is perfect but we do a lot better than most. You shouldn't believe everything you read you know but then many people take their opinions from political leaders with agendas, cer tain American politicians will run down UK hospitals because they don't want you to have good free care so if they make us look bad the American public won't want anything similar. Of course when you're perfect, give us a ring why don't you.



Of course Tez, all too often here complex situations are looked at in overly simplistic terms.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 20, 2011)

Just an FYI, "out of pocket" means money paid out of the pocket of the client at the time of service. So in this case, a patient pays mothing out of his pockets at the time of his hospital stay...or later in a bill.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Just an FYI, "out of pocket" means money paid out of the pocket of the client at the time of service. So in this case, a patient pays mothing out of his pockets at the time of his hospital stay...or later in a bill.


  Fair enough.  Let me try again.  While there may be no cost to you personally, there is a cost.  The medical care is not "free."  

Sheesh!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 20, 2011)

Not to derail the current discussion but this thread is makingme wonder&#8230;. Is it ok to be evil if you&#8217;re NOT wealthy :EG:


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 20, 2011)

Just replying to the question of what "out of pocket" means


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 20, 2011)

For further clarification, over here in the Green and Pleasant Land, "Out of pocket" means that you have lost out on a deal e.g. if I pay £500 for a car that is worth only £200 then I am £300 out of pocket.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> For further clarification, over here in the Green and Pleasant Land, "Out of pocket" means that you have lost out on a deal e.g. if I pay £500 for a car that is worth only £200 then I am £300 out of pocket.


You just can't help but muddy the waters, eh? 

To me, out of pocket simply means what I pay vs what someone else pays, whether I pay it at the time of service or am billed later.  

The English language is completely inadequate.  Who the HELL invented it?  They should be held responsible and made to pay reparations.  I'm suing.  Call my lawyer!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 20, 2011)

Steve, I blame the French for the English language.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Steve, I blame the French for the English language.


You're right.  Seems like everything was going fine until 1066.  Stupid Normans.  King Harold II was sure no Henry V!  I mean, THAT guy could fire up the troops.  

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

If that doesn't get your blood flowing and make you want to kick some French butt, I don't know what will! 

Edit:  But I think I'm still going to sue.  Because...  I'm American and that's what we do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 20, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> And hold their manhoods cheap



now THAT is a line to raise an eyebrow...


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 20, 2011)

every year i have worked, i have gotten a refund, I am 45 you know, i have filed quite a few returns in my life.

the last TWO years years before I went back to school full time i made, COMBINED like 22K, thats 11K a year. AVERAGE

since i was 18, i have worked constantly, and i always felt like i was poor, but not starving, my best year ever i made almost 40K

apparently, doctors are now middle class.


oh Tez? 

save your time, i have heard plenty of horror stories about the english system of hospitals, no thanks, would rather take my chances in the USA


Empty Hands said:


> I thought you said you had no money, which is why you got into nursing school?


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 20, 2011)

and NOTHING IS FREE

that you  call it free is laughable

do those people work for free? of course not, what you MEAN to say is "someone pays for it for me from thier hard earned money"



Tez3 said:


> Really, that's somewhat snarky considring we actually have some of the best in the world and they are FREE, the ambulance that picks you up is free, the paramedics that treat you are fre, the drugs are free, the surgery and the stay in hospital even if you are a visitor we don't charge you for saving your life. No system is perfect but we do a lot better than most. You shouldn't believe everything you read you know but then many people take their opinions from political leaders with agendas, cer tain American politicians will run down UK hospitals because they don't want you to have good free care so if they make us look bad the American public won't want anything similar. Of course when you're perfect, give us a ring why don't you.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 20, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> now THAT is a line to raise an eyebrow...



Now, now.  Don't make me have to explain Shakespearean English too :lol:.


----------



## granfire (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Now, now.  Don't make me have to explain Shakespearean English too :lol:.



Pretty please!

<claps excitedly>


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Now, now. Don't make me have to explain Shakespearean English too :lol:.



aye, but the image it conjurs in my head...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and NOTHING IS FREE
> 
> that you  call it free is laughable
> 
> do those people work for free? of course not, what you MEAN to say is "someone pays for it for me from thier hard earned money"



She means free at the point of service, mate.  We all share the cost and take the benefits as and when we need them for emergency care.  

I've never really grasped, at the humanitarian level, why that (communal funding) is such an evil in America-land.  I've heard the arguments and the protestations about 'paying for someone elses care' and, whilst I do grasp the Nietzschean logic, they just leave a nasty impression of a selfish people concerned only with looking out for themselves.  It's much better to have a publicly funded system than one based upon personal insurance, with all it's evils of short-termism, fraud, price inflation and simple ruthlessness when the money runs out.

That leaves aside the real unpleasantness that a 'for profit' system will be much more likely to embrace a palliative for baldness, with the income that implies, than a one-shot, cheap, cure for all cancer.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> Pretty please!
> 
> <claps excitedly>



:chuckles:

Pick a passage and I'll see what I can do .  I once spent a summer helping a not-so-well educated friend of mine get his head around the Bard's language and the sheer joy he took in finally understanding that these 'boring' plays were exciting stuff was worth every hour :tup:. He loved Othello greatly .  

Of course that was back in the day when the BBC would run a series of Shakespeare works rather than 'Strictly Come X-Factor Top Model' bollards.


----------



## granfire (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:
> 
> Pick a passage and I'll see what I can do .  I once spent a summer helping a poorly educated friend of mine get his head around the Bard's language and the sheer joy he took in finally understanding that these 'boring' plays were exciting stuff was worth every hour :tup:.  Of course that was back in the day when the BBC would run a series of Shakespeare works rather than 'Strictly Come X-Factor Top Model' bollards.



Not to mention that one is not likely to pay in as much as they take out when they have a hospital stay, even with paid private insurance. One is always paying for others....


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 20, 2011)

we are self sufficiant Mark, always have been, and untill the 60's under liberal Johnson and his "great society" daydream bull ****, we still were. Now it is slowley eroding away, and the dream of 'free stuff" is seeping into our society like a cancer


NOTHING IS FREE, and you DONT all share the cost unless everyone, and i mean EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN pays taxes

that doesnt happen here, almost half our people pay NOTHING and they get the lions share of the benefits

its horsecrap to not support yourself and pay your own way

look at it this way, when you know that no one will save you, you work harder to support yourself.

thats why america has achieved more than any other nation, we are (or were) a nation of highly motivated *** kickers without compare becasue WE TOOK CARE OF BUSINESS OURSELVES



Sukerkin said:


> She means free at the point of service, mate.  We all share the cost and take the benefits as and when we need them for emergency care.
> 
> I've never really grasped, at the humanitarian level, why that (communal funding) is such an evil in America-land.  I've heard the arguments and the protestations about 'paying for someone elses care' and, whilst I do grasp the Nietzschean logic, they just leave a nasty impression of a selfish people concerned only with looking out for themselves.  It's much better to have a publicly funded system than one based upon personal insurance, with all it's evils of short-termism, fraud, price inflation and simple ruthlessness when the money runs out.
> 
> That leaves aside the real unpleasantness that a 'for profit' system will be much more likely to embrace a palliative for baldness, with the income that implies, than a one-shot, cheap, cure for all cancer.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> She means free at the point of service, mate. We all share the cost and take the benefits as and when we need them for emergency care.
> 
> I've never really grasped, at the humanitarian level, why that (communal funding) is such an evil in America-land. I've heard the arguments and the protestations about 'paying for someone elses care' and, whilst I do grasp the Nietzschean logic, they just leave a nasty impression of a selfish people concerned only with looking out for themselves. It's much better to have a publicly funded system than one based upon personal insurance, with all it's evils of short-termism, fraud, price inflation and simple ruthlessness when the money runs out.
> 
> That leaves aside the real unpleasantness that a 'for profit' system will be much more likely to embrace a palliative for baldness, with the income that implies, than a one-shot, cheap, cure for all cancer.



absolutely brilliantly stated, Mark.  Sometimes my fellow citizens of this potentially great nation are an embarrassment.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 20, 2011)

i feel the same way FC everytime someone expects something for nothing


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Now, now.  Don't make me have to explain Shakespearean English too :lol:.



Well I would but it is likely you would tell me brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage which would escalate the already declared war from the Declaration of Independence thread and likely it would not end well and you would end with saying Methink'st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee. 

But in the end What's done is done and I desire you in friendship, and I will one way or other make you amends.

So lets not go there


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 20, 2011)

:chuckles:  Verily that is most meat to my fancy, good sirrah.  For thy wit does rise with the tide and crack forth upon the rocks of hubris most mighty, tearing asunder their particles,seeming solid fast to a man's eyes, with writhing tenticles, alike to a Kraken in their puissance.

Or something like that ... meaning that I like your sense of humour too and would never knowingly endanger our good fellowship :bows with a smile:.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 20, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:  Verily that is most meat to my fancy, good sirrah.  For thy wit does rise with the tide and crack forth upon the rocks of hubris most mighty, tearing asunder their particles,seeming solid fast to a man's eyes, with writhing tenticles, alike to a Kraken in their puissance.



At first after I read that, I thought OMG another hack renfair reject geek spouting off some hack fake medieval gibberish, to get his geek thrill. Then I look up at to whom wrote it and thought aw ****, it's for real! He is British and it is the genuine stuff, damn do I feel stupid! :lol:


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the last TWO years years before I went back to school full time i made, COMBINED like 22K, thats 11K a year. AVERAGE



That's below the poverty line.  If that's middle class, what constitutes poor?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 21, 2011)

'I don't believe it'... Twin Fist AKA Victor Meldrow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKAbuoB24U&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbD21z1VnGg&feature=related


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I've never really grasped, at the humanitarian level, why that (communal funding) is such an evil in America-land.



It finally clicked for me when I realized that I couldn't just stop paying for the wars and the military industrial complex that I so vehemently disagree with.  If I stop paying, the government sends some goons with guns to throw me in a rape cage and steal any property I might have acquired.  Taxation is force.  Taxation is armed robbery.  It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, there is a gun in the room and you only have one choice and the pitiful dumbed down mob gets to make that choice for you.  At a fundamental level, the system is immoral.  

Should we figure out a voluntary system of supporting people in need?  Absolutely!  People get down on their luck and need help.  Should we rob Peter to help Paul?  It's that simple.  

When we start robbing people for the "greater good" eventually the word "good" gets propagandized by the worst people in society until it completely loses meaning.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 21, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> It finally clicked for me when I realized that I couldn't just stop paying for the wars and the military industrial complex that I so vehemently disagree with. If I stop paying, the government sends some goons with guns to throw me in a rape cage and steal any property I might have acquired. Taxation is force. Taxation is armed robbery. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, there is a gun in the room and you only have one choice and the pitiful dumbed down mob gets to make that choice for you. At a fundamental level, the system is immoral.
> 
> Should we figure out a voluntary system of supporting people in need? Absolutely! People get down on their luck and need help. Should we rob Peter to help Paul? It's that simple.
> 
> When we start robbing people for the "greater good" eventually the word "good" gets propagandized by the worst people in society until it completely loses meaning.


[yt]4nnxMhW0WL8[/yt]


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> That's below the poverty line.  If that's middle class, what constitutes poor?


If the information Twin Fist has volunteered is true, he's in a very economically depressed area. The population is 50% white, 30% black, 16% Hispanic/Latino and the rest is "other." the median family income in Nacocdoches is just over $24,000. The poverty level in the USA for 2011 is $22,350. When Twin Fist talks about poverty, about income, about taxes and about taking care of oneself with little income, he's doing so from the perspective of someone who technically earns below the poverty level (according to him), but also lives in an area where pretty much EVERYONE lives at close to the poverty level. 

I am in no way disparaging Twin Fist or where he lives.  I'm strictly pointing out that we all live within our means, and everyone here is filtering based upon the cost of living in their area.  

Point is simply this.  We have to remember the context of statements that are made.  If you earn $11,000 in a year in Nacogdoches, you might not drive a Ferrari, but you can get by. 

In Seattle, you will not survive on $11k/year unless you have other resources.  Whether those resources are multiple roommates, savings, a trust account, the bank of Mom and Dad... something.  Without those other resources, you will necessarily be looking into some kind of public assistance.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 21, 2011)

Jenna said:


> In terms of tax _evasion_, I think that is unacceptable behaviour from ultra-wealthy even when the economy IS sound.  I find it distasteful that the those from the Rothschild and Rockefeller bracket down to the brackets of the Buffets and Gates (though not those specifically as I do not want to argue philanthropies) are evading tax when the great mass of the populus are struggling to make ends meet and are STILL required to pay their own revenue dues (which in turn would offer its hand in the form of government help should the unlikely event occur that those ultra-wealthy people needed it).


If you are going to use the term tax evasion then we are almost all guilty of it in way or another.  If you have kids and mark them down as dependents you are evading taxes, by your use of the wording.  If you claim charities on your taxes, then you are evading taxes.  So if it is wrong for the wealthy to do such things (meaning finding more loopholes to avoid taxes), then it should be held the same for everyone.  



> Is that immoral behaviour?  I do not know.  I do think it shows ZERO compassion towards those dupes like myself that have purchased their wares or deposited money in their institutions.


Then don't purchase their wares or deposit money in their institution



> One story that for me since typified this kind of behaviour from a while back was the band U2 who moved their money offshore where it was sheltered from Irish taxation while that much lauded home nation of theirs off whom they made their living both literally and lyrically ran out of funds.  Is it for Bono and U2 to rescue Ireland?  Of course not.  Their money made fair and square.  I would suggest that it was perhaps just distasteful though.  Immoral?


Yes, but by doing that, they keep more of their money do other things such as support the many charities they are involved in. (http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/245-u2).


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2011)

miguksaram said:


> If you are going to use the term tax evasion then we are almost all guilty of it in way or another.  If you have kids and mark them down as dependents you are evading taxes, by your use of the wording.  If you claim charities on your taxes, then you are evading taxes.  So if it is wrong for the wealthy to do such things (meaning finding more loopholes to avoid taxes), then it should be held the same for everyone.


I disagree with this.  You are referring to three different things: loopholes, deductions and tax evasion.

Deductions are legal and are simply a way to determine how much I owe in taxes.  I'm in no way evading taxes by taking a lawful deduction.  Rather, I'm correctly calculating the amount I owe.

Evasion is not paying taxes due, and is illegal.  If, after taking any lawful deductions, I owe $100 and only pay $10, I'm guilty of evasion.

Loopholes are a little less concrete, but here's my definition.  A loophole is a deduction that is legal, but is contrary to the spirit and intent of that deduction.  My opinion is that you know when you're exploiting a loophole and when you aren't.  Closing loopholes is ONE reason that our tax code is so complex.  CREATING loopholes is another.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I disagree with this.  You are referring to three different things: loopholes, deductions and tax evasion.
> 
> Deductions are legal and are simply a way to determine how much I owe in taxes.  I'm in no way evading taxes by taking a lawful deduction.  Rather, I'm correctly calculating the amount I owe.Evasion is not paying taxes due, and is illegal.  If, after taking any  lawful deductions, I owe $100 and only pay $10, I'm guilty of evasion.



Yes I know there is a difference, however, I am referring to the way the OP used the term tax evasion.  She insinuated, or perhaps I assumed she meant, that the rich are "evading taxes", by using the opportunities of loop holes, deductions, ect.  as do we all.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 21, 2011)

That's just when they aren't down-right refusing to pay them ... Vodaphone I am looking at you!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> She means free at the point of service, mate. We all share the cost and take the benefits as and when we need them for emergency care.
> 
> I've never really grasped, at the humanitarian level, why that (communal funding) is such an evil in America-land. I've heard the arguments and the protestations about 'paying for someone elses care' and, whilst I do grasp the Nietzschean logic, they just leave a nasty impression of a selfish people concerned only with looking out for themselves. It's much better to have a publicly funded system than one based upon personal insurance, with all it's evils of short-termism, fraud, price inflation and simple ruthlessness when the money runs out.
> 
> That leaves aside the real unpleasantness that a 'for profit' system will be much more likely to embrace a palliative for baldness, with the income that implies, than a one-shot, cheap, cure for all cancer.



Mark, I wanted to come back to this and comment a bit further.

Early America encompassed a spirit if individualism and self reliance and was built out of the labors of those who often were willing to go it alone make something from nothing, do what it takes, etc. I certainly understand that.

However, as a cohesive nation we need to take care of our own people, including holding up those who are less fortunate. We are a nation, and we are responsible for each other. If we do not embrace that concept, then we will always be divided on a personal and fundamental level and there is no truly cohesive nation. 

The way I see it, we all do better when we all do better. As a nation, we do not prosper when I prosper at the expense of my neighbor. We can actually all prosper together and we are all lifted to a much higher level collectively, than most of us would be able to climb alone. No man is an island, and all that.

This does not need to mean the demise of the individuality and self reliance that marked the early days of this nation. There is always room for that. But some things are done better when they are done collectively, for the benefit of all.

I pay my taxes and I don't mind doing so. I am smart enough to understand that for a nation to exist and thrive, it needs funding on a governmental level. I lament the waste that is often prevalent in government spending; I'm not blind to it. But the idea that taxes are simply robbery of the people is nonsense. I would rather see my taxes spent on something that would be for the benefit of the American people on a tangible level. Access to quality healthcare, for all of our citizens, fits that bill nicely. That's a much better way to spend our tax money than on global military misadventures, the likes of what we keep seeing over and over and over.

I don't understand the resistance to the idea of readily accessible heathcare. We are a wealthy nation and can certainly afford it. But people like to throw around terms like "socialism" and "communism" and demonize the very notion of it. That's an ignorant stance to take, it's fighting against something that would benefit everyone and would remove the nonsense that is the health insurance industry. To me, it's a no-brainer. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see that it's a good idea that is way way overdue, and figuring out a viable way to implement it ought to be of the highest priority.

But alas, ignorance abounds and people scream against it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I pay my taxes and I don't mind doing so.



I mind a lot.  I don't want to pay for murdering brown people overseas.  It's wrong and I don't want anything I do to support that.



Flying Crane said:


> I am smart enough to understand that for a nation to exist and thrive, it needs funding on a governmental level. I lament the waste that is often prevalent in government spending; I'm not blind to it. But the idea that taxes are simply robbery of the people is nonsense.



If I stop paying over 50% of my federal taxes, the portion that goes to murder, goons in costume come to my door with guns.  They throw me in a cage and take my property.  How is this not robbery?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I mind a lot. I don't want to pay for murdering brown people overseas. It's wrong and I don't want anything I do to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> If I stop paying over 50% of my federal taxes, the portion that goes to murder, goons in costume come to my door with guns. They throw me in a cage and take my property. How is this not robbery?



i agree that a lot of our taxes are misspent, and that should change.  I agree with your protest of these particular expenditures as well.  That's not how I would like my taxes spent.  I'd rather those taxes go to pay for healthcare and education for all.

taxes, in and of itself, is not robbery.  Without taxes, there is no nation.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 21, 2011)

i dont want my taxes payng for abortions, but the government doesnt care what i want, or what you want Cinderella.


9-9-9


----------



## granfire (Oct 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i dont want my taxes payng for abortions, but the government doesnt care what i want, or what you want Cinderella.
> 
> 
> 9-9-9



Well, you taxes don't pay for abortions.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2011)

9-9-9... again.  Simple question.  Why do you support creating a new Federal tax?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 21, 2011)

Steal: (steal) take without the owner's consent; In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

See taxes aren't stealing, because the government gave themselves permission to do so, rendering it legal.
Now if they hadn't given themselves permission, it would be illegal.


----------



## granfire (Oct 21, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Steal: (steal) take without the owner's consent; In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
> 
> See taxes aren't stealing, because the government gave themselves permission to do so, rendering it legal.
> *Now if they hadn't given themselves permission, it would be illegal*.



:lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 21, 2011)

larceny: the act of taking something from someone *unlawfully*; 

theft : the *illegal* taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. ...

Illegal: prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules;
Unlawful: Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules

So, as long as they pass a law, it's legal. The idea of income taxes has been hashed out deeply, and until they amended the US Constitution, those -were- illegal. But, with the hole plugged, it's totally legal for the government to take a portion, or all in fact, of your income, to take your property if you don't give them your cash, to deprive you of your freedom should you not give up your earnings. Hell, buried in the tax code somewhere it's probably ok for a man in a hood to lop off your goolies and serve them for tea.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2011)

The idea that theft is defined by legality only means that the thieves need to become politicians in order to be legitimate.  

This question strikes at the very root of what this thread is about and what the Occupy Wall Street protests are about.  We are watching our society fall apart because the worst elements of society have become "legitimate" by taking over the government and legally using to to murder and steal.  There is nothing evil about being wealthy, if you generated your wealth without coercion.  I applaud that.  However, if you generate your wealth because you used the force of law to create a monopoly for yourself, well, that is evil.  

It's all related and it all goes back to the nature of the system.  If violence and coercion is involved, it only leads to more violence and coercion until the system eats itself from within like a cancer.  As soon as we allow for the use of violence and coercion to solve our problems, other "problems" will be found that need to be solved with violence and coercion.  It cannot be stopped.  It cannot be limited.  For example, the US Constitution was an experiment in trying to limit violence and coercion in our society and it failed.  

The best parable I can think of is the One Ring from Lord of the Rings.  Great beings can attempt to use Sauron's ring for good, but his spirit infects everything it touches until the striving for good becomes evil.  

Admitting that taxation is theft is akin to throwing the Ring into the Crack of Doom.  When we can acknowledge that taxation is force, that it is stealing, we will grow into a sustainable and just society.  Until then, history will rhyme and rhyme and rhyme with the past.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Without taxes, there is no nation.



Why?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Why?



how do you envision a nation would operate without a source of revenue?  Or what would be an alternative source of revenue?


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 21, 2011)

still trying to float that old lie i see


I know better, save your time. As long as money goes top planned parenthood, our taxes are going towards abortions



granfire said:


> Well, you taxes don't pay for abortions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> how do you envision a nation would operate without a source of revenue?  Or what would be an alternative source of revenue?


 
Couldn't one choose to pay for things in which they agree? Why does a gun need to be involved?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, you taxes don't pay for abortions.



Hi Gran,

actually, I would have no problem at all with public healthcare funds being used to pay for abortions.  It's a legitimate health issue for women, and there's no reason to exclude it from being provided.  Anybody who thinks they have the right to deny legitimate healthcare to a woman is an idot and a bully.  The scare tactics, the notion that women use abortion as a first line of birth control are nonsense.  The cases of that happening are rare and probably involve someone who is mentally ill or a drug addict.  Anything can be abused, but the possibility of abuse is no reason to eliminate it for all.  By and large, nobody wants an abortion.  Nobody sees it as a "good" thing to do, something to look forward to.  But it's a viable and legitimate option that ought to be made available to someone making a tough decision.  I'd rather have it done safely with good medical facilities and well trained medical personnel, then see it go underground where it will not be safe.

On that note, there are so many highly effective forms of preventative birth control that there is really very little reason for abortions to be necessary, if the preventative methods are made easily available and people are educated on their use, and people are not made to feel shame or embarrasment if they seek them out.  Pushing for this would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed, and ought to be a front-line issue for anyone concerned with abortions and women's reproductive health.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Couldn't one choose to pay for things in which they agree? Why does a gun need to be involved?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



It's kind of a nice idea, if we could state that we don't want our taxes to pay for X or Y.  Maybe we could un-fund the military that way, scale it back to a size where it is only useable for DEFENSE of this nation, rather than pushing our agenda on the entire globe.

I don't know how that could be implemented and I highly doubt it tho.


----------



## granfire (Oct 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Gran,
> 
> actually, I would have no problem at all with public healthcare funds being used to pay for abortions.  It's a legitimate health issue for women, and there's no reason to exclude it from being provided.  Anybody who thinks they have the right to deny legitimate healthcare to a woman is an idot and a bully.  The scare tactics, the notion that women use abortion as a first line of birth control are nonsense.  The cases of that happening are rare and probably involve someone who is mentally ill or a drug addict.  Anything can be abused, but the possibility of abuse is no reason to eliminate it for all.  By and large, nobody wants an abortion.  Nobody sees it as a "good" thing to do, something to look forward to.  But it's a viable and legitimate option that ought to be made available to someone making a tough decision.  I'd rather have it done safely with good medical facilities and well trained medical personnel, then see it go underground where it will not be safe.
> 
> On that note, there are so many highly effective forms of preventative birth control that there is really very little reason for abortions to be necessary, if the preventative methods are made easily available and people are educated on their use, and people are not made to feel shame or embarrasment if they seek them out.  Pushing for this would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed, and ought to be a front-line issue for anyone concerned with abortions and women's reproductive health.



Been partly regurgitated in a past thread, with the usual players turning 2 or more deaf ears to the facts of life. I could not agree with you more.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 21, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Couldn't one choose to pay for things in which they agree? Why does a gun need to be involved?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



I might have believed in such a utopian ideal when I was eighteen, Maka ... thirty years on then, I'm sorry, you want to play in the house you pay the rent or you're out on your ear.  

Now that's an idea I could get behind, deportation and seizure of assets for non-payment of taxes.  More than a little rough on private citizens but fabulous for getting corporations to toe the line they otherwise ignore.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 21, 2011)

You dont have to tax income to fund a nation. But, someone has to pay for all the things government does.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 21, 2011)

dude

you are either stoned or joking

there are PLENTY of reason to be anti abortion


I happen to be pro choice, but there is NO reason that abortions should be funded with tax dollars and trust me, there MOST abortions are birth control. Nurse. I know the numbers




Flying Crane said:


> Hi Gran,
> 
> actually, I would have no problem at all with public healthcare funds being used to pay for abortions.  It's a legitimate health issue for women, and there's no reason to exclude it from being provided.  Anybody who thinks they have the right to deny legitimate healthcare to a woman is an idot and a bully.  The scare tactics, the notion that women use abortion as a first line of birth control are nonsense.  The cases of that happening are rare and probably involve someone who is mentally ill or a drug addict.  Anything can be abused, but the possibility of abuse is no reason to eliminate it for all.  By and large, nobody wants an abortion.  Nobody sees it as a "good" thing to do, something to look forward to.  But it's a viable and legitimate option that ought to be made available to someone making a tough decision.  I'd rather have it done safely with good medical facilities and well trained medical personnel, then see it go underground where it will not be safe.
> 
> On that note, there are so many highly effective forms of preventative birth control that there is really very little reason for abortions to be necessary, if the preventative methods are made easily available and people are educated on their use, and people are not made to feel shame or embarrasment if they seek them out.  Pushing for this would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed, and ought to be a front-line issue for anyone concerned with abortions and women's reproductive health.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 21, 2011)

Serious question, John.  Is that your religion talking or do you truly know that to be a fact?

After all, birth control is readily available and everyone with a brain (who is not drunk) knows the consequences of 'unprotected' sex, so I find it hard to imagine that more than a minority of abortions are retroactive birth control.

Of course, I can only speak for myself and the people I know on such a matter, so I am hardly an authority.


----------



## granfire (Oct 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> dude
> 
> you are either stoned or joking
> 
> ...



Score one for personal attack and one for trying to heave this train of the track.....

And no, tax money still does not go towards abortion. nurse know thy numbers.
(and I doubt you work in the gynocologist's office)


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 21, 2011)

Mark, I am pro choice, in fact, i go and give the people picketing clinics a hard time. I would FIGHT to keep abortion legal


that being said, it should never be paid for with tax money.

and yeah, i know this for a fact. I have talked to the nurses and doctors that perform them, I have been in the room for several as part of my training. I have SEEN the results of the proceedure. And I have read and reviewed the charts of the pt's

&#8226; *Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant*. 



YOU GET THAT?? the MAJORITY were failed birth control

wanna retract that crap?

more:

Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]
&#8226; Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
*
Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

*
&#8226; Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]
&#8226; About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


also


 Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order.[18] About 20% of abortion patients report using Medicaid to pay for abortions[6] (virtually all in states where abortion services are paid for with state dollars).[19]


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 21, 2011)

WRONG AGAIN

dont you get embarrassed being so totally, and reguarly proven wrong?




granfire said:


> Score one for personal attack and one for trying to heave this train of the track.....
> 
> And no, tax money still does not go towards abortion. nurse know thy numbers.
> (and I doubt you work in the gynocologist's office)


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 21, 2011)

Gently, my friends.  

Emotive issues sometimes spawn strong words, I know - I'm as guilty of it as anyone .  

But when we've been around for a while on the boards then we have to make allowances for each other as we learn how our 'Internet voice' comes across.  Once we start to 'shout' then most hope for a sensible conversation evaporates and often-times the thread goes to hell in a handcart.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 21, 2011)

when people tell me i dont know what i do in fact know, i admit to taking some pleasure in rubbing thier noses into it.

what can i say, it is a character flaw


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I might have believed in such a utopian ideal when I was eighteen, Maka ... thirty years on then, I'm sorry, you want to play in the house you pay the rent or you're out on your ear.
> 
> Now that's an idea I could get behind, deportation and seizure of assets for non-payment of taxes.  More than a little rough on private citizens but fabulous for getting corporations to toe the line they otherwise ignore.



Yeah, it's pie in the sky and it's not going to happen for a long time.  People have a lot of growing to do...starting with myself.  It takes integrity to live without having people in costumes waving guns in everyone's faces.  THAT my friend, the whole world is short on as of this moment.

That said, I would be happy with as small of a government as possible and some basic property rights.  I don't know how else we are going to throw the thieves and murderers off of the levers of power.  I do know that we can't go asking government to solve the problems that it caused.  We don't have that much control of the system.  That's 90% of what we talk about here in the study.  

When I was young and fresh and liberal, I had faith that the government could be turned around and reformed into something beneficial to humanity.  Now, I think I see the nature of it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2011)

I'd still like for someone to explain why any conservative would support a new federal tax, or 9-9-9 in general.  Anyone?


----------



## granfire (Oct 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'd still like for someone to explain why any conservative would support a new federal tax, or 9-9-9 in general.  Anyone?



they don't have to pay it?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 22, 2011)

I'm ok with it, I'm not thrilled by it.  It's the whole 'if were gonna tax folks, then everyone should be involved.'.  Personally, I'm against taxing income but going to a flat national sales tax as I've detailed before.


----------



## granfire (Oct 22, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm ok with it, I'm not thrilled by it.  It's the whole 'if were gonna tax folks, then everyone should be involved.'.  Personally, I'm against taxing income but going to a flat national sales tax as I've detailed before.




There are models out there that simplify the tax code, make it more 'equal' and fair, lower the burden over all, reduce/eliminate loopholes and such while still creating more revenue...

Man I really need to find that.

(and try to figure out why it's not already implemented...)


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2011)

I would support repealing the income tax, going back to Constitutional Taxes, and abolishing the Federal Reserve.  I'd love to be earning and spending real gold and silver coin and trading in notes that are backed up by something that is 100% exchangeable.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 22, 2011)

Income tax is constitutional. 16th amendment made it so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Income tax is constitutional. 16th amendment made it so.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



Repeal the income tax.  I believe that's the first thing I said.  If we're going to be taxed at all on the Federal level, I would prefer those that were originally mentioned in the Constitution.  Those methods of robbery are less onerous.

Lastly, a general reform of the monetary system cannot be understated.  That alone would limit the growth of the guns and butter state.  Also, imagine what our economy would look like if the currency you saved consistently gained in value?  Think about how frugal, responsible, and self sufficient people would become because every time you save one of those coins, you know it's going to be able to get you much much more in the future.  

Contrast this with fiat money and taxing the unborn.  The guns and butter state need a constantly inflating money supply in order to keep growing.  This "inflation tax" transfers our wealth to the government and the evil parasites that run it.  This is why the End the Fed aspect of the Occupy Wall Street movement is so powerful.  This single move would generate more liberty then just about anything we could do politically.  All of the other government rollback would naturally follow the death of fiat currency.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 22, 2011)

9-9-9 makes the most sense

all give equally, corp rates are lowered to a compititive rate, the sales tax is hard but doable.

and 9%, FOR ALL, is fair as fair can get


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 22, 2011)

I might not be riding a precisely matched horse with Maka on all that he feels on this subject but we are on the same page when it comes to overhauling the financial system to something that bears a realistic relationship to the actual value of goods and services in the economy and does not require sequential devaluations of the currency and unsecured inflations of the money supply just to keep things turning.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I might not be riding a precisely matched horse with Maka on all that he feels on this subject but we are on the same page when it comes to overhauling the financial system to something that bears a realistic relationship to the actual value of goods and services in the economy and does not require sequential devaluations of the currency and unsecured inflations of the money supply just to keep things turning.


 
I think this is something most people would agree upon if the knew about it. It's root striking, actually, to the subject of this thread.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2011)

Sukerkin

Doesn't an end to fiat currency also mean an end to Keynsianism? If the government can no longer inflate the currency in order to fund itself, won't this massively contract the size and scope of government?

Thoughtfully yours...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 22, 2011)

In part that could be so, aye.  However, with a properly balanced economy where money is not some ephemerally gambled pseudo-product, then catastrophic fluctuations should be rare. Plus, a prudent government should have a reserve for contingencies.

As I ever try to get across when these topics arise, there is a world of difference between 'wealth' and 'money'.  One is a measure of the actual goods and services in an economy, the other should just be a medium of exchange.  When it becomes a product to be played with in fictional currency games then you start to have problems.  Tie that into fractional reserve banking and 'investments' that are simply short term, profit siphoning, ventures and you're on a road that leads only to pain.  There may be a few parties along the way, before the bar tab becomes due, but the hangovers are far worse than the periods of pleasure.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2011)

What are the chances that the money powers actually allow reform?  

I say this because Bank of America just shipped a 75 trillion weapon of financial destruction to the US. If the Euro goes down, the American people get held hostage by this bad debt. 

The evils of being wealthy indeed...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------

