General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
A message to those who think that someday they will benefit from GOP upper tax rates.
It's never going to happen.
You will never be that wealthy.
And you will never win the lottery.
A lot of people support lower taxes for the celebrity class, because 'you never know.'
I do. Ain't gonna happen.
Work hard and strive, but vote Democratic to better the real lives of you and yours, the 99%, right now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)where you don't have to be hiding in an armed fortress, guarding your stash, and your family from kidnappers.
The libertarian dream is a nightmare.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)After paying off my house a couple of months back, I decided it was time to fix body damage to my car. I discovered the shop I know and love is out of business.
I have a farm 250 miles away. I have two different routes for driving there. And I have my usual stop along each way where there isn't a lot of business and the bathrooms are clean. On both routes, my stop is no longer there.
If this is the worst I have to put up with, then I don't have much reason to complain. But it does illustrate in a small way something in the same vein you just brought up. The suffering of others have a negative impact on my life.
-------------------
And then there is a very famous historical example: Typhoid Mary infected a lot of her wealthy employers. Universal healthcare is vitally important for the wealthy. Some of them are just too stupid to figure that out.
-------------------
In the meantime, somewhere John Galt is happily mining his own minerals using mining tools that he fashioned himself using tools that he also fashioned himself and powered by his all powerful work ethic. He hauls his minerals to the plant he personally built with his own two hands over roads he build with his own two hands in a truck he built with own two hands out of parts he built with his own two hands out of materals, etc, ad nauseum. He then smelts his ore himself after building a smelter that is fueled by coal that he personally dug out of the ground with a shovel that he personally constructed. Next he uses the material he has just produced to personally build THE GREATEST INVENTION EVER which he himself invented.
Then he buys it himself because John Galt is fully self-sufficient.
Fortunately, he also has his own printing press (which he built out of...) and so prints his own money. So he keeps getting richer. So that he can buy more stuff that he builds since there is nobody else to make products for him to buy because John Galt needs nobody.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,615 posts)
Johns an 'only child' lol
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)pnwmom
(108,960 posts)Who's taking the money that he prints for stuff that he needs? But I guess he's just buying from himself, so that wouldn't be a problem . . . .
eallen
(2,953 posts)There are a lot of people whose income has, will, or reasonably might put them in the top bracket some year. Many more than who do that in any particular year.
<i>That by itself does not make them a political foe.</i>
Some of them post here.
And most who buy into the libertarian fantasy never will make that much money.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)consciences and empathy, will find it difficult to support policies that will decrease their wealth/power. There are exceptions of course.
eallen
(2,953 posts)There are many in the top income tax brackets who support liberal politicians with money, time, and effort.
An individual who makes $200,000 a year will see only a couple of thousand dollar difference between a 28% top bracket and a 35% top bracket. (Those who think the difference is $14,000 don't know how taxes work!) That's well within what many are willing to pay for better political policies.
supraTruth
(496 posts)Besides, does ANY1 REALLY want to have to step around the homeless or look at junker cars in front of them?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why are any of the media owned by wealthy progressives? You say many support liberal politicians. With respect that's a load of crap. First of all there are even very many "liberal" politicians. And many of those are struggling. Give me some examples of liberal politicians that get big contributions from the wealthy. And if you think Pres Obama is liberal, then there is no use to continue this conversation.
eallen
(2,953 posts)He may not be far left. He's certainly not socialist. I'm not sure what "progressive" means.
But he is quite liberal.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)How many liberals are even in Congress? Why are none of the media owned by liberal supporting wealthy?
RKP5637
(67,089 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Thinking the tax rates of the wealthy will make a difference is a fallacy. It's simply not enough.
Politicians need to be straight with the normal people...yes you will pay more taxes. Stop dreaming that all will be taken care of by others.
ag_dude
(562 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)Everyone thinks that someone else should shoulder the sacrifice.
Things aren't going to get better until this country feels some real pain and stops kicking its problems down the road.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)They keep discussing tax cuts as part of the annual budget. All they have to do is consider tax cuts as a separate bill. Democrats refuse to budge on cutting taxes for the wealthy. Republicans refuse to cut taxes without tax cuts for the wealthy. Nothing gets passed. The holiday ends. Problem solved.
I'm assuming the whole point of making it a holiday instead of a cut was so it could end without anyone having to take the blame. If you want to blame anyone, blame the 2001 congress that decided to make it a holiday instead of a cut.
Or maybe Obama in his final term will suck it up and veto any more extensions. He can take the hit and retire from politics when his 2nd term is done.
I know he lost me there for awhile when he extended the cuts. Now I am cynically hoping that was a political decision and not a policy decision.
TBF
(32,017 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)that they will never be able to come to agreement on.
Politically the choices are to extend as is or lapse them all.
TBF
(32,017 posts)tax cuts from the past 30 years. I know my bill will go up, but so will many others (who make much more & should be paying much more). I would take that deal. And then we work on budget cuts. Any mom who does the household bills knows you've got to look at spending too.
dkf
(37,305 posts)It doesn't matter what makes sense or not. What matters is that repeal as is is viable and can be done through inaction. Actually putting together good legislation will have too much opposition in our do nothing congress.
icarusxat
(403 posts)it will make a difference
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I said this once here, and was met by anger, derision and shock.
Let's hope that doesn't happen again.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The butt-sniffers of the super-rich do not have an expectation of being rich themselves, and more than SS cannon fodder expected to be Fuhrer someday.
Some people identify with authority because that makes them feel to be aligned with power.
That's all it is. The working class white who is all upset about the prospect of Mitt Romney paying taxes has no expectation of winning the lottery.
Some peasants used to gladly pay taxes to be spent on finery for the king. They did not expect to be king, they felt that having a grandly dressed king made them grander.
They believe given enough time, the too will be rich. All brought to you by the 401k.
louis-t
(23,273 posts)I've talked to repug voters who have told me they hope to be rich "someday" and that's why they vote repug. Silly, delusional people.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)louis-t
(23,273 posts)in that intro.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)
progressoid
(49,952 posts)"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)they, themselves are not of any worth, so better to kiss the ass of the rich and powerful, as they have for hundreds of years.
former9thward
(31,949 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,534 posts)But I think the red states tend to be the 'dumb' states.
former9thward
(31,949 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,534 posts)
jayschool
(180 posts)Top states by IQ:
"In 2006, a company called Morgan Quitno developed the Smartest State Award.
Compare this list to the one below it, called McDaniel's Estimated Average IQ Score (2004). There seems to be some correlation between the smart-states list and the average-IQ-score-by-state list. However, don't take these results too seriously. IQ testing has been widely criticized as being too generalized, and NOT a valid assessment of anything too important."
1. VERMONT (Blue)
2. MASSACHUSETTS (Blue)
3. CONNECTICUT (Blue)
4. NEW JERSEY (Blue-ish with a red blotch in Trenton)
5. MAINE (Blue with a red spot in the governor's mansion)
6. VIRGINIA (Purple)
7. MONTANA (Red with blue highlights)
8. WISCONSIN (Don't ask)
9. IOWA (Blue)
10. PENNSYLVANIA (Blue-ish)
11. NEBRASKA (Deep Red)
12. NEW HAMPSHIRE (Purple)
13. MINNESOTA (Blue and Bachmann)
14. RHODE ISLAND (Blue)
15. KANSAS (Blood Red)
McDaniel's Estimated Average IQ Score by State
1. MASSACHUSETTS........................................104.3
2. NEW HAMPSHIRE..........................................104.2
3. NORTH DAKOTA............................................103.8
4. VERMONT....................................................103.8
5. MINNESOTA.................................................103.7
6. MONTANA....................................................103.4
7. MAINE.........................................................103.4
8. IOWA..........................................................103.2
9. CONNECTICUT...............................................103.1
10. WISCONSIN.................................................102.9
11. KANSAS......................................................102.8
12. SOUTH DAKOTA............................................102.8
13. NEW JERSEY................................................102.8
14. WYOMING....................................................102.4
15. NEBRASKA....................................................102.3
Blue, in general, means higher IQ, and the smartest Reds tend to be in the Great Plains. They just don't vote smart.
eppur_se_muova
(36,247 posts)I have nothing against wealth, but I wouldn't shame myself with over-the-top greed.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,396 posts)probably really DO believe in "miracles" though.........
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and still not pay the top marginal rate.
If I earned twenty times what I earn now, I wouldn't care about paying a little bit extra on the earnings *above* the cutoff amount.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the one guy who was about 40 was pointing to the other guy and asking "what if he becomes rich" and the other guy was at least mid fifties. I kept trying to return to reality, but could not get through.
Some people never let go of the dream.
But on the other hand, I know a retired guy who makes $100,000 a year in his retirement. And he probably benefts very well from the Bush tax cuts, and wild eyed liberals like me WOULD increase his taxes. Same with the head of the water department, makes around 100K and is a big Republican.
TBF
(32,017 posts)not in the scheme of things. The professional classes can certainly pay more (and I'm in that class myself), but the thing people are missing is that it's not the folks making under half a million that are "rich". It's the folks who are making so much money off their inheritance/investments that they aren't tied to a paycheck.
I'd start by repealing all of the cuts to the capital gains tax that have been made in the past 30 years, repeal all the Bush tax cuts (or start with all those over $250K - either way), and then go from there.
We also need to cut spending - I'd start with the Pentagon.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Why do you believe that somebody who makes $400,000 a year is NOT rich? Why do you think that somebody making $250,000 is NOT rich?
Do you make $300,000 yourself, or do you just self-identify with those who do?
The average income of the top 4% (meaning the top 5% without the top 1%) is $275,151. So how does somebody in the top 5% not qualify as rich. They are certainly, undeniably (I hope) richER than 95% of the rest of us. So how is that not rich? This isn't the Guiness book of world records. You don't have to be the richest person in the world to qualify as rich.
As for $100,000. Again, the average income of the middle quintile is only $45,225. So $100,000 is more than twice as much as more than 50% of us make. To somebody making only $40,000 a year (which is most people in this country) $100,000 is a hell of a lot of money. Not just a little bit more money than they currently make, but twice as much. And not just a big pile of money that falls on them once, but every week, every month, every year.
As for ending the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $100,000, it's not that big of a deal. A person making $110,000 under this plan would pay a whole $200 in extra taxes. That's not gonna ruin their lives. Heck, my own taxes went up about $180 a year in the Obama surrender of 2010. If I can afford a $200 tax hike at $11,000 in income, then I am quite sure a $100,000 couple can afford it too.
TBF
(32,017 posts)Yes, I know what I'm talking about (ie I have that kind of income). Yes, the tax cuts should be repealed. Even more importantly the capital gains cuts should be repealed (the last 30 years worth).
I know in my own case we are close to the top 1% in income, which allows for none of our debt (student loans) - I'm not sure how you'd want to calculate but we could do it either way (either on net worth or just income). I'm willing to pay more. But I want to see those capital gains cuts repealed - and I want defense cut substantially.
That's my opinion - my guess is that you and I have much more in common than I would with someone making $1M a year. You know?
Edited to add:
The latest numbers from the IRS -- based on 2009 tax returns -- show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $343,927 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this elite status reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.
Read more: http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html#ixzz1vzciWKbk
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)just because there is a strata of super rich above you, and then a much smaller strata of super-duper rich above them, does not make the rich any less rich, any more than the existence of people who are 7'2" makes a person who is 6'6" non-tall, or the existence of 1,000 pound people makes 300 pound people non-corpulent.
You make as much money in one year as I do in ten or twenty, and you think we have a lot in common? My total income from the last twenty five years 1985-2010 is $282,092, so I am not seeing much in common with somebody who makes that much, or more, in one year.
You say that you "know what you are talking about". Perhaps to imply that I don't.
Which would be true, I don't know what life is like on the other side of the median income. But I certainly know what the perspective is from the bottom. You sound like a person who is on the 90th floor of the Emprie State building, looking up and saying "I am a long way from the top, and look, there are even people flying way up in private jets."
But there are other people on the tenth floor and twentieth floor, lots and lots of such people, looking up at you and saying "wow, he/she is a long way up there."
I grew up with very little money. My dad worked in a factory and when I left for college (scholarships and VA money) I had some money from working in the summer and a bunch of $25 savings bonds that I had gotten for birthdays. That's it.
I think there are people at the very top making sure that people down below (and that includes me) do a lot of infighting so nothing ever changes. Quite frankly I think you've walked right into that trap. I agreed with everything you said about taxation yet you were determined to fight with me - absolutely determined that we could not have anything in common. That's not in your interest and it's not in my interest. But it most certainly is in Mitt Romney's interest for you to react that way.
Makes me wonder which side you are really on.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)
and of the bottom 50%.
Those above the median income are perfectly free to have solidarity with the bottom 50%, but they are not free to delude themselves that they are part of it.
The thing is that the bottom 50% is getting squeezed, not just by the top .1% or by the top 1%, but by the top 50%. Many people in the top 50% don't wanna pay more taxes to help out the bums in the bottom 50% Instead they want more for themselves.
If all the AGI in the US in 2007 was divided equally among all the taxpayers each taxpayer would get $62,369.
Take away the greedy top .1% and divide the rest of the pie equally and each taxpayer gets $54,986
Take away the greedy top 1% and divide the rest of the pie equally and each taxpayer gets $48,620
Take away the top 5% and divide the rest of the pie equally and each taxpayer gets $41,069
take away the top 10% and divide the rest of the pie equally and each taxpayer gets $36,000
take away the top 50% and divide the rest of the pie equally and each taxpayer gets $15,287
take away the bottom 50% and divide the rest of the pie equally and each taxpayer gets $109,451
take the top 10% away from the top half and divide the rest of the pie equally and each gets $61,890
If I could split the bottom 50% in half, I could show that the bottom gets much less of the pie than the top half. In fact, in 2005, the bottom quintile got 3.4% of the national income and the next quintile got 8.6% - 250% as much as the bottom quintile.
For a person in the top 10% to say "I am not rich" says to me that they are thinking/saying "I should get a bigger slice of pie for myself". I think that outlook of "I am not gonna share with those below me, because I want more for myself" is a bigger part of the problem than any infighting I am doing here by expressing my opinion of the facts.
Edit - just to include some other averages
average income of the top .1% - $7,437,986
average income of the top .9% = $755,246
average income of the top 4% = $227,956
average income of the next 4% = $165,389
average income of the next 40% = $61,890
average income of the next 25% = $21,835
average income of the bottom 25% = $8,735
TBF
(32,017 posts)from any type of progress. When people are busy setting up groups and encouraging them to attack each other it takes away any solidarity we might have. Politicians and churches are very adept at this game.
I know there is greed - the system rewards it. My opinion though is that we can overrule that if we work together. If you're only willing to talk to those who make in the bottom 50% you're turning away a lot of potential allies.
At any rate, I remain willing to work with anyone who is ready for systemic change. I agree with taxation, I agree with redistribution. Getting rid of capitalism is my goal - will work with anyone else who feels the same way.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)unless you are talking about identity politics.
How are we not talking here though? I've done quite a bit of "talking" trying to convince you that you are wrong, and you have done some talking as well, telling me I need to shut up in the name of solidarity.
My own goal is probably just as quixotic as the dream of getting rid of capitalism. I'd like to get rid of greed, get rid of selfishness, and get rid of mean-ness.
Of course, that last goal means that I will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
TBF
(32,017 posts)it would be easier if we can work together but conditions are going to dictate how things change in the end. And I'm actually not convinced that the revolution would come from the left, especially in this country. Consider the recent vote in Greece for example - the KKE got 8.5% of the vote while the neo-fascist Golden Dawn party got 7%. That 7% is pretty startling considering that KKE (the Communist Party) is the oldest political party in Greece.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)Just as you look at he prior poster and think "rich", I'd be willing to be that a large percentage of people in the world looking are your situation would consider you "rich". That would certainly be the case if we could look at people throughout history. It's all relative.
I know a lot of people in the top 1-2% in income. Few of them think of themselves as rich. I know some people with very low incomes that don't think of themselves as poor. Part of that is because people measure themselves by the standards of those living around them. Someone earning $40K/year living among people earning $2K/year probably thinks of himself as rich. Someone earning $40K/year living among people earning $400K/year probably thinks of himself as poor.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)somebody can think of themselves as non-rich, because they are surrounded by people who are even richer. That's why you step back and look at the percentiles - to show you the big picture you cannot see daily. If you are the 90th percentile in this country, then even though there are some people way, way above you (who are super-rich), there is 90% of the country below you, sometimes far below you.
As for the poor of the world or the privations of ancient history. Well, for one we have neither a world income tax nor a temporal income tax. And for the second, I would define them as super-poor. Granted, from their perspective, somebody making $8,000 a year is rich, but to define terms from their perspective would be to suggest that the way they live is normal, or acceptable - a decent way to live, rather than a way of life full of misery and suffering. If 2 billion are living on $2 a day, the other 5 billion are living much better than that.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)You write as though there is an absolute standard for what the words "rich" and "poor" mean. AFAIK, there isn't a universally agreed upon standard. The terms really are relative. If you want to establish a standard, I'll be happy to accept it in conversations with you.
My rough standard for "rich" is those with the ability to spend at a sustainable rate several times as much as median income people in their civilization.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)otherwise communication is impossible and if I say the word "rich" I might as well say the word "guipure" or "flibbertigibbet" because they all mean the same thing, which is precisely nothing. Because rich could mean this or it could mean that.
It seems to me, though, that there is a concerted political effort by many of the rich (as I call them, members of the top 20%) to define themselves as middle class, and to claim that only the top .1% are "really rich". Or perhaps it is defined in an operational way as "somebody who lives on investment income". Which would mean that if I had investments that made $25,000 a year and I lived on that amount, which I surely could having often lived on less, then I would be considered rich, whereas somebody who had a job making $400,000 a year would not be considered rich since they are living on their salary rather than on their investments.
Either way, I consider that to be a pernicious effort. One that I oppose every time it rears its ugly head.
What makes it pernicious, is that it allows policy makers to put forth policies which they claim benefit the "middle class". Two primary examples being Obama's promise to not raise taxes on the middle class, which he then defined as "households making less than $250,000". Except that plan ends up providing about as much benefit to the top 5% as it does to the bottom 60%. Or the payroll tax cut which is again touted as a middle class tax cut, but provides 27.1% of its benefits to the bottom 60% and 26.7% to the top 10%. In the name of the supposed middle class, benefits skew upwards, as the definition of middle class and the definition of rich both skew upwards.
CTyankee
(63,893 posts)you have student loan debt. The REAL 1% didn't start out with that. And they also started out with private schools and subsequently to into elite private colleges.
IMO, it is fixed game from the start. The ones that start at the top stay in the top unless they are very, very foolish or sick in the head (in which case they still might stay in the top).
TBF
(32,017 posts)and only took out the loans for grad school (in the past 15 years - not under old rates). Wages are stagnated, unions are decimated, smarter kids decide to go to college but it's much more expensive now, the list goes on and on ... And you have to go back nearly 100 years (to the 1920s) or so to find a gap so wide between the rich and poor. I blame that squarely on Reagan, who started the tinkering with the capital gains tax rates.
I don't think this is the fault of individual habits either. Many of us are great savers, others could probably learn to live within their means a little better -- BUT when we are dealing with the fact that 1% of the country controls 40% of the wealth there isn't all that much to divvy up between the remaining 60%. It's clearly a systemic problem.
randome
(34,845 posts)PWNED!
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)Thank you for all your sacrifices and R.I.P. mom and dad.
A school teacher and plant worker that were frugal and smart investors.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)If so, that's great.
I have a friend with very rich parents who gave him about half a million recently (to save on inheritance taxes). He has a normal job but the interest allows him to travel more than most (and in style) but I still wouldn't say that he's in the 1%.
Good for you if you are in the 1%, I'm sure you won't mind giving a little bit back to help others.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)He should be saving that, so I hope he's not spending $25k per year for vacationing. I know multi-millionaires who do not vacation "in style".
I would not feel comfortable until interest income were well over $100k, and even then, that's not enough to vacation in style. That's when one might be able to retire modestly though.
By spending parents' money when one is young, it's an indication they expect their parents to die. What happens when the parents are 80 and the kid is 60? He'll want to retire, so do they expect their parents to give them more money at that point? And what about the grandkids?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)in interest income, I would certainly be able to vacation in style.
Perhaps you and I have somewhat different definitions of what "Vacatiion in style" means.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)And that was my honeymoon last year. By in style, I was thinking first class tickets and staying at The 4 Seasons.
I don't mean to criticize, it's none of my business, but I'm just saying that since my parents worked so much, it would be bad if I were to take their money and use it to live in luxury. They gave me a little last year and it's just sitting there. But everyone's different.
I think everyone should have $100k given to them every year so they don't need to worry, but in the meantime, money is just so easy to burn through quickly. It's good to be careful.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)lack of precision about some of the numbers.
Earning $250k per year (all taxable) is different from working and earning whatever, and on top of that having $100k per year income from interest. Interest payments are so low these days, that the capital to generate that amount of money would be quite large.
Others have also pointed out that there are vast gulfs between people at various levels of income.
Anyway, I likewise consider vacationing in style to include first class air fare and staying at a pretty nice hotel. It's actually possible to get less expensive first class plane tickets if you plan ahead rather carefully. Sometimes those fares are greatly discounted several months ahead of time, depending on exactly where you're planning to go and when you'll make the trip.
Sometimes, just getting away for a couple of days (as I did recently) and simply booking something a little above the most basic room at the hotel can feel quite luxurious.
And you are absolutely right that it's a lot easier to burn through large sums of money than most people understand. Which is why so many mega lottery winners wind up totally broke inside of five years. You may have gotten a large sum of money, but it's still not infinite.
All too often people just spend whatever comes their way, and save almost nothing. In fairness, we are surrounded by cultural messages to spend spend spend. I find that without a TV I am largely not exposed to those messages, and since these days I have a somewhat limited income, I just don't go out to stores other than to buy what I specifically need. It's been interesting to watch my own consumerist behavior changing in the last four years.
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)I still work full time, and will not stop working.
I'm staying in my 1700 square ft house, but I'm having new carpet installed.
My daughter WILL now go to college, but will still be required to work at least part time while she does it.
I will not "give" her spending money.
I am going to buy her a new car, because I don't want her driving a 2004 model with 150K miles on it back and forth from Houston to Austin.
I'm having a new engine put in my Ford truck, so I can "tote" cows and hay around.
The coolest thing for me since their passing was about a month ago.
I was in a store buying a new pair of running shoes, and a little kid (roughly 8 years old and obviously poor) was crying because he wanted the Nike shoes and momma told him repeatedly "we can't afford them".
His mom stepped around the aisle and I sent him to the register with a hundred dollar bill and the shoes he wanted.
His mom was pissed because she "lost him" and the store called out the "code adam"! (I laughed all the way home about that!)
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)I often wonder what all that money is up to sitting in people's banks, but once you open the gates, any amount of money can evaporate pretty quickly. I would try to make it grow for your grandkids and great grandkids, and convince them to save. You never know when **** will hit the fan and they all will need it.
Response to onehandle (Original post)
DaveJ This message was self-deleted by its author.
lastlib
(23,168 posts)...their heirs would still be in the 1 percent. You and me ain't gettin' there. Period. End of the matter.
P.S., you'll be far happier in life if you expend your time and money helping to improve the lot of other people in our country. The bush tax cuts ain't helpin' 'em.
ag_dude
(562 posts)...if you expend your time and money doing that.
airplaneman
(1,239 posts)The laws of today protect those with money and prohibit those who do not from getting in.
Predatory lending wasn't illegal but it was widespread. Charging medical bills to the uninsured 10 times more than payment to an insurance company for the same thing is legal. Declare bankruptcy on your house and ask the judge to reduce what you owe to what its worth - No problem if you have 100 houses. My favorite - it costs $1,000,000 to buy a medallion that allows you to be a taxi driver in NYC. This goes on and on. What chance in hell does an average person have of being a CEO of a company? How do you justify 400 people having as much wealth as the bottom 60% of the countries population.
-Airplane
pa28
(6,145 posts)Good reference to taxi tokens. The price of a token was securitized and can be traded under the ticker TAXI. The price of a token doubled and then doubled again and now a legal cab costs a million dollars.
You can see the effect of "financial innovation" in corn, oil or any commodity you care to choose. Excess dollars now go into financial instruments rather than budgets or are lent to the government in the form of bonds rather than simply being taxed.
dtom67
(634 posts)This thread seems to be an a attempt to reason with those who vote republican and make them change. I think this is a good long-term strategy, but it is probably a wasted effort here.
This is DU; you won't convert many repubs here, anymore than a post on some right-wing blog will change your affiliation. That being said.....
I think you are right that some middle class republican voters do so because they think they will benefit financially from gop policy. I also agree that they are wrong in doing so. In fact, I would love to see a study showing what percentage of republican voters actually vote against their families own best financial interest. I'm guessing that its in the high 90's. I've known a few 'suit-and-tie' business school grad repubbies who failed to understand the relationship of the standard of living in the area that they lived and their own lifestyle. Mostly, though, I think they were repubs because they felt that they should become wealthy, while the unwashed, non-college graduate peasantry should be impoverished.
Of course, some vote republican because their pastor tells them to do so. I can see this more than the 'cubicle supremacists' or the gun nuts. I feel sorry for Religious Right voters; they are being misled. Their leaders ( at the very top ) are in it for the money. They don't give a s*#t about God's will and most don't believe in God at all.
well...if they do believe, it is a deliberate perversion of Christianity. Obviously , God would not promote child hunger, War-for-profit, or hatred of our fellow man.
The Republicans do.
And so do the Religious Right.
The rank-and-file , however, consists of mostly good people whose faith is being exploited. These are the ones that I feel for. Faith is 'belief without reason'. May God have Mercy on their souls....
Gun nuts are just as misled. I own a few firearms myself , but I know that it is the Right that is more likely to take my guns away. Once the Republicans have succeeded in turning America into a Third World country, do you really think that all those wealthy elitists want a bunch of poor people running around with guns?
anyways, I agree that if we could just wake Americans up in the Right Wing cult that is the GOP, we might get our Democracy back.
TBF
(32,017 posts)I was curious so I did a google search. This doesn't account for net worth (or debt) but does give you an idea just on straight income. In the article there's a link to a calculator so you can put in all your own numbers if you want to do it that way.
What the numbers show
The latest numbers from the IRS -- based on 2009 tax returns -- show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $343,927 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this elite status reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.
Read more: http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html#ixzz1vzciWKbk
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)places a person.
Some people who never save a penny and have large debt, may make six figures and have no net worth. I'm simply musing to myself to what extent that person is really in the top 1%.
Someone who never earned a lot, but saved assiduously, maybe even inherited some money, but has not spent the inheritance, owns a home free and clear, and maybe has a high six figure net worth, where does that person fit in?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)"it's a big club, and you ain't in it"
sad sally
(2,627 posts)"Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means – law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. … As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. … They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital. … I know that as a consequence of my fundraising I became more like the wealthy donors I met."
TBF
(32,017 posts)and I think he's correct.
I have no problem remembering how I grew up, painting strike signs, shopping at Goodwill, there are a million examples I could give - but you do get removed from it as you make more money. And that is a problem, especially when you are in politics.
misshu
(7 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)unless it increases dramatically from the 350k it is now. How did my family get there? Ultra hard work, high levels of risk, major investments (time and money) in education, and a bit of luck. I'm sure there are many 1%ers on DU... probably more than the average population.
