De La Where is one of my favorite lefty blogs. He's a local which helps frame things often and he's always been fair with me (much less so with the GOP, but I digress.)
One thing I've learned from reading it is how divorced his thought process is from mine. I often read things there and for the life of me, I cannot fathom how the writer reached such a conclusion. One prime example is a post called
I think they call this a moment of clarity
Where to begin? DV is like many liberals in that, they think most "rich" people are Like Rich Uncle Pennybags. Monacled, spats and suit wearing blue bloods who have never worked a day in their life. Their money comes from countless generations of wealthy blue blood who have also not worked a day in their lives. This line, presumably, goes back in time to some unexplained origin where the original Pennybags somehow stole or exploited people for this wealth. Not true. Most millionaires have worked their ass off to get to where they are.
The "death tax" does indeed tax you twice. Most people who inherit money, land or a business are not zillionaires. They're you and me. Regular people who's parents (or whomever) have money left over after the die. Most liberals (and I think DV's in this group but I'm not sure) decry Wal-Mart for the way it kills Mom & Pop businesses. I understand this line of thinking and even sympathize with it. Why the, would you support a tax that does more to hurt small business?
Second, there's an atavistic hatred for rich people by Liberals. There are exceptions of course, George Soros, John Kerry, Ned Lamont etc. They are "good" rich people because they think the right way.
What many liberals fail to realize is that money, even when held by idle rich people works. That money employs people and keeps the economy going. They don't have countless bags with "$" printed on the side sitting in a vault in their house somewhere, it's invested in a great many places. If they were to hoarde that money they would be doing themselves a disservice.
Third, there is a moral arguement against capital gains taxes, interest income taxes and yes, inheritance taxes. If I work for one hour and someone pays me $10 for that labor, I pay X amount in taxes. That means $10-X (let's say X = $.20), $8 is mine to keep. I've paid Uncle Sam his due and that money is now mine, free and clear. If that is so, why should I then have to pay taxes on that money again if I put that money in the bank and let it grow? Have I not paid taxes on those $8 already? I'm saving my money for retirement and the government is penalizing me for doing so. Why? How does that change if, instead of putting it in a savings account, I invest in a mutual fund? Allowing people to provide for their own retirement seems like a good public policy and one that would reduce the strain on Social Security.
Fourth, why should rich people pay more in taxes? "Because they can afford it" is the usual answer. That, to me, is no answer at all. Do they use more of the government's services? Do they create an unusual burden on their fellow citizens? No. In fact, rich people are much less likely to use any government services. They send their kids to private schools, they hire bodyguards instead of using cops, they don't need social security or medicare/medicaid. Tearing down the strong is no way to build up the weak. I would ask, if we're going to use the "because they can afford it" logic for goods and services, why not make it a percentage of income. A loaf of bread for me could be $2.00 but for you, it will but $5.50 because you can afford it. Likewise, a toll on the DMB will be $2.00 for me and $12.50 for you. Is that fair? No. Rich people pay a disproportionately high level of the taxes here.
I believe the shift to a punative level of taxation on higher income earners and the wealthy combined with an drastic increase in social programs has killed the spirit of philanthropy in this country. In 1899, American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie wrote about dying rich: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
We have greatly departed from this mentality. It's my opinion that attempting to take as much as possible from "rich" people to give to others has killed that spirit. It's alive in well in men like Gates and Buffett but largely because they have so much money that the government will never be able to take any meaningful share. Liberated from that constraint, they can do whatever they want. I mean, really, once you have enough money to buy the Codex Leicester you're no longer on the plane or mortal humans.
Back to DV:
The problem is, that liberals are the ones that have eroded that sense. Johnny Weir was derided for wearing a "CCCP" jacket. If he felt like a part of something larger than himself, he would be representing his country and wearing "USA" not the letters of an evil, totalitarian regime that would have been none too kind to him. Some people were even confused about what it meant to represent one's country.
Patriotism is derided as "flag waving" by liberals. Patriotism has been boiled down to an appreciation for diversity and anything else is jingoistic nationalism. Being proud of working for a particular company is to be a corporate shill or stooge. Unions killed GM and Ford. They went from a necessary evil to protect the workers from abusive and dangerous employers to creating an unfirable mass of lazy and shiftless bunch of ingrates. I could recount story after story about UAW workers but this post is already too long... Moving on...
Here, DV echoes my point. The "rich" do feel under assault. Name one person who doesn't think they're overtaxed? One. Theresa Kerry filed her taxes in Pennsylvania rather than Massechuessets so she could pay less taxes. Come to think of it, the Kerrys are the posterchildren for that which DV derides. He married not one but two heiresses worth over a hundred million dollars. Neither of these women made the money on their own. They're both "idle rich". Where is the condemnation for them? The Kerry's are also famously stingy. Giving far less of their income to charity than our President. Not a word from anyone on the left against that.
Oddly, giving money away is conflated not with morality but with patriotism. I've always associated helping the poor, downtrodden and misfortunate with moral issues and with my faith not with patriotism.
Again, this is very strange to me. I'm in a bit of a different category b/c I'm virtually self employed (it's complicated). I feel like I work for myself first and my manager second, my company third. It really depends on who's asking and what they're asking about. Does it matter that they are white? I'm assuming from the post that the company is publicly held which means the stakeholders could be any race, color and creed. There is a common misperception that the CEO "owns" the company. That does happen but its very rare with larger companies. Sure they frequently have a large equity stake in the company but their holdings are usually dwarfed by others.
Now we've veered wildly off course. Going from the habits of idle rich to the compensation problems for management vs. staff. Executive compensation is out of control and has been for the last 10 years. That has little to do with wealth distribution broadly.
Slavery has nothing to do with comparative incomes. The above statement assumes that there is a finite pool of money in the world and if not for rich people taking it all, we'd all be better off. Slavery has more to do with how much you are compelled by force to surrender. Slaves surrender all, serfs served their Lord and paid 1/3 of their wages to him. How much is your total tax burden. I'll bet it's much more than 1/3 and that's just in direct income tax not to mention the countless other taxes and fees.
We are slaves not to corporations but to the state. The corporations allow you free exchange of labor for wages. The government has exclusive use of deadly force to take your money by force. If people ever knew what their actual tax bill was, there would be insurrection around the country. If they ever ended witholding, the delinquency rate for income taxes would skyrocket.
One thing I've learned from reading it is how divorced his thought process is from mine. I often read things there and for the life of me, I cannot fathom how the writer reached such a conclusion. One prime example is a post called
I think they call this a moment of clarity
It got me to thinking that in a sense what Rhoden said, not that I agreed with him. But I expanded on that thought and took it a step further. As I sit here and watch the American values twisted to serve the uber rich that is when it hit me. We have cut taxes for the the top 1%, they have had their capital gaines reduced to nothing (taxes I remind you on profits mostly being earned on income that was never taxed to begin with) which leads into the Estate Tax, the "death tax" as they like to call. they (the rich) want to get rid of this HORRIBLE tax. IT TAXES YOU TWICE.....they cry. Only iditos believe that. The tax that allows people to pass on incredible masses of wealth to heirs is truly what it is. See that money is in most cases not taxed either, so now all these dividends that were never taxed, get passed onto uber rich people that don't want money they didn't "earn" taxed. The money was never taxed in the first place let alone the fact that the money being passed onto them is essentially income. Sooooooooo we are creating a non productive upper class. Quite the opposite of what our fore fathers had hoped to avoid.
Where to begin? DV is like many liberals in that, they think most "rich" people are Like Rich Uncle Pennybags. Monacled, spats and suit wearing blue bloods who have never worked a day in their life. Their money comes from countless generations of wealthy blue blood who have also not worked a day in their lives. This line, presumably, goes back in time to some unexplained origin where the original Pennybags somehow stole or exploited people for this wealth. Not true. Most millionaires have worked their ass off to get to where they are.
The "death tax" does indeed tax you twice. Most people who inherit money, land or a business are not zillionaires. They're you and me. Regular people who's parents (or whomever) have money left over after the die. Most liberals (and I think DV's in this group but I'm not sure) decry Wal-Mart for the way it kills Mom & Pop businesses. I understand this line of thinking and even sympathize with it. Why the, would you support a tax that does more to hurt small business?
Second, there's an atavistic hatred for rich people by Liberals. There are exceptions of course, George Soros, John Kerry, Ned Lamont etc. They are "good" rich people because they think the right way.
What many liberals fail to realize is that money, even when held by idle rich people works. That money employs people and keeps the economy going. They don't have countless bags with "$" printed on the side sitting in a vault in their house somewhere, it's invested in a great many places. If they were to hoarde that money they would be doing themselves a disservice.
Third, there is a moral arguement against capital gains taxes, interest income taxes and yes, inheritance taxes. If I work for one hour and someone pays me $10 for that labor, I pay X amount in taxes. That means $10-X (let's say X = $.20), $8 is mine to keep. I've paid Uncle Sam his due and that money is now mine, free and clear. If that is so, why should I then have to pay taxes on that money again if I put that money in the bank and let it grow? Have I not paid taxes on those $8 already? I'm saving my money for retirement and the government is penalizing me for doing so. Why? How does that change if, instead of putting it in a savings account, I invest in a mutual fund? Allowing people to provide for their own retirement seems like a good public policy and one that would reduce the strain on Social Security.
Fourth, why should rich people pay more in taxes? "Because they can afford it" is the usual answer. That, to me, is no answer at all. Do they use more of the government's services? Do they create an unusual burden on their fellow citizens? No. In fact, rich people are much less likely to use any government services. They send their kids to private schools, they hire bodyguards instead of using cops, they don't need social security or medicare/medicaid. Tearing down the strong is no way to build up the weak. I would ask, if we're going to use the "because they can afford it" logic for goods and services, why not make it a percentage of income. A loaf of bread for me could be $2.00 but for you, it will but $5.50 because you can afford it. Likewise, a toll on the DMB will be $2.00 for me and $12.50 for you. Is that fair? No. Rich people pay a disproportionately high level of the taxes here.
I believe the shift to a punative level of taxation on higher income earners and the wealthy combined with an drastic increase in social programs has killed the spirit of philanthropy in this country. In 1899, American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie wrote about dying rich: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
We have greatly departed from this mentality. It's my opinion that attempting to take as much as possible from "rich" people to give to others has killed that spirit. It's alive in well in men like Gates and Buffett but largely because they have so much money that the government will never be able to take any meaningful share. Liberated from that constraint, they can do whatever they want. I mean, really, once you have enough money to buy the Codex Leicester you're no longer on the plane or mortal humans.
Back to DV:
We are all slaves at this point. I know, I know you already knew that. Well yes and no. You see there was a time when companies like, Ford, GM, DuPont, IBM, AA, all made you feel loyal. They made you feel like you were a part of something bigger. Sure they guys at the top were frigging loaded, but you shared in that piece of the pie. You were safe, you were taken care of. You had the luxury of knowing that what you were doing served your family and your country. You just felt like a part of something bigger.
The problem is, that liberals are the ones that have eroded that sense. Johnny Weir was derided for wearing a "CCCP" jacket. If he felt like a part of something larger than himself, he would be representing his country and wearing "USA" not the letters of an evil, totalitarian regime that would have been none too kind to him. Some people were even confused about what it meant to represent one's country.
Patriotism is derided as "flag waving" by liberals. Patriotism has been boiled down to an appreciation for diversity and anything else is jingoistic nationalism. Being proud of working for a particular company is to be a corporate shill or stooge. Unions killed GM and Ford. They went from a necessary evil to protect the workers from abusive and dangerous employers to creating an unfirable mass of lazy and shiftless bunch of ingrates. I could recount story after story about UAW workers but this post is already too long... Moving on...
Well no more. The rich don't want free loaders. They want you to pick you up by your boot straps (even if you don't have boots) They want communities to help out the needy. They have paid enough. they government has paid enough. It is time for the American people to no longer rely on the government.....because you see the government needs the income and the tax money from the rich to make this country run. But to them that isn't fair. It is like that litte child in the WSJ commercials. "this is MY MONEY!!" Nice huh.
Here, DV echoes my point. The "rich" do feel under assault. Name one person who doesn't think they're overtaxed? One. Theresa Kerry filed her taxes in Pennsylvania rather than Massechuessets so she could pay less taxes. Come to think of it, the Kerrys are the posterchildren for that which DV derides. He married not one but two heiresses worth over a hundred million dollars. Neither of these women made the money on their own. They're both "idle rich". Where is the condemnation for them? The Kerry's are also famously stingy. Giving far less of their income to charity than our President. Not a word from anyone on the left against that.
Warren Buffet is a commendable patriot that gets it. Bill Gates too, sure there kids are going to be well off but they understand the importance of not allowing their heirs to be unproductive shits in society.
Oddly, giving money away is conflated not with morality but with patriotism. I've always associated helping the poor, downtrodden and misfortunate with moral issues and with my faith not with patriotism.
so back to the slave rhetoric. When you walk into work who do you feel like you are working for? Your company? or your CEO? I don't know about you but I feel like I work for the greatest boss in the history of mankind....then after that high ends I feel like I am working for about 40 people. All white, all from the midwest and all happy as hell to be trying to find ways to consolidate the banking business so they can have more and we can have less.
Again, this is very strange to me. I'm in a bit of a different category b/c I'm virtually self employed (it's complicated). I feel like I work for myself first and my manager second, my company third. It really depends on who's asking and what they're asking about. Does it matter that they are white? I'm assuming from the post that the company is publicly held which means the stakeholders could be any race, color and creed. There is a common misperception that the CEO "owns" the company. That does happen but its very rare with larger companies. Sure they frequently have a large equity stake in the company but their holdings are usually dwarfed by others.
I do ok for a dropout but when I look up the ladder wrungs I don't see an even distribution of wealth. Not even close and therin lies the problem. I see the numbers getting skewed beyond even God's intentions. So you see if I, if we the American people were sharing in this economic burst of income then feelings would be different. Instead they aren't and hence why we are slaves. We are impacted when gas goes up a buck. When the price of electricity increase 25%. We are told "adjusted for inflation" bullshit and told to suck it up.
Now we've veered wildly off course. Going from the habits of idle rich to the compensation problems for management vs. staff. Executive compensation is out of control and has been for the last 10 years. That has little to do with wealth distribution broadly.
But when a CEO makes $10million a year, $192k a week, $4800 an hour and I am hoping to make $1000 a week, doesn't that signal a problem? I mean when something like 40% of the money in this country is controlled by 1% of the population (roughly 28000 people) should we not feel a little slavish????
Slavery has nothing to do with comparative incomes. The above statement assumes that there is a finite pool of money in the world and if not for rich people taking it all, we'd all be better off. Slavery has more to do with how much you are compelled by force to surrender. Slaves surrender all, serfs served their Lord and paid 1/3 of their wages to him. How much is your total tax burden. I'll bet it's much more than 1/3 and that's just in direct income tax not to mention the countless other taxes and fees.
We are slaves not to corporations but to the state. The corporations allow you free exchange of labor for wages. The government has exclusive use of deadly force to take your money by force. If people ever knew what their actual tax bill was, there would be insurrection around the country. If they ever ended witholding, the delinquency rate for income taxes would skyrocket.
Comments
"so why shouldn't you pay a tax on money your dead uncle left you. I am looking at it from one side and you the dead side. Well the dead guy is dead in this equation and the live person just had money come into their possession.....they call that income. So the Death Tax as they call it so people spew this "double taxation" bullshit and make people some how forget tht when you die your money doesn't matter have spun it I guess so people like yourself liken it to double taxation."
I look at it this way; the government only gets one bite at the apple. They only get to tax a dollar's worth of earning once. That, to me, is fair. That money was taxed once when earned. No matter what the earner does with it, it shouldn't be subject to a tax. What if he gave it to his wife to spend? Isn't that now income for her and therefore taxable? If not, why is that different?
"why must you always attack me with the Clinton/Kerry did it too mantra?
I'm not excusing anyone so please stop assuming that because a rich liberal that avoids paying his taxes would be treated any differently by my tirades."
My intent was not to attack you, it was to offer a different point of view. My brush may have been too broad here. I was trying to say that liberals/leftists generally ignore the misdeeds of their own party. (This is equally true of both parties)
"I am an independent, not a democrat I never voted for Clinton or a Bush. I voted Kerry b/c I wanted a change and he was the best chance this country and the world for that matter had...but that doesn't make me a Democrat."
Fair enough. How do you classify yourself in terms of left/right/center?
"slavery as I am describing is waking up going into work and seeing you CEO just cashed in 1.1 million shares of stock for about $75million.
what justifies that type of income? Because he can? well who isnt' to say that I shouldn't be enjoying that kind of salary. or at least be enjoying a larger portion. You take half of that money and "trickle it down" maybe it would be more justified but when I make shit and see a guy making that kind of money...I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling in the morning knowing that I am working for something bigger...I am working for about 20 guys in their Ivory Tower trying to come up with more ways to expand their market share, consilodiate redundancies in their markets to eliminate more jobs. Now people like the people in MBNA are scrambling like crazy b/c a few greedy SOB's saw the chance to make millions and sold out 5000 people. Did they need to sell? So don't tell me this shit isn't slavery....in the end we are all working so the rich can richer....
sitting around and spreading out money so a few thousand people can work isn't exactly my world view of democracy...."
The problem is the word "slavery". You're using it metaphorically in such a fashion that it approaches hyperbole. What justifies his income or yours is market forces. There is nothing preventing you from making that much or more. You simply need to have skills and/or experience that make you valueable. You have to understand that the corporate officers are not beholden to you, they're beholden to the stakeholders. They're the ones that will fire a CEO if he doesn't do his job. His job, is to make as much money as possible for them. They have to strike a careful balance between paying within market range. They are required to eliminate redundant jobs. To do otherwise would threaten the viability of the whole company which would put a heck of a lot more people out of work if it went under entirely. Second, the corporate officers are usually compensated largely in stock options and grants and not salary. That means their pay is almost completely merit pay. The stock tanks, these guys get hammered. I used to work in Executive Compensation at a major bank in DE and I can tell you they are also the last people in the bank to get cash bonuses. When the bank had a bad year, they were the ones giving up millions in bonuses to keep the lower eschelon people paid.
CEO's make money because their decisions can make or break an organiztion. A great many people make money that beggars belief. Did you know that Paris Hilton earned over $6 million last year? Does that make sense to you? I wouldn't pay her for anything except to go away and never be heard of again. Others feel quite differently hence her gargantuan salary for doing whatever it is she does.
Slavery is only slavery if you don't have a choice. You are not compelled to work any job, you choose to. If you don't like your job, only you can change that situation.
Lastly, Ivory Tower is usually a term for academia.
"it was a rant that I was just spouting off at...thanks for the nod"
No problem. Thanks for commenting