if you don’t make $200,000, you don’t matter

[billwald]

http://toomuchonline.org/madison-ave-declares-mass-affluence-over/

"A small plutocracy of wealthy elites drives a larger and larger share of total consumer spending and has outsize purchasing influence."

 

[Thousand Hills]

Thanks for telling me something I already know.

 

[billwald]

Then there might be three or four here that have caught on. The rest are living in a Republican dream world. If only the gumment would get out of their way they would be rich.

 

[carpro]

Jealous?

 

[rbell]

Hmmm....the article said:

In a deeply unequal America, if you don’t make $200,000, you don’t matter.

So, the thoughts that come to mind:

1. The "solution" would seem to be that everyone ought to have the same amount of stuff. The two places this gets tried...
(a) Communist countries; and
(b) Public schools,

fail on a monumental scale. Maybe you ought to come up with another "problem" to solve. You didn't do so well with this one.

2. Here's a radical thought: Maybe some of us don't derive our self-worth from how much we make, or what we think Madison Avenue thinks of us. Maybe I don't care if I don't matter to big-time advertisers. Gee, what a concept.

I hate to disappoint you, billwald, but point #1 is a benchmark of conservative thinking, and it works.
Point #2 is not a democrat OR republican talking point--it's the mark of a healthy mindset. But it works.

 

[billwald]

>2. Here's a radical thought: Maybe some of us don't derive our self-worth from how much we make, or what we think Madison Avenue thinks of us. Maybe I don't care if I don't matter to big-time advertisers. Gee, what a concept.

That may be the way we were raised but the grandkids will have to learn the hard way. Were people actually happier when there was no middle class except doctors, lawyers, and politicians?

 

[revmwc]

http://toomuchonline.org/madison-ave-declares-mass-affluence-over/

"A small plutocracy of wealthy elites drives a larger and larger share of total consumer spending and has outsize purchasing influence."

Yes and most are the Democrats, Senate and Congress has the wealthiest folks of all, many are the elite Democratic leaders. They know all the loopholes for not having to pay high taxes. Many especially those appointed to cabinate positions by President Obama didn't even bother to pay their taxes. Yet theu wish to make the rich look so bad.

Why don't we go to a 10% accross the board tax for all. Then those in the lower earning portion would pay the same percentage of taxes. Most of them pay no taxes at all.

Wiat that would be a tithe wouldn't it, just like God commanded of the Israelites. Gee what a novel concept.

 

[targus]

Then there might be three or four here that have caught on. The rest are living in a Republican dream world. If only the gumment would get out of their way they would be rich.

As someone who never even tried what could you possibly know about the subject?

 

[billwald]

Tried what? Getting rich? I estimate my retirement benefits are the equivalent of a million dollar annuity. I'm not greedy.

 

[targus]

Tried what? Getting rich? I estimate my retirement benefits are the equivalent of a million dollar annuity. I'm not greedy.

That's nothing more than a rationalization.

Try passing that "million dollar annuity" to your children at your death.

Admit it - you coasted through your career doing the minimum and now it's just sour grapes for everyone else who puts in effort to succeed.

 

[billwald]

NOT TRUE! I'm in the top 10% as measured by net assets. The kids are all doing fine on their own and don't ask for anything. The pension only means that I don't have to spend $50K/year from our other assets.

Is it sour grapes to be angered about my hard working friend losing a third of their hard earned savings because of government manipulation by the "real" rich people who profited by my neighbor's loss?

CPAs, like stock brokers, get paid if the market goes up or down.

 

[targus]

NOT TRUE! I'm in the top 10% as measured by net assets. The kids are all doing fine on their own and don't ask for anything. The pension only means that I don't have to spend $50K/year from our other assets.

Is it sour grapes to be angered about my hard working friend losing a third of their hard earned savings because of government manipulation by the "real" rich people who profited by my neighbor's loss?

CPAs, like stock brokers, get paid if the market goes up or down.

And what does any of that have to do with the OP?

BTW - as we see from your career, beat cops get paid whether they are chowing down on doughnuts or sleeping it off in the squad car. :laugh:

 

[billwald]

RBELL changed the topic in post 5, turned it personal as you did twice on page 2.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Yes and most are the Democrats, Senate and Congress has the wealthiest folks of all, many are the elite Democratic leaders. They know all the loopholes for not having to pay high taxes. Many especially those appointed to cabinate positions by President Obama didn't even bother to pay their taxes. Yet theu wish to make the rich look so bad.

Why don't we go to a 10% accross the board tax for all. Then those in the lower earning portion would pay the same percentage of taxes. Most of them pay no taxes at all.

Except for the fact that the wealthy pay such a tax out of their excess while the poor pay for it by sacrificing necessary things.

Wiat that would be a tithe wouldn't it, just like God commanded of the Israelites. Gee what a novel concept.

Equating tithing with paying taxes? Yep that is pretty novel.

Plus there is the fact that the OT tithe was from ones increase of stock and produce - not income. If you were poor you had no land or stock and thus paid no tithe. Even on things like sin sacrifice the Law had less stringent requirements for those less able pay. And there is also the fact that the tithe was used to support the poor.

So, nothing in the Law was art up like the straight 10% tax you suggest. Under the law the poor paid no tithe and the tithe of the rich and middle class was used to help the poor. So if we are going to base tax policy on the OT tithe, then the straight 10% tax would be out for sure.

 

[revmwc]

Except for the fact that the wealthy pay such a tax out of their excess while the poor pay for it by sacrificing necessary things.



Equating tithing with paying taxes? Yep that is pretty novel.

Plus there is the fact that the OT tithe was from ones increase of stock and produce - not income. If you were poor you had no land or stock and thus paid no tithe. Even on things like sin sacrifice the Law had less stringent requirements for those less able pay. And there is also the fact that the tithe was used to support the poor.

So, nothing in the Law was art up like the straight 10% tax you suggest. Under the law the poor paid no tithe and the tithe of the rich and middle class was used to help the poor. So if we are going to base tax policy on the OT tithe, then the straight 10% tax would be out for sure.

Dueteronomy 26:12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;

Leviticus 26: 30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.
31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.
33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.
34 These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

Need we talk about the widows offering just a little but Christ said it was the best He had seen.

So where does it exclude the poor from giving, it does say that out of what was given by those who had more the poor would be taken care of. So that is what our taxes do help the truly poor, the problem we have is that many of the poor could go out and work most choose to live off of others.
Some who are handicapped and need assitiance can't get it.

 

[preachinjesus]

Admit it - you coasted through your career doing the minimum and now it's just sour grapes for everyone else who puts in effort to succeed.

Wow, maybe I missed something but that's a pretty harsh generalization.

 

[Robert Snow]

Wow, maybe I missed something but that's a pretty harsh generalization.

If you check the record, you will see that Targus isn't especially fond of BillWald.

 

[revmwc]

Except for the fact that the wealthy pay such a tax out of their excess while the poor pay for it by sacrificing necessary things.

So you are saying that anyone with excess income should pay it to the Governemnet in taxes. Jesus said give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and what is God's to God. So if the Government (Ceaser) takes God's portion too then what are we to do?

 

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by tarsus
Admit it - you coasted through your career doing the minimum and now it's just sour grapes for everyone else who puts in effort to succeed.
Wow, maybe I missed something but that's a pretty harsh generalization.

One thing that I don't even think was mentioned in all the debates on rich vs poor, regarding the whole concept of "earning", was that much of the income of those on the top is "bonuses" and other "percs" on top of their base pay. This technically is not "earned", in the sense we usually speak of "earning". Bonus means "Something good that is extra".

Many jobs (including mine), especially in large industries, the average worker can basically only do either just what is required, or less, and if he does less, then no one argues that there should be no penalty. So it's the assumption that doing "just the minimum" means he hasn't earned at least a decent living. (Which is what it is coming to with this whole "put in effort like the CEO's to succeed" concept).

What that suggests, is that in an ideal society where "everyone works hard and succeeds", everyone would be a CEO, and there would be no workers. I guess, a completely automated workforce, then.
Like in the kind of jobs I'm talking about, doing extra effort (whatever that might mean), might not even be noticed. Like in the transportation industry. The most you can really do is be as safe an operator as possible, and the reward for that is usually just a pin or badge on the uniform. And you have to be particularly noticed, by either supervisors or customers.
So basically, the only additional "effort" you can put forth is either overtime (which has limits, for safety purposes), or to just take the test for promotions to supervision titles (and promotion is based on the test and not performance, unless you really have a bad record). But not everyone is cut out for those.

 

[revmwc]

One thing that I don't even think was mentioned in all the debates on rich vs poor, regarding the whole concept of "earning", was that much of the income of those on the top is "bonuses" and other "percs" on top of their base pay. This technically is not "earned", in the sense we usually speak of "earning". Bonus means "Something good that is extra".

Many jobs (including mine), especially in large industries, the average worker can basically only do either just what is required, or less, and if he does less, then no one argues that there should be no penalty. So it's the assumption that doing "just the minimum" means he hasn't earned at least a decent living. (Which is what it is coming to with this whole "put in effort like the CEO's to succeed" concept).

What that suggests, is that in an ideal society where "everyone works hard and succeeds", everyone would be a CEO, and there would be no workers. I guess, a completely automated workforce, then.
Like in the kind of jobs I'm talking about, doing extra effort (whatever that might mean), might not even be noticed. Like in the transportation industry. The most you can really do is be as safe an operator as possible, and the reward for that is usually just a pin or badge on the uniform. And you have to be particularly noticed, by either supervisors or customers.
So basically, the only additional "effort" you can put forth is either overtime (which has limits, for safety purposes), or to just take the test for promotions to supervision titles (and promotion is based on the test and not performance, unless you really have a bad record). But not everyone is cut out for those.

Right now too some folks get per diem for working out of town. Paying for expenses etc. Now the Per Diem is normally based on what is allowed by the IRS on the area they work in. Some use all the per diem others are able to save a considerable amount. The IRS states that per diem is taxable if you are assigned to an out of town assignement that is considered to be over a year. If you are sent out of town for an assignement that is estimated to be less than a year then the per diem is not taxable income.

So there that money is for living expenses while out of town, if you spend it all so be it if you don't that much goes in your pocket as excess, to which now some advocate the Governemnt stealing that money from the worker because someone who doesn't want to work needs it.

The elderly and handicapped we should take care of but those who just won't work, let see how did Paul state it, if he "won't work neither should he eat." If they can work and won't then they shouldn't be entitled to an entitlement.