The Post of the Day is a warning to the middle class
Grafic by Dan
Note from Dan: Richard J. Beason posted the following on the Wednesday OPEN thread; it was quite appropriately nominated for Post of the Day by Contrasuzie.
“Inalienable rights were an inspiration by Thomas Jefferson in bashing a King. Inalienable turned out only to be a reality because the French showed up in time to keep Cornwallis in Yorktown.
History has shown us that very few governments believe in inalienable rights. Those governments also happen to be those run by the holders of wealth who use the government to control and use those that do not have wealth. The US Constitution was designed as a Republic to protect its citizens from the power of the wealthy. It established a strong middle class as a deterrent from the Wealthy from taking over government.
We have seen in 2008 what happens when the wealthy have too much control – their greed destroys the economy and steals the rights of the middle class. The November election will decide whether the wealthy usurps more rights from the middle class or whether the middle class stands up for their rights and retains control of our government.
Recognize that raising taxes on the middle class is a direct means of controlling the middle class. Look through the rhetoric and understand that what you are being told vs. what is taking place is a subjugating of the middle class and destroying the freedoms our forefathers earned for us.
A society that seeks to benefit the wealthy is not benefiting the middle class. They are simply two mutually exclusive concepts. Lifting the wealthy does not float all boats, it is simply allowing the wealthy to stand on your shoulders while you are under water.”
April 5, 2012 - 1:53 PM
“Lifting the wealthy does not float all boats, it is simply allowing the wealthy to stand on your shoulders while you are under water.”
Mind if I use that, Richard?
Well said!
It’s the Golden Rule in action: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Why did the Wall street banks get bailed out, and none of their leaders put in prison?
Why did the car companies get bailed out?
Why are our medical costs so high, for results that objectively speaking are less than stellar?
What do all these groups have in common? Money. And their money buys lots of influence in Washington D.C. If you think these guys are looking out for the rest of us, you just haven’t been paying attention.
When we hear all the loose talk about “class warfare”, there might be something to it. But it’s fair to ask “who is waging war on whom”?
Well said, Richard.
1. As you wish.
3. WS – unfortunately, much of what they did was not illegal, just immoral. Most is now illegal.
Auto companies – Stockholders of GM and Chrysler lost most everything and CEOs lost their jobs.
Medical groups – remains to be seen what ACA does on this.
Just noting to be fair.
So wrong, so completely wrong. What you all fail to understand is there should not be any class warfare. Individuals and families move in and out of socioeconomic class’s often during a single life time. The goal should be to give all an opportunity to become wealthy if they desire. The United States offers the best opportunity for social mobility of any country in the world. Do you all realize the top 5% already pay 60% of the taxes?The real problem is cutting the size of Government. Even if you tax 50% of all income over $250,000 it still won’t touch the federal budget. We cannot sustain the “entitlement” mentality of the Federal Government. We must cut spending and increase GDP in order to increase tax revenue to pay off the massive debt we have.
GRRRReat post Richard J. Beason!
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
– Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)
Michael Howdyshell,
Your pleas regarding class warfare are coming about 30 years late. They are coming after three-decades of class warfare waged by the rich against the middle class and poor.Only now, after the rich have won that war, you want it to end.
“Do you all realize the top 5% already pay 60% of the taxes?”
This is false. It may be true that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of FEDERAL INCOME taxes. But there are many, many, many more taxes than than one that are a hell of a lot more regressive and for which the burden falls predominantly on the middle class and poor. Such as SS payroll taxes. You aren’t seriously arguing, are you, that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of those? You aren’t seriously arguing that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of this nation’s sales taxes, are you? You aren’t seriously arguing that the top 5 percent pay 60 percent of state income taxes, are you? Or gas taxes? Or utility taxes?
You can’t pick a single category of taxes and mount a cogent argument with that. It’s total BS.
Dan
Those taxes are closer to being fair as they don’t penalize success. You make my point we all pay way to much in taxes. I’m all for eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a federal sales tax.
Just exactly who are the Rich Dan? If you would ever read The Millionare Next Door you would understand. I even sent you a copy.
As they say…it’s only class warfare when the poor fight back.
Michael,
You’re right that those regressive taxes don’t penalize success. They penalize nonsuccess. And they penalize it a heck of a lot more that the successful have ever been “penalized” (although I would not call it that) through any kind of taxation scheme.
No Michael H, he is not wrong. You are. What you fail to understand, because it is not in your interest to understand is that the “class warfare” is perpetrated ON US not by us.
Economic opportunity does not cause families to “move in and out of socioeconomic class’s”. NOT having economic opportunity does. No one becomes wealthy in a vacuum.
Do you realize that:
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth”
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income”
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds”
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt”
“The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/
Excuse me if I do not attend the pity party for those who have gained the most as the rest of us all lost ground.
The “real problem” is the ignorant idea that you could give tax cuts, spend on the military or wars, and not cut the budget. Reagan finally admitted he could not do all three so he just added to the debt and deficit rather than cut and he raised taxes. If we do not raise revenue, just cutting alone will not solve the problem. Entitlements are more than just the safety nets, but the cost of that too is our mistake from the beginning.
You cannot pay someone a non living wage and still expect them to “carry their own weight”. We doom people before they ever know it, with our wage and benefit structure.
We have to raise the revenue AND cut spending. Nothing else will work. The Bush tax cuts have to go and we have to fix the health care crisis.
“Most categories of government spending, except defense, have remained constant or fallen as a share of GDP since the budget surplus days of the late 90s.
…Social Security benefits are relatively modest and badly needed given the lack of other forms of saving for retirement.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/white-house-burning-putti_b_1381006.html
10. Michael Howdyshell – You fail to mention that the reason 5% pay 60% of all federal income taxes is that they have 80% of all the income.
As Dan so eloquently stated, the middle class pays much more in all the remaining taxes which are indeed much less fair. Payroll taxes are based on gross income, not net taxable, sales tax in on the middle class necessities and a much higher percentage of annual income for the middle and lower classes than for the wealthy as are real estate, property, excise, and so forth.
As for a national sales tax, that would be the most unfair regressive tax possible and would most likely destroy the middle class. This is the very type thinking I am writing against.
11. Michael Howdyshell – IMO $1 million to $2 million income should be considered the start as wealthy. Below that is middle class with the middle of middle class in the $80,000 – 250,000 range.
Michael believes there are two classes, the rich and the “soon to be rich.”
Baloney.
Richard J Beason, CPA. Are you retired? Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands, based on the times of your posts. And we are just a few days away from April 15, when you should be very busy.
18. David, thank you for your concern for my business. I am indeed very busy and hope you are as well. I do however, take a break now and then to clear my mind and this happens to be a great way of doing so.
David, are you under the impression that all people and business file and pay their taxes by April 15? With his level of success, I doubt Richard is slammed with a mountain of returns he has to process. And how do you know Suzie?
Michael, do you think it’s fair that Mitt Romney paid a significantly lower percentage of income tax than many in the middle class? I’m not accusing him of anything illegal.
If I had the time, I would provide the link to the government statistics that show a significant shift in wealth from the middle class to the wealthy over the last 10 years.
It used to be that middle America could live a comfortable life, own a home, have adequate healthcare, have a modest but comfortable retirement – not any more.
I agree that expenditures need to be controlled but I also believe the wealthy need to go back to paying their fair share in INCOME taxes.
Ah david. Is your accountant very busy right now?
Art, as I heard it described on Figure It Out once….you’re not poor. Your pre-rich!
Micheal H., “The Millionaire Next Door” was useful in reminding some that net worths might be higher than they realize, that there are more high net worth people than conspicous consumption might indicate, and affluence was often built through very ordinary, non-financial occupations (good news for guys like yourself). But even at the time of it’s publication nearly fifteen years ago, “millionaire” was an outdated label, if intended as a synonym for rich. And as Richard and Dan point out, recent tax laws have disproportionately favored income, specifically investment income, over the other sources of wealth gain.
And see Richard’s post #16 on the need to redefine income levels in terms of who’s rich.
Micheal, both wealth and especially poverty can have a legacy lasting generations. In the case of the poorest, such as many American minorities, there is less family wealth to build from in the first place, through no fault of their own. In other words, “up by your own bootstraps” does not apply to those who don’t even have boots. How do you not see that?
Watch out, Richard. It sounds like david plans on reporting you to the State Board of Accounting for the ethical lapse of not spending 24 hours a day doing other people’s taxes.
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income”
Interestingly though, they pay about 38% of federal income tax. In fact, the top 10% earn about 45% of all income, but they pay about 70% of all income taxes. So someone tell me, what percent of the total income tax collected would you be satisfied with?
#18 suzie (or suzie’s friend), you need to come up with a new one.
Perhaps David has paid me the greatest compliment by seeking to have me return to work rather than express my thoughts. I assume he seeks to silence anyone who might explain the agenda hidden in the GOP Budget. I do not question the need to bring the US Budget into balance; but, I do not agree that the US is bankrupt, ready for default, incapable of providing for the infirm, the elderly, and those that cannot provide for themselves, or to provide an education for its youth. The GOP seeks to balance the budget on the backs of these and on the middle class. Why? It is simple, everyone wants to suckle the wealthy’s teat. Are Congressmen any different? As Michael Howdyshell has stated, there just aren’t that many wealthy to significantly affect revenue by raising taxes, so why not play to them so they will donate for their elections and lobbies.
That brings up two points, one – the inequity in the system where the ultra wealthy pay a lesser percentage of their income than the middle class destroys the credibility of the government. It breeds contempt of government, cheating, fraud, and black market because those treated inequitably quickly realize that if the government is unfair, then they too can ignore the rules. It destroys incentive to play fair and to work to get ahead. Those of you who complain about welfare and entitlements fail to realize how the inequity in the system drains incentive to work and drains incentive to excel.
The second point – If there are not enough wealthy to make a difference – then where does the GOP expect to get the income or reduction in expenditures to balance the budget. They are plainly telling you it is not coming from the rich, there are not enough of them. It is not coming from the poor as they have nothing and are depending on the government to eat. What they are not telling you is that is that it is coming from you, the middle class. That is where the GOP will seek to balance their budget. They will cut the workingman’s retirement and raise their payroll taxes. They will have you work longer and take home less. They will increase the fees you pay for every government service and they will take away your income tax deductions while telling you they are cutting your tax rates. How do I know this, because they have done it State by State this past year for every State that elected a GOP legislature. Not only that, they have done it decade after decade each time they simplify income taxes. The Reagan Tax Cuts, The Bush Tax Cuts were both cuts for the wealthy but tax increases for the middle class. Not by raising the tax rates, but rather, by taking away your tax deductions. Your payroll taxes have gone up, your social security is being taxed, and your fees have increased. Look at the GOP budget and see how much they talk about cutting tax rates for the wealthy, but barely mention the changes in deductions. That is to be worked out after the election, do you wonder why?
“Those taxes are closer to being fair as they don’t penalize success.”
Mike, you have a serious disconnect between “penalizing success” and “paying your fair share.” When the Koch brothers pay the same percentage of their disposable income as the janitor in one of their mansions THAT will be closer to fair.
27. Chuck, there are more taxes than just income tax. Why don’t you take a look at the percentage of your income you pay in all taxes and compare it to the percentage of income the super wealthy pay. The middle class pay almost 50% of their income in taxes each year, not including fees. The ultra wealthy, lets say Mitt Romney, pays about 15% of his income in total taxes. For the average American that leaves maybe $40,000 to live on each year, for Mitt, around $30 million.
RJB, CPA. Thank you for taking the time to express what so many of us are feeling after 30 years of being trickled on. Enough is enough. If the top 1% own 80 percent of the wealth then why should they not pay 80% of the taxes? I sick and tired of subsidizing the wealthy with their tax loopholes for mortgages on multi-million dollar houses, private schools for their elite kids and paying for their roads with my tax dollars, not to mention protecting their wealth with my military, etc, etc, etc.
This donkey is sick of carrying all the load. Thank god I get to “push” back the best way I know how come November.
Rick, I think you need to rethink the CPA thing and become a speech writer. I need to buy you a few beers (after the 15th though)
33. Bill, definitely need beer!
After reading CPA comments from certain people I must say that I’m now very concerned about the fiscal well-being of one of my neighbors who does taxes as part of his living. I know he’s been working very, very hard recently, but just last night he was — GASP — watching a few minutes of television. This past weekend I even saw him doing some yard work. Since he isn’t spending every second of the day and night immersed in taxes, I can only assume — based on what folks like “david (snicker, snicker)” have said — that he’s no good and so is on the verge of failure.
Likewise with another friend from college who is a financial adviser up in New York. He spent 15 minutes on the phone talking to me and my wife last night and we’re not even clients!!!! I expect to hear that he’s declared bankruptcy any day now.
What a cruel world.
Rick,
Want to shoot for Wednesday, the 18th? I’ll throw this out there in case some other Gonzos want to participate. We could either do Martins again or maybe Blue5 (they have a very robust draft menu now)
The draft selection at Blue 5 indeed is impressive. And the Double Heart is great stuff (but it ain’t cheap).
@36 If this becomes a solid plan, can you remind folks closer to the date?
36. Bill, If I don’t fly the coup after the 17th. Let’s plan on it with you guys and verify a little closer. Thanks
Cool. I’ll follow up with everyone closer to the 18th. I’m penciling it on my calendar.
Dan, I haven’t tried Double Heart but will.
I saw where they cracked a keg of Dogfish Head 90 minute IPA which is one of my favorites. At 9% abv, a couple go a long ways…lol
I for one am darn sick and tired of living in this “redistributionist” country of ours! I am sick and tired of redistributing the darn wealth from the middle class and working poor to the top 1%!!!
Sandi:
“Do you realize that:
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth”
“The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income””
Do you realize that the top 20% of real estate agents have 80% of the listings? No one is crying to redistribute the listings, either. Also with a purely commission-based income, no sales, no pay, no questions. The free market keeps the quality of services and the costs for services reasonable. Would you call for a redistribution here?
John Wilburn, buy a clue, “no one is crying to redistribute” the wealth. And of course the wealthy, like the top real estate agents, have “the most”. My point is that paying their fair share in proportion to earnings is not and is not going to be a burden. I am not calling for any “redistribution” and neither is anyone else. Their wealth and income has grown because they get a better deal on just about everything than the rest of us. Taxes should be fair and proportional. They are not.
If you pay 30% tax on 250k income from hustling and hard work, why does someone who makes that on a gambling investment get to pay only 15% tax on it?
This is an uphill argument in this group. Richard I’m sure you understand the 15% capital gains tax is paid as a result of investment capital that has already been taxed at 35%. If Mitt Romney pays 15%, look at 15% of how much, he already pays way more in taxes in one year than most people pay in a life time. How is that fair? Sandi, I agree we have to raise revenues and cut spending (including military) and the way to raise revenues is to increase the GDP by cutting taxes for all. I think we should all pay far less taxes than we pay. Do any of you all really think that of Mr. Obama raises taxes on the top 1% that anyone else will actually pay less? Will it make you feel better about yourselves if a guy making a million dollars a year has to pay 60% of it in taxes. “We really showed him” I have never been one to be envious of others. If a guy (or girl) makes 10 million and figures out a way to pay less taxes more power to them. Taxation is not social architecture, it should be the most efficient way to raise revenues for the Governments services.
Richard
I’m Secretary / Treasurer of a company with revenues in the 5 to 10 million dollar range. I electronically transfer a very large amount of money every week to cover withholdings and matching FICA, I know exactly how much in taxes the average working guy pays because I pay it for him, and we all pay too much. Your argument makes no sense, don’t you think the ultra “rich” pay all the same fee’s and more than the “middle class”. Don’t tell me thats not fair because it uses a larger percentage of the “middle class” income than the wealthy. That is social architecture and not revenue generating
Sandi
The idea is because your original investment has already been taxed once. It my opinion there should be 0% on capital gains.
False and misleading argument as usual Michael. It is patently false that the investment income has already been taxed and you have no clue at what rate. Certainly in Romney’s case it is not remotely true.
As usual, you want to argue amounts as opposed to proportion. Because you lose otherwise. 15% of 250K is not the same as 30% of 250K and THAT is the argument. The ONLY argument. That gambling is rewarded with a lower tax rate and losses are also deductible is just not paying your fair share and nothing you say can make it so.
Due to the debt we have accumulated for over 30 years, we CANNOT all pay less in taxes, that is simply the reality. It is not about us paying less, it is about the wealthy paying their fair share.
The Bush tax cuts have to go for America to succeed.
#44 Uhh, Michael, seems to me that it’s likely that a lot of Mitt’s investment capital is revenue from investment capital that was taxed at 15 percent, not 35 percent.
So tell us Michael, do you believe the “average working guy” whose wages and taxes you “pay” every week should pay the same amount in taxes that you do? Do they make the same income that you do?
“That is social architecture”
What a quaint little term for class warfare. See #30.
Re: #s 33, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, etc
I’ll buy a round or two, also.
Come on, Michael. You are not being fully honest in this debate.
You DO NOT PAY TAXES on capital except once, when you earn it. If you invest it and you get a gain from it you pay no taxes on that capital again. You pay ONLY on the passive gain and you know it.
And btw, you did not necessarily pay 35 percent tax on that capital back when you earned it. If it came from an investment gain you paid 15 percent income taxes on it.
And to suggest that you should pay a LOWER rate for earnings for which you DID NO work (but took some risk) and a higher rate on earnings that you took no risk (but did a A LOT of work) is wrongheaded — although, I surely grasp why the moneyed classes like that scheme.
They like it because it means lower tax rate for not working that the rest of us poor schlubs pay for working..
BTW, do you know what Ronald Reagan thought about that:? He thought that was an abomination, Michael.
And btw, let’s talk about inheritance taxes for just a minute.
The rich consider these an abomination. Their argument is thus: As rich daddy amassed a $6 million fortune, he paid taxes on those earnings. He DID NOT pay 35 percent taxes on that money. Surely he paid 35 percent on some of it, but just as surely, other bits of it were capital gains and dividends, on which he paid far less.
He dies, and the estate is to be divided equally among his 3 sons. But there are estate taxes, right? And they are up to 35 percent. Which makes it sound like the feds will cut themselves in for a little more than$2 million. OUTRAGEOUS, right?
Wrong. It is not outrageous. Rich daddy is not getting taxed again. He is dead.
It would not even be outrageous if the 35 percent was applied to the full estate, because that IS AN INCOME windfall to the sons. They didn’t earn it. They got it because they had the good fortune to have successful parents. In that way it is like winning the lottery, right?
Wrong again. Because in 2012, the first $5.120,000 of any estate is exempt from the federal estate tax. Thus, $880,000 of rich daddy’s estate is subject to the estate tax, which will we assume is the full 35 percent. So the feds will claim $308,000 of a $6 million estate, which is just slightly more than 5 percent. Those lucky beneficiaries paid 5 percent taxe on their income windfall.
Here is the hilarious part: Lottery winner pay a lot more, but they should right?
Right?
Of course the lottery winner should pay more in taxes. What did they do to earn that money? Oh, right, neither did the beneficiaries or the guy sitting back playing the stock market.
Even the gambler is subject to a higher tax rate than the capital gains. Go enjoy a day at the casino and win $5000 and they will withhold 25% then and there. you don’t even get to keep it until the end of the year, even if you go back and lose it all the next day. Another poor tax…
http://www.irs.gov/instructions/iw2g/ar02.html
Dan,
I have personally been effected by the inheritance tax and it is the most unfair tax of all. This is wealth envy plain and simple. The inheritance tax only effects roughly 1 in 166 folks according to death statistics in 2009, it’s a very small minority of people. SO it really has nothing to do with raising revenue but a way for the less fortunate to sock it to the rich guy. How sad! I just do not comprehend the anger towards wealthy people. I know a lot of people that are far more successful than I am and I’m very happy that they have had the good fortune, work ethic, luck, brains or whatever helped them to become very successful. I know folks that have or will inherit a lot more than I have or will and I’m very happy for their good fortune, and wish they paid no taxes on any of their inheritance. I just don’t comprehend the anger. Why not just live your life and be happy instead of begrudging what others have. I will make a bold prediction, you folks that advocate class warfare are in the minority (although not in this blog), and you all are going to be in for a sad sad time in November. Most folks understand people should be allowed to keep their money whether they earned it or inherited it.
“The inheritance tax only effects roughly 1 in 166 folks according to death statistics in 2009, it’s a very small minority of people. SO it really has nothing to do with raising revenue but a way for the less fortunate to sock it to the rich guy.”
Michael, you could make the same argument as to the income tax on billionaires. There are so few of them that what they pay in income taxes in total has little impact on federal government revenues. So, why tax them at all?
That would be ridiculous, however.
The fact is, inheritances are INCOME windfalls to the individuals lucky enough to hit the jackpot and get one. They didn’t work for it, and the person who did is dead.
Tell me why you believe MegaMillions winners SHOULD be taxed but winners of the “death lottery” should not be.
Because the money in the inheritance tax has already been taxed. If a person has 100 million dollars why can’t he/she give it to who they want without the Government getting their hands in it. Not fair, you will never change my mind!
It’s been a few months, and once again we have to have the same argument of tax rates vs gross amount paid.
I swear, i don’t know why the same people still don’t understand their arguments hold no water.
If someone who makes 10 million dollars and pays 10% taxes ($1M) and someone who makes $50,000 and pays 30% ($15,000) is completely unfair, even if that $1M is more than the $50,000 guy pays in 100 years.
We are all happy you’re a supposedly successful person, but you still shouldn’t be given an advantage in paying less percentage of taxes than someone who isn’t as successful. It should be an equal rate, if anything. If that means you pay more gross amount, then so be it.
When the hell was the last time the “less fortunate” got to write tax laws in this nation? If you felt a bus roll over you, it was some rich lawyer who sits in DC that was driving, not the “less fortunate”. Get a grip. You gained a windfall and complain about the taxes? Do tell us the proportion so we can weep with you. I am sure that is why so many avoid the lottery.
Michael, when you spend some of your hard-earned money at a nice restaurant in Roanoke you pay a 12 percent tax (5 percent state sales, 7 percent city meals).
How is that fair? Your money’s already been taxed. Why can’t you spend it on whatever meal you want?
And the personal property taxes you pay — you pay them with money that’s already been taxed. Same with your utility taxes.
The fact is (and right here on this blog you recently supported sales, utitlity and state income taxes) we have a system of taxation that extracts money when it changes hands.
And when an estate transfers money to a beneficiary, that money is changing hands.
In other words, it IS fair. You may not like it but it’s fair.
“I have personally been effected by the inheritance tax”
Poor baby…
a flat rate or national sales tax would be fair!
With adequate titling, use of the unified credit, and a little brain power directed, a lot of inheritance taxes can be dodged. Most families that are potentially effecged by that tax do a little upfront work to minimize them. As for the rest…pfff. There’s nothing more precious about inheriting money than getting it any other way, for sure, and it should be taxed accordingly.
“If a person has 100 million dollars why can’t he/she give it to who they want without the Government getting their hands in it.”
Why on earth SHOULDN’T this 100 million be taxed on transfer? The person getting it didn’t earn it…it’s lottery money. The tax code is entirely written for the very wealthy…the inheritance tax is a non issue, which is why you rarely hear even GOP candidates mention it.
First off, 2009 statistics are no longer relevant in relation to Estate Taxes (there is no inheritance tax). Estates now have a $5 million dollar exclusion that with a spouse is expanded to $10 million. Very, very few people have an Estate tax problem today.
As for why the tax at all? The tax was enacted because there were families in the US (The Robber Barrons) that had accumulated such wealth that they were becoming too powerful in our democracy. They controlled and monoplized our system. As our Republic is based on equal representation and opportunity, Congress believed it must stop the unbridled accumulation of wealth in any particular families. They did not believe we should be a Nation of Lords and serfs. Up until the lost decade this has been the approach of Congress. In 2000, the GOP began seeking to establish Lords in the US and have annually attempted to remove the Estate Tax at the request of the Ultra Wealthy in echange for contributions to their campaigns.
Scott
Sometimes I wonder just how “successful” I am. I work hard and take a lot of risk with my families assets. I get frustrated because it seems every where turn one gives more and more of it away. It is very hard to make money in today’s economy. As I keep saying I think all Americans pay too much in taxes, and Government is way too large. There is very little I actually want to Government to do.
“a flat rate or national sales tax would be fair!”
So what’s the flat income tax rate, Michael? 50 percent?
No offense Michael, but it looks like you could use a little advice in your investment strategy. If you’re talking about retirement assets, you haven’t paid a penny on them yet unless you have a ROTH in which case you’ll completely tax-free growth. There are plenty of tax-favorable vehicles out there….you live in a nabe crammed with financial advisors…get some advice!
What snobbery. You honestly believe anyone envies your wealth and wants to take it from you? Perhaps, your inheritance came too early in your life and perhaps you are not quite as wealthy as you think.
You suggest that a person making $50,000 a year pay the same tax rate as a person making $500,000. As I have stated time after time, the person making $50,000 pays a much greater percentage of their income in taxes that the person making $500,000. Not only that, they pay a much higher percentage on the money it takes to live. This higher tax rate limits if not totally takes away their ability to move up in the US. He can never save and begin to live off his investments, but is stuck forever in labor. The person making $500,000 has a much smaller percentage spent in taxes especially in relation to their cost of living. He is able to save and begin to have interest and dividends to supplement his income. Even at that, he will remain in the middle class because his ability to earn enough in investments is limited and he will labor until retiement.
But the person making $3 million dollars a year and up pays the least percentage in taxes a has large sums to invest and on which to live. His labor is for wealth, not for survival.
It is not a matter of envy, it is a matter of equity. The super wealthy should contribute more to society because society has given them more, they use more of societies benefits (military, banking, raw materials) and they have more to lose if society fails.
Your fear of those less fortunate taking your riches is absurd. You should be grateful for the benefits society has blessed you with and the many protections government provides. The poorer man does not envy you, he merely wants you to stop taking more of his money and to pay your own fair share for the benefits you receive from government.
Michael,
I mentioned on a different thread yesterday that my federal income tax rate for 2011 was slightly more than 15%. When you add state income, personal property, property taxes as well as social security & medicare tax to that the effective rate my wife & I paid was 26.3%. That does not include sales taxes on purchases or restaurant and hotel taxes paid on eating out and staying out.
I agree that at the federal level expenditure cuts have to be made. I would start with the tax expenditures (more than 100) that have been added to the tax code since its inception in 1913. These include such expenditures as the mortgage interest deduction, charitable gift deduction, various energy tax subsidies, interest as a business expense, etc. These expenditures reduce revenues by nearly $1 trillion dollars.
Funding for social security & medicare is a challenge right now. Simply increasing the income subject to the tax would offset part of that challenge. Allowing medicare to negotiate with drug companies over drug costs is estimated to reduce pharmacy costs to medicare about $16 billion per year.
Those are just a few of my ideas on the current tax system. I respect your right to disagree.
Michael A. Howdyshell @65 – unlike you, I do expect something from my taxes – I want my government to work for all of us. Although I don’t receive a penny from the government – it isn’t about what I individually may benefit from the government – but what we as a society should want and expect from our government.
I want the government to assure, by inspection, that the food we eat isn’t going to poison us;
I want the government to assure the medicines we take will not kill us;
I want our government to provide aid and assistance when national disasters strike;
I want the government to monitor water and air quality so we don’t return to the 1800′s air quality;
I want the government to retain infrastructure which leads to better commerce;
I want our government to provide for the national security without infringing on codified rights;
I want our government guaranteeing all people of all faiths the right to worship freely;
and I want my government to help the elderly, the poor. the disabled, and our veterans with access to medical, mental health and educational opportunities.
I am sure there are many others who expect a variety of different issues to be addressed by the government…laws protecting us from bankster/predators; consumer safety issues and many many more.
“I want the government to assure, by inspection, that the food we eat isn’t going to poison us.”
And to this I would add that I want the government to assure, by inspection or whatever means possible, that the ground beef we eat isn’t stuffed with some chemical-soaked, reconstituted hoof-and-organ slurry that until 2001 was considered fit only for dogs. That’s outrageous, and even more outrageous is the fact that Govs. Sam Brownback, Rick Perry and Terry Branstad are defending that crap.
48. and 49. Michael, lets take your social architecture first. The SSN trust funds have been used to support the general operating fund for decades. Every dime that goes in has been used to pay for a government that protects your inherited assets. Every dime that goes to medicare goes for the protection of the elderly , disabled, and orphans. You too will benefit from this fund when you retire even though you have paid a much lesser percentage of your income than many others. You seem tho think that your firm is paying the payroll taxes, it is paying the employees payroll taxes and the employers portion is built into how much you pay your employees. It is not the Company’s money, but the employee’s money.
As for 48, according to your logic, the wealthy should not pay anything as their portion is so small and well gosh, wow they inherited it after all. Or you try to make the argument that corporate taxes have been paid on the money first. That is only true if, the company pays dividends, and two if they have paid corporate taxes. As most companies in the US either pay very little in corporate taxes or they are growth companies that pay no dividends. Your Double taxation argument falls apart there. But then again, the Supreme Court have given corporations personhood, so that takes away all arguments of double taxation.
The fact of the matter is wage earners are getting taken to the cleaners by the current tax law and the wealthy (I assume you don’t fit that category as you are upset about the price of things, the wealthy are not concerned with price) are not paying anywhere near the rate of taxation as the working person. This does create more of a problem that just revenue. The incentive to work and the incentive to honestly pay ones taxes is based on an equitable system. When the equity is gone, then no one feels obligated to pay their share. Our tax system is being destroyed by the inequity (you believe it is inequitable and should not have to pay so much) and it destroys our citizenship. Our citizens believe the government is poorly run, dishonest, allows it representatives to be bought, that we all pay too much in taxes, and that we do not get enough for our money. One of the main reasons for this is the inequity in the tax code. Our system is built on equality and our citizens demand it. Take equity away and you create black market of scammers and cheaters that seek to beat the system. You just cannot have a tax system so out of kilter.
62.”a flat rate or national sales tax would be fair!”
Watch out Michael A. Howdyshell, they’ll Herman Cain you right out of here. What I find unfair is that no matter how rich someone is they are ONE PERSON that is limited to how much world they can be using at one time. The rich person can’t contribute to the decay of the sidewalk any more than the poor person. If the rich person’s house has 100′ of road frontage and his/her neighbor has 100′ of road frontage why is the rich person paying $500 of that pro-rated cost instead of the $100 their neighbor is? Why is the rich person contributing more to public buildings? Ultimately, I don’t see where the rich should pay more than the fair share for their consumption of a given thing.
The amazing philosopher and songwriter Root Boy Slim wrote and recorded a song in 1984 that perfectly encapsulates Michael Howdyshell’s brand of taxation and economics. It’s called “Tough Luck,” from the album “Dog Secrets.” Sadly, it’s not available on YouTube – yet.
It has a great mid-song rap by Root”
“Got me uptown,
I’m lookin’ for work,
Took three buses and
Walked a mile and a half,
And I came up to
The Ronald Reagan Employment Agency.
And he said ‘Slim,
I was down at the Oval Office
And they got this big book down there, Slim,
With YOUR name in it.’
I said, ‘Mr. President, I’ve been
Watching your progress since
You came to town, too, bud.
I’m middle-class and this is half-assed!’
#71 They defend that Dan likely because some lobbyist is talking in their ears promising future campaign funds. Business first, the consumer second in their world…
Indeed, John Wilburn!
But you failed to take your example to its logical conclusion. If a billionaire is living in a 1,450-square-foot house, WHY ON EARTH should they be paying more in property taxes than a poor person who lives in a 1,450-square-foot house?
Oh. Wait a minute. Reality check. Dropped a zero there. If the rich person is living a 14,500-square-foot house, why should they be paying more property tax than a poor person who lives in a 1,450-square-foot house?
Dan, that’s why I said neighbors with equal road frontage. It implies the houses are the same. Even if they aren’t, the rich guy still paid tax on each and every fancy thing he put in that 14,500 square foot house once. Why should he continue to pay tax on it? To build that house, he spent WAY more in taxes than the neighbor.
He spent twice in taxes on 1,000 bricks vs. the neighbor’s 500, twice in taxes on $5.00 per square foot flooring vs. the neighbor’s $2.50 per square foot flooring, and infinitely more in taxes on the crown molding he bought and paid for that the neighbor didn’t.
I definitely think a poor person should pay the same rate of tax on his day old loaf of bread as Romney pays on his next yacht.
There’s nothing fair or equitable about a flat tax or VAT.
JohnWilburn, rich people most definitely suck up more than their share of resources. How could you not know this? They have bigger houses with more bathrooms and more energy sucking appliances, and require more to heat and cool and produce more garbage and waste. The own more cars and inflict more damage on the public roads, plus are way more invested in snow removal than someone who relies on public transportation.
Paying taxes is the cost of living in the bestest country in the world. Pay up and like it.
John Wilburn, you know the houses are not the same. And the amount somebody paid in sales tax on flooring shouldn’t necessarily get them a pass on real estate taxes. By that logic, the amount some pays in income taxes (or the percentage they pay) should get them a pass on sales taxes. And you can follow that little logic train all the way down to zero taxation and no society whatsoever. No public schools, police forces, fire departments. No military. No legislatures, Congress, city councils. No public highways. No airports.
Is a coherent income tax argument possible with you people? The rich do not pay their fair share of the taxes now and whatever “switch” we make they will again buy the legislators who will insure that pattern continues. That Michael Howdyshell does not get that he is as much a patsy for the rich as the rest of us because he does not work by the hour or has some title is particularly telling. Being a willing pawn is just sad. Falling for the “someday your ship will come in” support of this inequity is frightening.
Property taxes, as much as people hate them, are at least fair. It is based on the valuation of your home and a flat cents per $100 value. Sales tax is also the same for us all. Granted the wage/benefit structure determines how much or if you have any real estate and what you can buy, but they are not unfair, just a bigger burden on the less wealthy and a huge burden on the poor and working poor.
It is the income tax that hammers working for a living and cossets gambling with your excess money for a living. Why any sane person sees that as fair is the question for the ages, but it is rooted in the love of money and the belief that the rich are special. Some of us have moved past the feudal system.
Kristen, you left a bunch of stufff out. let me fill in where necessary:
JohnWilburn, rich people most definitely suck up more than their share of resources. How could you not know this? They have bigger houses with more bathrooms…..
.
Which they paid for
.
… and more energy sucking appliances, and require more to heat and cool….
.
and they pay more for the electricity and its tax and more tax on the more expensive furnishings and appliances…
.
… and produce more garbage and waste….
.
the town limits each person to a collection amount regardless of wealth. If they produce more waste, they can pay to dispose of it like everyone else has for a long time. Or pay someone else to dispose of it and CREATE A JOB. The more waste, the more new stuff they paid sales tax on is coming in to displace that waste.
.
…The[y] own more cars and inflict more damage on the public roads, plus are way more invested in snow removal….
.
They can only drive ONE car, which they paid tax on, at a time, so NO they do not cause more damage. Since the rich drive newer cars, they continue to pay big taxes EACH year on them.
.
…. than someone who relies on public transportation.
.
Which the rich pay for in taxes.
Dan:
79.”John Wilburn, you know the houses are not the same. And the amount somebody paid in sales tax on flooring shouldn’t necessarily get them a pass on real estate taxes.”
No, that’s not what I said. Why should someone paying tax on a product to improve their home raise the assessment and force them to pay again and again a higher tax amount? It’s not fair.
“By that logic…. No public schools, police forces, fire departments. No military. No legislatures, Congress, city councils. No public highways. No airports.”
Talk about a slippery slope of red herrings. Geez! Do you do this with everything? I don’t believe in privatizing everything, but do believe in paying an equal share of tax once.
“The rich do not pay their fair share of the taxes now…”
Then go play Robin Hood.
“Property taxes, as much as people hate them, are at least fair. It is based on the valuation of your home and a flat cents per $100 value.”
This is not really fair since more tax was spent improving the property in properties with a higher assessment. Tax based purely on the unimproved property per zoning would be more fair, but not as fair as a consumption-based tax.
“Sales tax is also the same for us all.”
And the most fair accross the board.
“Some of us have moved past the feudal system.”
So far past, you’re clear the other side of the Constitution too.
.
Re: #70
it isn’t about what I individually may benefit from the government – but what we as a society should want and expect from our government.
I want the government to assure, by inspection, that the food we eat isn’t going to poison us;
I want the government to assure the medicines we take will not kill us;
I want our government to provide aid and assistance when national disasters strike;
I want the government to monitor water and air quality so we don’t return to the 1800′s air quality;
I want the government to retain infrastructure which leads to better commerce;
I want our government to provide for the national security without infringing on codified rights;
I want our government guaranteeing all people of all faiths the right to worship freely;
and I want my government to help the elderly, the poor. the disabled, and our veterans with access to medical, mental health and educational opportunities.
———-
Well done, Hillary.
I get a kick out of every time an investigative reporter looks into the records of a self-proclaimed I-did-it-on-my-own-without-any help-from… and proves proves it to be a lie.
Time after time these “self-made” folk have gotten all kind of direct and indirect help and that doesn’t count all the “tax expenditures” they benefit from.
In 2010, the
**
…CBO tabulates 165 major deviations from a straightforward, simple income tax. In spite of the fact that these tax breaks — more formally known as “tax expenditures” — are expected to cost more than $5 trillion in foregone revenue over the next five years, they remain deeply embedded in the system without any of the congressional oversight or review that spending programs receive as a matter of course. No process exists for evaluating the extent to which tax breaks are accomplishing their desired goals or otherwise justifying their cost. In fact, the vast majority of tax breaks have not been shown to change behavior in ways that Congress intended when first enacting them into law.
Legislators use tax breaks to encourage certain behaviors and at times simply to reward private constituents as well as businesses. In the name of promoting saving, investment, and home ownership, for example, the income tax code has been endowed with special provisions that deliver very little to lowincome households, significant benefits to the middle class, and huge tax breaks to high-income households.
**
Source http://tcf.org/publications/2010/7/pb719/pdf
Why the heck should thoroughbred house owners be getting a tax break at our expense? Why should large agribusiness being subsidized?
“What snobbery.”
Yep. I’d wager Mike has never done an honest day’s hard labor in his life.
“Then go play Robin Hood.”
John Wilburn, you seriously do not appreciate what I’m attempting to do here.
I will acknowledge that the character Robin Hood was a boyhood hero. I read all Robin Hood books, back when I was 7 and 8. I was an ardent Robin Hood scholar at a young age. (Robin Hood was the first Libertarian, fyi, although he had a few quite legitimate beefs regarding the respect of private property owned by cruel, rich, sadistic a–holes). And in Mine Hill, N.J. I was a leader of the pack of young ruffians who roamed the woods, playing games beneath the great ethical umbrella called “What would Robin Hood Do?” We did a lot in those woods. Mostly we’d dam up streamed that flowed toward the local sandpit/quarry. Those dams would flood the woods, and deprive the owner of the sand pit of water he needed for his operation. We drove him crazy. And he would call the cops. It was great fun, playing cat-and -mouse with the cops in those woods. We always got away. We knew the woods. The cops didn’t.
What you don’t understand is that I DON’T want this country to get to a point that breeds REAL Robin Hoods. Every rich person will be much better off if we never get there. But we are headed in that direction. And it’s all because of the unbridled greed of the rich, and the society that has been created in the past 30 years in which they feel entitled to every last dime they’re able to earn/steal/whatever you want to call it.
Robin Hood is only a mild first step in a hard-to-stop process under which the rich will end up dying violently, when middle-class cops and soldiers refuse to protect them.
We can stop that from happening, but only if the rich will pay fair rates of taxation.
“Robin Hood is only a mild first step in a hard-to-stop process under which the rich will end up dying violently, when middle-class cops and soldiers refuse to protect them. ”
Weird Dan, I had a conversation a lot like this recently with my son who’s taking AP World Civ this year. He said….Every other revolution we look back on and say that they were inevitable. France, Russia….we act now like they were always destined for revolution. Yet somehow here, we assume that such a thing would be impossible. With jobs being off shored, a tax code out of whack, and a large and growing wealth gap….we’re on the road to one ourselves. And maybe100 years from now, the history books will read that it was inevitable.
“We can stop that from happening, but only if the rich will pay fair rates of taxation.”
Dan, 1. we can’t legislate greed out of existence and 2. your idea of “fair” share means an unambiguously unfair share that buys civility and defers rioting. It’s just easier to crap on the middle class. We work hard, pay a lot of taxes, are less likely to riot than the poor, and have less means to effect change than the rich.
John Wilburn,
You’re right that you can’t legislate greed out of existence. But you can check it with taxation and protect the rich idiots from themselves.
“Weird Dan, I had a conversation a lot like this recently with my son who’s taking AP World Civ this year. He said….Every other revolution we look back on and say that they were inevitable. France, Russia….we act now like they were always destined for revolution.”
Kristen, this is the main thing people don’t understand about Karl Marx. He never called for revolution. All he did was predict it would happen. And he was right.
“But you can check it with taxation and protect the rich idiots from themselves.”
This sounds eerily like the advocates of “disarming us for our own good”.
I don’t buy either.
Kristen,
I’m not going to predict that a second American Revolution can never happen. We were close to one in the 1960s and 70s in my view. However, leaders stepped up an took steps to do what was needed to forestall it. We fought a Civil War to put our nation on the right track once as you know. A major difference between France in the 18th Century and Russia in the early 20th century and the U.S. is we have democratic institutions which, while not always working efficiently, ultimately enable the citizens to put leaders in place to do the people’s will. We’ve been lucky. I believe our luck will continue.
“We fought a Civil War to put our nation on the right track once as you know.”
I don’t really agree with this, but won’t get into it either.
Another revolution here could be ugly. I don’t know what it would look like, but we have a pressure cooker here right now, that’s for sure.
Art, Your statement is wrong. I started in the construction business working summers and breaks during college as a labor. I did the hardest jobs on site that nobody else wanted to do. There are very few things on a construction site that I have not done from digging footings to hanging drywall to mixxing mud for masons. The man I worked for turned out to a great mentor, friend, and suto Father, but he was one mean SOB. Even though I have not worked for him in years and he lives in a different state we talk everyday and I often tell him how much I appreciate how hard he was on me as a young man. I have worked very hard in my life. Richard the one response I will make to your eloquent, but misguided, oration is the statement you made about society “giving” the wealthy more stuff. Most of the wealthy folks I know are wealthy because they worked very hard and committed their lives to building wealth. Society did not give them a damn thing they earned it.
Sandi,
You and I will simply never agree.We view life so differently that I cannot even comprehend where you are coming from. However I do respect your opinion and your right to voice it. I have often wondered how people on the left and right can look at issues so differently. Good bad or indifferent the way we view the world is completely different.
“Art, Your statement is wrong.”
Then you should know better. Hard work does not guarantee success Michael, there is some luck involved, too.
#92: “Most of the wealthy folks I know are wealthy because they worked very hard…Society did not give them a damn thing they earned it.”
Micheal, from your having told us that you were first in your family to go to college, we’ve already gathered that you have had virtually no exposure to the class that Romney, Bush, Scaife, and Paris Hilton spring from. For once, you might try considering whether your limited provincial experience is sufficient to justify swallowing whole the stuff you’re fed by those your family has nothing in common with.
John #91: “Another revolution here could be ugly. I don’t know what it would look like, but we have a pressure cooker here right now, that’s for sure.”
For someone who’s so eager to claim an interest in history and assert his command of “the facts”, John, you show that you haven’t learned enough to put your own experience in accurate perspective. Many of us would have to say you really haven’t seen a pressure cooker, my less than humble e-friend.
Just for a start, try this for pressure:
murder of the leading U.S. candidate for president,
murder of the most famous civil rights activist of our lifetime,
nearly forty thousand middle and working class American draftees dead and counting in a quagmire war while the U.S. starts a secret second war,
major U.S. cities in flames, riots on many campuses
Chicago mayor and police create a riot at national political convention
a reactionary racist homophobe with total personal control of a federal police agency,
a U.S. Navy sub crew held hostage by North Korea,
Soviet Union violently re-occupies Czechoslavakia
a nuclear U.S. sub sunk with 99 aboard,
four nuclear weapons lost in Greenland,
nerve gas leak in Utah,
air and water pollution reach record level in U.S.,
major program of brutal cultural repression in China,
coups bring repressive regimes to Iraq, Peru and Panama,
Brazil comes under a dictatorship,
religious civil war starts in Northern Ireland,
riot in Mexico City leaves hundreds dead,
riots put France on brink of revolution,
another country gains nuclear weapons,
Nigerian blockade causes widespread starvation in Biafra,
German anarchists cell launches terror attacks,
airliner hijacking to Cuba,
Zodiac killer starts serial murder spree…
in a single year (1968) that many of us, but alas, not you, experienced. And we got through it not primarily or even secondarily thanks to guns.
You needn’t bother pulling out specific items for comment, because that would steer past the point, which is that for whatever the reason that you prefer to believe that you are in particularly precarious times, it only highlights again how much you rely on a certainty of your own perspective that others know is unfounded.
Michael, responding to your post earlier addressing me…
I agree, I think government should be smaller than it is currently. It is unrealistic to expect that taxes will go away. This large country needs its infrastructure and programs to maintain our status as a world leader as well as to maintain order. To that extent, we should all pay taxes to support programs, defense, etc…
However, you are advocating a position where the burden to pay these necessary taxes is much much greater on the middle and lower class, while most sensible people believe in a FAIR system where the burdens are equally shared.
By being financially successful, you are still reaping the rewards of having THAT much more money in your bank account. But you shouldn’t expect to get more reward from by the government just for being a good businessman. You’ve already received your reward in the form of deep coffers.
Warren I cannot take credit fir being the first in my family to go to college. That person lived many many years ago. My older brother told me one time when my grades we suffering as an undergraduate that I might well be the first person in my family not to graduate from college. That was a great motive for me to graduate.
Furthermore Warren, my ancestors were officers in the Revolutiinry War, War between the states, And WW ll. I’m sure my beliefs were molded from my parents as I am molding my sons, however my political views are based on extensive reading, undergraduate degree in history and master degree in business.
Dear Warren:
“You needn’t bother pulling out specific items for comment, because that would steer past the point, which is that for whatever the reason that you prefer to believe that you are in particularly precarious times”
I like the built-in discouragement from a rebuttal, but we also weren’t $15,000,000,000,000 in debt then either. Debt has a funny way of grenading people and things.
John Wilburn
“we also weren’t $15 trillion in debt then either”
True. And we had a tax system that asked much from the wealthy. Go back and look at the tax rates the top 10%^ were payting in 1968 and that corporations were paying. And look at the billions in tax breaks that have been handed over to them since that time. It was a tiome of violent upheaval and greart dissatisfaction but it was also the time when we went to the moon, when we were spending billions on infrastructure, when we were spending huge sums on catching up and leaping ahead of the world in science and math and tecdhnology And it was happening because of federal programs and because we had a tax sysytem that required those who had much t5o pay a larger share to accomplish those things.. When we started to change that policy and adopt the “trickle down” theories is when the debt began to accumulate. We’re not going to get out of it by trickle down economics. That has failed and left us where we are today.
Then, Micheal, I apologize for getting you confused with someone else here who said that in the past year.
The great expansion of public colleges that occurred in the 1960′s and ’70′s was one of the more noble uses of taxes to help the American middle class. Essentially, it was economic affirmative action for the changing middle class. As recently as the late 1970′s, over half of Radford U.’s student body were the first in their family to be in college. Besides absorbing the baby boomers energies during that time, the university boom helped create the better educated workforce necessary for our modern economy. Then the Reagan era arrived, and kids were told to emphasize money focused studies, and science and the liberal arts were attacked by Falwellian anti-intellectuals. We’re still suffering from that shift.
But back to my mistaken impression of you, Micheal. So, to be clear, you HAVE spent extensive time with your friends from Andover and Choate, partied in Newport cottages, and been in dozens of homes from Darien to the Upper East Side, and know Beacon Hill, Saddle River, Bloomfield Hills and Holmby Hills like you were born there. The milieu of the Romneys, Bushes, and Mellon Scaifes is in fact the exact same as your own, and I apologize for thinking that they had been shaped in a different world of privilege than yourself.
That certainly explains why you agree with the maintenance of special lower tax rates for those whose contributions as “job creators” stem from their passive investment income, since surely generations of your family were in equity partnerships on The Street. Next time you see Paris Hilton, thank her on behalf of everyone in Wise County for all that she has trickled down on them these past few years. (And I admit one hasn’t needed to carry the name of an FFV for decades, as Carter Lee Branch Cabell VI will attest. Are you related, or do you just know him from the Hunt?)
John, that was no discouragement from rebuttal, just an anticipation of what might be your tendency. And true to form, your reply didn’t address my explicit point: that “you rely on a certainty of your own perspective that others know is unfounded.”
Of course you’re free to explain why any of those events weren’t unsettling, why they don’t presage or exceed today’s troubles, or could have been made better with hidden guns. For that matter, you can compare the GDP of today to that of earlier times, explain how much of the debt is owed domestically, or what were the potential problems presented by having no debt. I’m sure you’ll do so with great self-certainty.
92. Michael Howdyshell – That is exactly where we definitely disagree. When someone says they earned their wealth it simply is not true. . Some people work harder than others and some people work smarter than others; but how hard or smart you work does not necessarily translate into earning wealth. Many people work two full time jobs and will never acquire wealth. Others have PHDs and work professional jobs and never become wealthy. Yet some are fortunate to have an idea and little education and become the richest in the US, Bill Gates. There is no earning of wealth, hard work and smart work might make it more likely, but even the hardest and smartest often fail.
Most of acquiring wealth is luck. To be born to the right parents, to have the right idea at the right time, to take risks that others aren’t willing to take, to just be in the right place at the right time. Sometimes it is having been born with the right gene combination that gives you the ability to sell, or the ability to invent. You have been blessed by an inheritance and you have been blessed by being born in a family that valued education, had the right ethnicity, had the right status, had the right location, had the right parenting. You have been blessed with a personality that allows you to take risks and go into business for yourself. You did not earn any of those things, you were born with them. Yes you could have chosen other routes, but that is the point, your genetics allowed you to be the person you are and to have the parents you had, and to have the opportunity and capital to succeed. Others that do not have those genetics yet work as hard if not harder than you. You are proud of your accomplishments as you should be; but realize, your part in the success was minor, most was ordained from your genetics and family that blessed you with the tools to succeed. Many others have to overcome their genetics and family just to survive.
Warren
I’m going to do something I rarely do on this blog, I’m going to insult you. I refuse to respond to your obliviously uneducated idiotic response. It’s impossible for you to have an intelligent disagreement without belittling others. In short you Sir are an idiot and have no class and are no gentlemen. This will be the last time I will ever acknowledge that you exist. As I told someone once if you see me on the street please walk to the other side of the road as I will not speak to you. Dan I apologize for my tirade but Warren deserves it. It’s not only conservatives that type stupid things on this blog. I disagree with Sandi and Gdad a lot of times but I do respect them as they never belittle people the way that you do. So good day Sir and have a nice life.
Scott,
As I said earlier I don’t know how financially successful I am that’s not my point. My point is that the “rich” already pay way more in taxes than the “middle class” & the “poor”. The percentage that one pays in taxes as compared to another is not important. What is important is how much an individual pays. I would be upset if a family had an AGIC of over a million dollars and paid nothing in federal taxes just as I’m upset when a person has an AGIC of 20,000 and pays nothing. Everyone should pay something then maybe we ALL could pay less. It’s very nice to have a respectful discussion with you over the issues, thank you for being a gentlemen. If there were more folks like you and Gdad the blog would be a lot more pleasant and enjoyable for all.
John Wilburn – As for the wealthy needing the government more than the middle class, let me explain. One of the governments’ primary functions is the protection of its citizens. If I have 300 million dollars in assets I need protection by police, by fire, by the military for my assets as well as my personal well being. If I own nothing, I stand to lose only my personal well being. You may say that the US and States pay a lot to help the poor. My answer is that the reason they pay to help the very poor is to keep the very poor from 1. revolting, 2 robbing the very rich.
As we think about the declining middle class we need to think about history. Even Michael, who says he was a history major as an undergrad, might understand the impact a strong middle class can have on the economy. We all should study what’s happened to the middle class since the 1980s and the impact of supply side (trickle down) economics.
http://my.firedoglake.com/politicalpartypooper/tag/supply-side-economics/
@91. Good post. I remember well that year. It felt like our world was ending and we had no hope for a future. Then one year later, July 20th 1969. The US accomplished what President Kennedy had promised less than a decade earlier.
Hope was reborn.
I have to say Warren, I don’t know if someone peed in your cereal this morning or if you just fell off the wrong side of the bed, but you’ve not been yourself today. The last time you demanded a detailed explanation from me, I spent a fair amount of time putting my thoughts together for you. There is no incentive to do that today.
By the way, everyone has some certainty of their own perspective or they wouldn’t be here. Also, just because there are a handful of regulars here who disagree, does not mean something is unfounded.
“My answer is that the reason they pay to help the very poor is to keep the very poor from 1. revolting, 2 robbing the very rich.”
Exactly! At $15 trillion in debt and maybe $18-$20 trillion in debt by the end of what looks like a second term for Obama, there will come a point one day when the government checks quit rolling and the government programs stop. Then, we will have a revolt.
Richard and Ron I agree with both if you in the fact that we need a strong middle class. We just differ in the way to achieve that. I see the wealth pie as expanding and open to all who seek it. I don’t believe unfairly confiscating wealth from the rich helps anyone.
Michael,
IRS statistics show that the top 10% of our nation pay 70% of all federal income taxes. Those same top 10% own 85% of stocks, bonds & business equity in our economy. They also own 75% of the non-home real estate in the United States. Seems that the fair share for them should be closer to 75 to 85% of federal income taxes.
In your comment at 5 p.m. today you again use the statement that those earning Adjusted Gross Income of 20K pay no taxes. In fact they do pay taxes on many levels. The Earned Income Credit and the Child Credit often permit those whose earnings are at this level to pay little or no federal income tax. If they are employed they do pay social security and medicare taxes on that income and they pay state and local taxes on income and spending.
There are more than 100 tax expenditures in the federal tax code benefitting many levels of income earners. If they don’t own a house tax payers can’t deduct mortgage interest like those who do own houses. If they don’t itemize on their tax return they can’t really claim many of the tax write offs the rest of us use.
I’m not averse to doing away with many of the tax expenditures in our tax code. There are many other ways I would take a knife to the federal spending. Many would likely disagree with the way I did that.
Bottom line for me is that (1) Supply side economics has not worked and has led to a degrading of the middle class in the U.S. That has, in my view, extended the current recession because the middle class doesn’t have money to spend. (2) All taxpayers should pay federal income taxes porportional to their assets. As I pointed out earlier in this comment, the top ten percent pay 71% of federal income taxes while they control 85% of the assets in our country. The tax burden should be closer to 85%.
I guess this is where we will agree to disagree.
If we all paid a flat equal fee that pays for all programs and infrastructure regardless if you make $5000 a year or 50 million a year, there will immediately be dozens of millions enslaved to the government for not being able to afford that payment.
No offense to you personally, but your stance that amount is more important/relevant than tax rate is not only incredibly short-sighted, but also incredibly immoral and incredibly wrong. (And also why our country has already established that “rate” is more important.)
Michael,
I hope you understand that it is not my intent to single you out or pick on your comments. I obviously have a slightly different view than you do. Nonetheless, I appreciate you and the company you work for and the employees you support. As the CEO of a small not for profit corporation with about 100 full and part time employees I understand the struggles small companies face. Everyday is a struggle. Federal and state regulations are a constant challenge. I suspect I complain about them everyday. I think we are more alike than different. God’s speed to you.
Michael Howdyshell, you sir make it very hard to remain respectful and rather that seeing Warren’s post as the wake-up call you should have seen it as, you chose to take it as disrespectful. And your returned insults, conveniently let you not answer him. John Wilburn does the same thing.
Warren is one of the most intelligent, well educated, articulate and informed posters ever to grace this blog with his presence and you calling him “ignorant” is not only childish, it is laughably so. If you feel he insulted your position, you should be looking at that position not reviling him for telling you the truth. Having had to face some uncomfortable truths here myself (my hypocrisy for one), I know how you feel, but your reaction was the wrong one unless you just cannot defend what you so believe.
For you to actually “say”: “The percentage that one pays in taxes as compared to another is not important. What is important is how much an individual pays.” Do you truly not understand what equitable is? Is this how you run your business and family?
Wearing the right wing, wealth protecting blinders is one thing, being a willing defender of an unfair system is quite another. Say what you want but it is never the unfair tax breaks that the wealthy get that EVER causes you pause or to post, only what you see as the unfair perks of living on 20k per year. We see with true clarity you do not, what bothers you and it is not an inequitable tax structure, but that we expect the wealthy to step up.
Do you believe people are poor because they deserve to be poor?
Do you believe people who do not want to be you, or Rockefeller, lack ambition, worth or importance? It sure seems so from my “view”.
“Do you believe people are poor because they deserve to be poor?”
Of course he does, I believe the comment was “if I can do it anyone can.”
Although an intelligent guy, he just can’t get grasp the fact that the more you have, the more you should give back. Simple, really, unless you live in a bubble.
Warren, do you get tired of wiping Sandi’s lipstick off of your posterior?
Shorter Warren:
“Those who will never sniff the butt of an actual rich person shill loudest in their defense.”
Just curious, Michael H, did any of your ancestors ever challenge anyone to a duel?
120.”Just curious, Michael H, did any of your ancestors ever challenge anyone to a duel?”
Seriously, that would be cool to know! Eventually, Sandi and I may need to take up the ol’ flintlock dueling pistols ourselves.
.
Richard, and Sandi
You all both speak of wealth as if is static. Wealth in this country is very dynamic. People and families move into and out of wealth often in a single lifetime. According to The Millionaire Next Door 85% of millionaires in this country are first generation millionaires. It seems to me that you all want to make it much harder to accumulate wealth. I would like to see it made easier. I really believe, and I know examples, of folks from very modest backgrounds who have amassed great wealth, and vice versa. I don’t see wealth as a zero sum game. Thanks Ron, I really respect what you do. Sandi that is the second time Warren has belittled me personally he won’t get a third chance. He may indeed be all the things you say which reminds me of my Grandmothers favorite saying “money does not class buy”, or in other words a mule in a horses harness is still a mule. I make no bones about my views and gladly will and do debate them however I try very hard not to belittle or personally attack those I disagree with, even you. The majority of folks on this blog are liberal and I’m not. So we agree to disagree on most things we can still do that with civility and respect. (not that I always do that either but I try). Answering your question, I think most folks who have economic difficulties do so because of decisions they have made. I know when I have had financial problems they have all been a result of things that I have or have not done. I say most but certainly not all and there should be a safety net for those that truly need it. It has been my experience that a lot of folks would love to be “rich” but really aren’t willing to make the sacrifices, that making money requires. Even in these economically depressed times I see opportunity almost everywhere I look. Young people that can’t find a job and can’t afford to go to college can join the military and learn a trade that can feed them for life. Just one example. To be financially secure does take some responsibility. Don’t get married and have a family if you can’t afford it. Don’t do drugs, don’t drink excessively, learn a skill that will make you employable. All pretty basic stuff to me.
Not sure Debbie, I hope so. I know a lot of them drank a lot. One was even Governor of Virginia in 1619 all be it for only 10 days. The bad thing about doing ancestry research is you find a lot of stupid things your ancestors did (a least in my case. I think we have had a fair amount of mental illness some really intelligent people that were whack jobs. I know you all find that very hard to believe.
Warren, nice shout out to Saddle River!
Ron, I don’t think we’ve avoided civil war or revolution here recently by luck. I think it’s been an ongoing respect and expression of value for those members of ALL social and professional strata. A respect that seems to be completely disappearing in todays “Net worth equals human value” society.
Were creating a country in which an ever-increasing number of citizens have NO investment in preserving the status quo. When the heavily armed 99% decide that they’ve nothing left to lose, look for trouble.
Michael A. Howdyshell,
Considering how far back our families go in Virginia, there’s a decent chance that we’re related somewhere along the line. Are you related to the Claye family by chance?
112. Michael Howdyshell – But you see unfairly taxing the middle class as OK? That is the point, The middle class is being taxed to the point they can rarely move up while the upper incomes keep having their taxes lowered. It is destroying the middle class in the US.
I do not know you age, but based on your comments, I would guess mid forties. If I am correct, that helps explain your thinking.
“Wealth in this country is very dynamic. People and families move into and out of wealth often in a single lifetime. According to The Millionaire Next Door 85% of millionaires in this country are first generation millionaires.”
This statistically is misleading. The reason that it is as such is because one million dollars is not the same amount as it was 20 years ago. Frankly, one million dollars is not enough to retire on for most people. One Million dollars can nearly be wiped out in the matter of a year for someone with severe medical problems.
Simply put, we’re at a point in history, where it will soon become very common to amass a million dollars wealth. Just like in the 1800s when it became amazing to amass a 10,000 dollars wealth.
#105, Micheal Howdeyshell told me: “This will be the last time I will ever acknowledge that you exist”.
So, you see there folks, who said conservatives will never unilaterally disarm? Is Micheal being un-Reagan like, or is this his Reykjavik moment?
#125, John wrote: “Considering how far back our families go in Virginia, there’s a decent chance that we’re related somewhere along the line.”
You guys should join my family in the Jamestown Society. However, please realize that it’s not a group for those who want identity validation, but one whose genealogical origin is the basis for concrete historical research. Please, welcome in!!
And, no, by concrete historical research, I don’t mean they look for concrete from Jamestown!!
# 118, John Wilburn asked: “Warren, do you get tired of wiping Sandi’s lipstick off of your posterior?”
John, while I didn’t realize that anyone knew about the special paint I use for my unique art project, now that it’s out I’ll confess that the stuff Sandi mailed me is the best that I’ve ever used on my secret canvas. And since my next project is an exposition of concentric circles inspired by the many hues sold at Target, I’m going to call it the Bullseye series. If you promise you won’t leave fingerprints on my bluing, I’ll let you see the bullseye…
Yes Richard, 48 why is that important
Awwww, he’s jealous. How sweet. Does the truth hurt that much? Does being a pig make it easier for you to handle rejection?
John
There are literally hundreds of folks in my family tree. I had to keep it somewhat linear as it would have been unmanageable otherwise. I found out a girl I have gone to Sunday class with for years is a cousin. My family came to Botetourt in the mid 1700′s. Prior to that Orange County and Tidewater. This is on my Mother’s side. The Howdyshell’s have been in Rockbridge and Augusta Counties since before the Revolution. Interesting hobby one of my cousins was really into it and did a lot of research in college, I sorta have compiled most of the research others have done. I go hot and cold on it as I have time.
Michael, John & Warren,
Many years ago I participated in a DNA project that linked my American family to my European ancestors. I don’t want the female members of the blog to get upset with me, but it has to be a male member of the family who submits the DNA sample and that is compared with other DNA samples internationally. I’ve done it for 2 of my families. My father’s mother’s maiden name was Gilbert and I had one of her male cousins submit the sample for that family. I have relatives up and down the Shenandoah Valley and into East Tennessee. Some of my southern ancestors left the United States after the War Between the States and moved to Mexico. I’ve discovered a whole branch of my family there. My paternal ancestors came from Germany in the 1700s. My grandmother’s family came from England. On my mother’s side my ancestors came to the U.S. from Scotland and France. I guess I’m just a mongrel.
Richard, like I keep saying we are all being taxed to much and expecting to much from the Government. Look at Greece!
132. Michael – In my profession, trends are important. Age groups have similar education experiences, have similar life experiences, have similar ideas on wealth, wants and needs. You fit the mold for someone in their mid-forties to a tee. Your age group are the children of the first baby-boomers who have been lavished by the great American economy the Greatest Generation and your parents have provided. Your education was changed by the new ideas of the 60′s and the growth of the use of drugs an television. You expect life to be generous to you because it always has due to your parents and grandparents. As you experience the ups and downs of business over the next 15 years, you will either become bitter at the forces that cause you problems (government regulation, interest rates, recession, fraud, family changes, death, and illness)or you will recognize that all are the inevitable situations of this world that you can’t or at least will struggle to control. During the late 30s and early 40s , we tend toward settling in to a steady stream of income, have children, and finally begin making more than we spend. As our children become teens, our energies lag, and our need for additional income stress the family, our outlook changes to the causes of those pressures. Certainly teenage children top the list. But it affects your outlook on life as you encounter challenges you can’t control. By the time you reach 60 and the children are now in their twenties or thirties, you will have realized the many areas of life that you can only seek to survive and stand up to challenge again. You have a better perspective on the forces of nature and how hard work is necessary to get through them, but it does not make you a success economically; it only helps you survive the challenges.
I wish you the mildest of the inevitable and success over the next 15 years.
We are not all being taxed too much and Greece has virtually nothing to do with the US, our economy, our government, our capabilities and our future. The Bush tax cuts have to go and the spending cuts have to be made. There is no ‘plan b’ unless you do not care about the debt and deficits. You cannot have it both ways. That is certain. You cannot keep penalizing labor and work while rewarding investment and gambling and expect more of the former. How many times have the right wingers assured us that what you subsidize and give away, you get more of and what you punish you get less of? Do you people even know your own playbook?
136. Michael Howdyshell – First off, we are not Greece in any manner. Their problems are a consequence of the structure of the Euro and European Union. The flaws in the system that have been know cam to play during the recession.
Secondly, we are not overtaxed as a Nation, taxes in relation to GDP are at a low. It is the inequity of our tax system that is the problem.
As far as expectations from the government, we must realize that the technology revolution is reducing the need for employed labor. It is not a matter of willing to work, it is a matter of having somewhere to work and having the education to qualify for that job. Even jobs that used to be the place of employment for the uneducated now require skills and technical knowledge to be employed. Our government will need to do more and not less to hold our society together as technology further reduces the need for labor and requires ever higher levels of knowledge.
One of the biggest issues in Greece is a widespread failure to pay taxes. Ever since the 1967 junta, who were themselves put out in 1974, there has been a cycle of coups that cost the country dearly, and created a climate of corruption that prevented earlier, smoother EU assimilation.
Comparisons between the situation of Greece and the U.S. today are only useful for scaring gullible Glen Beck fans.
I heard on NPR how the tax enforcement in Greece is so weak that it’s devolved to the point where only people perceived as “suckers” pay them. And because so few pay, of course the ones that DO pay have to pay more to compensate…which removes much incentive to pay at all.
There’s no way in which the US is like Greece.
Ron, that’s pretty cool, and more people will probably be getting to do it in the future and learn just how mixed all races are. One thing that family tree genealogy highlights is the length of generations within a family. People don’t believe me when I tell them that my grandad was born in 1866, but then I tell them that Pres. John Tyler’s grandson is still living (last I checked) and I don’t feel so unusual.
On the other hand, I avoid those who seek validation of their own illustriousness from a connection to earlier people. Or worse, who want to imagine a continuity with an imagined romantic ideal. That is the problem too often with, for instance, some Sons of Confederate Veteran types, to name one example. Despite having detailed documention of my great-grandad’s Civil War experience, to the point of his Seven Pines jacket being displayed in Richmond, I don’t pretend that it means more in today’s world than it does. I always enjoy asking SCV types about their ancestor’s experiences in the Mexican war, the Phillipines, Cuba or World War One, and watching their blank faces as it becomes clear that those conflicts didn’t carry the same romantic sense of validation, and thus aren’t as well known to them.
Ron brings up another great point in his post #115. Many of the issues that small business deals with, or perhaps I should say struggles with comes from the legislation passed when the big guys did something wrong. That kind of regulation does place a burden on any small business and the government seldom gives much of a care for how it will affect us. Which also comes back to my point about how often “the less fortunate” or in this case, “small business” gets to write laws or lobby legislators. A sincere young contractor has ZERO influence on legislation next to a lobbyist for KBR. It is just one more way we are sitting ducks who bear the brunt of whatever someone higher up decides. It is however, the closest you can come to knowing how the working poor feel IMO. Tempest tossed is an understatement.
“People don’t believe me when I tell them that my grandad was born in 1866″
That does make you pretty…uh… experienced, but I believe it. Speaking of long generations and SCV, I knew two real sons of Confederate veterans. Those uber-long generations can have interesting stories. As for the geneology stuff, yes it’s interesting, but one has to be prepared for whatever he/she finds and accept it for what it is. It’s good to know where we come from, but even better to tell the truth about it.
I have a second cousin that really wants me to do the DNA thing. I will. Major names in my family tree are Crush, King, Bryan, Powell and Courses.
Yes, considering the many, many, many who came as indentured servants or “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, I am sure that validation is part of what they are looking for, it may well not be what they find. History and genealogy are fascinating, informative, and for some, elastic things.
Interesting how ancestry can affect you many generations later. Ancestry has been traced back to a soldier with William the Conqueror whose descendant came to America with William Penn and married a young Quaker. The family moved to Lancaster, PA where the most direct ancestor was kicked out of the church, traveled with Davy Crockett at some point, and settled in N.C.
The point of interest was being kicked out of the Church. We’ve been head strong and rebellious ever since.
Warren, how late did your grandfather sire a child if you don’t mind my asking? That IS interesting.
I love to hear genealogy stories and although I dislike the male being the one who is mainly traced, I still find it fascinating.
Sandi, interesting one of my great grandfathers on the king side was a Royal in the English civil war and after theie defeat was sold as an indentured servant to Maryland. Simone reconoizing him bought his freedom and he moves to Hanover County sometime in the 1600,s.
Sandi, what I especially dislike is those who want to associate themselves with an imagined ideal. This doesn’t have to be family connections; a lot of guys around here are obviously into the Civil War not just for purely historical interest, but because they romantize themselves as a modern embodiment of some noble Southern tradition. Which is absurd. Add in some traceable roots to the conflict, which is common, and they can be insufferable.
Coursey not Course damn Droid corrects things it should not correct.
Doing the DNA analysis is not an inexpensive deal. Nonetheless, it can provide some interesting information. For example, for my paternal family, I was the 27th participant in the study. Today there are 230 participants. My DNA was matched with 5 other participants which is what lead me to discover the Latin American branch of the family, a branch still in Virginia, a branch in Texas, a branch in Pennsylvania and another branch in Tennessee. I have been able to contact with those other participants and add a great many lines to my extended family. Conversations with those participants lead me to discover that my direct ancestor who purchased the family farm in 1822 had packed up and moved his family from Knox County, Tennessee, to Indiana in 1819 in order to avoid a court order over nonpayment of debt. There are, as with most families, other interesting characters in my lineage. I guess it’s a good thing the internet didn’t exist in the early 19th century. My most cherished possession is the daily journals my grandfather kept between 1911-62. There’s infinate details about daily life on the farm I called home for the first 21 years of my life. There’s also a lot of personal reflection about what was going on in the world around him during those years. Thsoe journals have given me great understanding of my grandparents as well as my father.
#135 Ron – actually the more interesting DNA project is the one done by National Geographics {Genome Project} which traces the female line further back than the male. About 8+ years ago, swabbed the inside of my cheek and sent it in. A great packet with the gene pool of maternal ancestry showing the migration of that haplo-type. NG will assign you a Haplogroup with maps showing the journey – mine was mtDNA Haplogroup I. Basically a 35,000 year old gene pool. Only 5% of the population is in this maternal line.
Anyway, also had my husband swab – which they will also do for the male Y genes – but maternal DNA is the furthest
back… You can also upload your results to a DNA genealogical research group that will search the database and if there is a match to your DNA sends an email to you to let you know! Great fun as it is anonymous unless you want to respond to the match. I have found related genetics all over England, Scotland!, Ireland
Michael A. Howdyshell @145 – I too have the KING surname – early 1600′s Norfolk & Nansemond VA and Gates Co, NC
any connection?
Damn Droid!
I’ll second that!
John, my Grandmother Crush was a true daughter. She received a pension check from Virginia until she died. Hilary I will see if I can find stuff in the Kings and send it to Dan to toward to you. She was born in 1886 and died in 1976.
Sandi, my grandad’s final child was my mom, so he was 56 at the time he sired her. My other grandad was 38 at the time my dad was born, and my dad was 39 when I was born, but had one more after me, at 44.
I was not surprised that after reading that, John Wilburn indicated he thought that makes me old, even though I’m a middle boomer, because it was right on the heels of his saying with utter self-certainty how very unsettled he thinks times are now, so I already knew he still had a bit of the fisheye perspective about age that goes with lingering youth. Richard was right on target with his delineation of Micheal Howdeyshell’s generational characteristcs, too.
But the fact that President John Tyler, born in 1790, has TWO grandsons still living is just mindblowing!!
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/president-tyler-grandson-alive.html
Wow I read my post. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical errors created by my Droid. Richard I will agree we are heading towards a two class society. We certainly disagree on the reasons. I would argue the “great society” experiment and the social welfare programs started by FDR. In my opinion these programs have made the lower classes to dependent on the federal goveremt and not themselves.
Thanks Warren that is interesting and that President Tyler thing is “mindblowing”. I certainly had no idea.
I would argue the “great society” experiment and the social welfare programs started by FDR. In my opinion these programs have made the lower classes to dependent on the federal goveremt and not themselves.
Comment by Michael A. Howdyshell — April 9, 2012 @ 10:28 pm
Michael,
Respectfully I disagree that the programs started by FDR, i.e. Social Security, or LBJ, i.e. Medicare, have made the lower classes too dependent on the federal government. The social security program has been the primary factor in nearly eliminating poverty among the elderly. In addition, the payroll taxes we, including the elderly, pay funds the program. Medicare, as enacted during LBJs presidency, has made it possible for the elderly to have access to medical care. In addition to advances in medical treatments and medications, Medicare has been a major factor in extending productive life in our country. Again, Medicare is paid for via payroll taxes. Revisions to welfare during the Clinton administration, pushed by the Republicans controlling Congress at the time, slimmed down the welfare rolls significantly.
Are the three programs perfect? Far from it. Do they serve a public good? To quote Sarah Palin, You Betcha!! Can they be tweaked to make them more effecient? Yes they can. Do we want to go back to the poverty levels among the elderly and the death rates among the elderly that existed prior to the initiation of these programs? Not me.
Yes one of John Tyler’s grandsons lives at Sherwood Plantation in Charles City County.
If by too dependent on government you mean people will not work for 5.00 an hour, you are right, if by dependent on government you think people can live on minimum wage and make in this day and age, you are wrong.
The wage/benefit structure has caused a great many people to stop trying and the generations of uneducated, unskilled and now unwanted labor have no where else to go. Do not blame the safety nets for catching the people that fall, help them not to fall. No one aspires to live in the housing projects, use food stamps and be trapped in perpetual poverty. If you cannot get a job, you only have so many choices. People do not, in general want to hire felons, people on the sex offender list, people who are older, people who are obese, people who have lapses in employment, on and on the list goes and yet what is it you would have those people do, conveniently drop dead?
Try dealing in reality. Tell us what you expect them to do? And also, what you expect us to do?
157. Michael Howdyshell – Ron says it well, but to add to this. You need to realize SSN and Medicare came about because of a horrific need. Something had to be done because of the lack of medical care and the poverty of the elderly. To believe these programs are making anyone dependent on the federal gov’t is simply not supported by the facts. Employees have paid for these benefits out of their salaries for their lifetime (a required purchase of insurance by the way). The coverage has always been to provide for minimal needs of the elderly. Certainly, it is very hard to survive only on SSN and medicare is limited in what it covers and limited with co-insurance (like private insurance companies). These benefits are not government guarantees or government benefits, they are contracts paid for by employees. The concept was to force (sound familiar) employees to save for the time when they could not protect themselves due to age and infirmity. It certainly does not make one dependent on the government when you have paid for the right to the benefits. That is like saying a person investing in an annuity or retirement account is dependent on the insurance company.
Michael Howdyshell – As to why we are moving to a two class society, here is one reason http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/us/politics/obama-to-make-case-for-buffett-rule.html?partner=rss&emc=rss and as you can see, it mirrors much of what I stated in the very beginning.
But of even more important (I thought I made this point earlier but did not see it) is that our means of production is changing because of technology and the World economy). For the last two decades, the technological revolution has taken us out of production line jobs and into communication jobs. Middle income citizens have been hit hard by this change as their jobs have become taken over by robots or outsourced to less expensive labor overseas. Our tax laws encouraged the outsourcing of jobs to protect the industries, but it has been extremely unfair to the middle class. Fortunately, we are now seeing some industry return because China, India, and other third world countries labor costs have become more in line with the US. But the technology problem remains. Jobs coming back are coming back using robts, mechanization, and are hiring fewer and fewer labor positions and hiring those at lower wages. Our middle class is losing jobs and there simply are not enough new jobs being created.
This presents a serious economic and socialistic problem. We have seen applications for employment drop. One of the main reasons is baby boomers are being taken out of the workforce because they are not being recalled from jobs lost in the recession and are not being hired for new positions because of their age (I know its illegal, but that is what is happening). Simply, if you are 50 and older, you will not be hired. Why, because of health care, because of higher wages expected, because of lack of ability in a high tech world, because of lack of youthful ambition and energy. This middle class group are now taking early retirement on reduced amounts and falling out of the middle class.
You also have a group of citizens that have not been educated and do not have the skills to meet the demands of higher technology. Jobs that used to require minimal education – mechanics, pest control, now require technical skills to use the equipment and knowledge of chemistry and safety to meet the demands today.
And then you have the housing and construction industry. It has collapsed and many workers that knew only that trade are now out of work with little hope of ever returning to their positions. From bankers and Realtor to handymen, this industry that was labor intensive is devastated for at least another 2 to 5 years.
Accordingly, we must educate those that need education, provide for those who are forced into a retirement of poverty, and establish new small businesses to provide productive work for those whose industries have been destroyed by technology or recession. We must do this because our whole economy depends on the purchasing power of this group to survive and that to allow them to drop into poverty means higher crime, most social costs, and a depressed economy and nation.
So first, we must fix the tax code to put the incentives for new business back at the middle class to immediately take those productive people who have lost jobs into self employment or small business jobs. We musu tmake the tax code fair to give incentive to create jobs whereas it now gives the incentives to those with capital to hold on to the capital and to not invest. The wealthy have no incentive to take risks if they can hold their money at 15%. It is the middle class that will take risks and need capital to create jobs and small industry. They need capital to do so. We must educate those that can be educated and allow them to create new technologies with new ambitions. We must put the construction industry back to work building infrastructure, and we must protect the baby boomers being forced into early retirement by providing jobs and better retirement so they may remain part of the middle class in order to protect their purchasing power.
“Young people that can’t find a job and can’t afford to go to college can join the military and learn a trade that can feed them for life. ”
The downside of that is sending troops all over the world to occupy other countries does not generate any revenue… but it does cost money. There are times when military force is needed but again, it costs money.
What if we had a program like the CCC – building some kind of infrastructure ( in the USA) as opposed to doing so much overseas?
“Young people that can’t find a job and can’t afford to go to college can join the military and learn a trade that can feed them for life. ”
This is precisely the dream of the 1%. Shut the 99% out of education, make it impossible for them to succeed financially so that the 1%ers have a constant supply of cannon fodder for their neverending wars waged to protect their financial interests. Despicable. Bring back the draft…you’d see a marked decreased in the neocons bloodlust when their precious snowflakes get sent to fight.
Earlier I commented on the value of Social Security & Medicare. I’m going to focus on some other programs which, in my view, speak of the value of the legacy of the New Deal for us today.
First, let’s talk about the Works Progress Administration(WPA). All it accomplished was 1000 miles of new or rebuilt airport runways, 651,000 miles of highway, 124,000 bridges, 8000 parks, 18,000 playgrounds or athletic fields, 84,000 miles of drainage, water lines, or sewage pipes, 69,000 highway light standards, 125,000 public buildings built, rebuilt or expanded including 41,300 schools.
Then let’s think about the Tennessee Valley Authority. It was a backwoods portion of the nation which was exporting its labor to the industrial north and subject to flooding. The TVA turned this region into an area that began to take advantage of its natural resources and built an economy to support a rising middle class.
The Public Works Administration (PWA) was even more massive than the WPA. It built projects from one coast to the other. The Grand Coulee Dam project employed 8000 people and used materials & equipment produced from 46 or the 48 states. It also helped repair or replace 536 school buildings damaged or destroyed by the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Many of those buildings are still in use today. It built the Overseas Highway that connected the Florida mainland to the Keys along a washed out railine and turned the Keys into one of our favorite tourist destinations. A last example of PWA is the Triborough Bridge in New York City which connected three of the city’s 5 boroughs.
These are just a few examples of the legacy we have from the New Deal. If you have the chance and you get into one of the buildings remodeled or built by PWA look also for the artwork. It wasn’t just construction workers who were employed. Some of our greatest examples of public art are contained in these buildings.
The legacy of FDR & the New Deal is real. More important than the physical legacy is, in my view, the psychological legacy. FDR & the New Deal helped our workers regain a sense of dignity and helped our nation begin to believe in itself again.
It you get a chance read THE NEW DEAL: A MODERN HISTORY by Michael Hiltzik. It tells a fuller story than I did here.
166. Ron, another excellent post. The beginning of modern America where the Middle Class began creating the amazing growth of the second half of the 20th Century. A strong vibrant middle class is an unstoppable creative force.
As always, well said Ron! I agree, the “legacy of FDR & the New Deal is real” and it is important to the face of this nation. We decided that we did not want or support a Plutocracy and that we wanted to all hang together still.
My biggest gripe with folks who think like Michael Howdyshell is their idea that they got where they are “on their own” and “through hard work, anyone can” as if their measures of success are the only ones that count. They rail against the safety nets and “entitlements” and yet never realize the subsidies and welfare that they too have benefited from. The infrastructure, from roads/bridges to schools/libraries to parks/lakes have ALL been subsidized by taxpayer dollars for the good of us all and have helped every business, every project, every citizen in this nation.
Refusing to acknowledge the downtrodden, the disabled and the indigent much less refusing to help them, says to me that you do not know your place in God’s Kingdom. None of us likes to see or supports the fraudsters, hustlers, cheats and scammers, but the legitimate needy in our society not only deserve our help, it is part of our responsibility to a better society.
Until you raise the wage/benefit structure in this nation such that people can support themselves, pay for their health,dental,vision care and provide for their retirement, you are part of the problem and you need to accept that too.
The working class and the middle class cannot continue to be the only ones who lose something.
Richard, I know plenty of wealthy folks >10 million that invest money in risking start up business. You and I agree on a lot. Where we disagree is on how to achieve those goals. I agree a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy. We just disagree on how bets to build a strong middle class. I don’t know anyone, myself included that is getting much income from dividends. I think there are some opportunities as stock prices are not raising and companies have cash. I don’t know anyone that is living on dividends. Also as I’m sure you know a dividend is not a deduction for a C corp so the Government is actually getting the 15% from the individual and whatever the tax is from the company. So raising the 15% would not actually increase revenue it simply extorts more money from the achievers in this country. Kristen, not true I know a lot of wealthy families that send their sons to VMI or the Naval Academy and in to the military.
Kristen,
I don’t know anyone, and I know a lot of wealthy people, that do not want opportunity for all. One of the wealthiest people I know came from less than nothing, went to college on borrowed money, worked hard went to graduate school and now is managing partner of a very very large national organization. He gives lots of money for scholarships etc. He is also very conservative and wants to create opportunity for all who are WILLING to work for it.
Sandi
The goal is to create opportunity for all to get into the top 10% of wage earners. Of course not everyone can get there. Look at history there have always been rich and poor always have been always will be. Karl Marx thought this basic law could be changed of course Russia and Cuba have proved in cannot. The goal is to provide opportunity. Give a man a fish feed him today, teach him to fish feed him for life.
That’s all have a good day fellow bloggers.
Michael, since there are pretty strict limits on how many can go from any one area to an academy, I don’t know how you could know “lots” of them, far less lots of wealthy people who send kids. I’m pretty informed on the academies as I have a couple of graduates in my family, and I’m not actually talking about their graduates, which are a pretty small pool military-wide. You either deliberately misunderstood or didn’t get what I was saying, the officer corps is rarely “cannon fodder”, and generally people who are military officers for whatever reason have options of things they could be doing.
But to pretend that enlisting is a great answer for the vast majority of young people who are precluded from education or civilian jobs just reinforces what I said above.
‘The goal is to create opportunity for all to get into the top 10% of wage earners.”
By definition this is impossible.
I realize the current discussion about “pulling yourself up by your bootstrap” is about adults not working hard enough, not taking advantage of “opportunities” – if unemployed, it must be their own fault [no glance at the big corps who lay off while raking in huge profits] – and the continuum meme on how people prefer to subsist on government handouts.
What is often lost in the rhetoric is what happens to children in families barely able to get by? Should the children be returned to the pre-FDR days where childhood hunger and disease and early death were rampant?
According to the new report by the USDA [responsible for the SNAP Program/Food Stamps]:
Confirming other reports and common sense, a U.S. Department of Agriculture has concluded that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program…kept the poverty rate down during the Great Recession.
It had “a particularly strong effect on child poverty.
In the nine years covered by the study, beginning in 2000, food stamps reduced the poverty rate by 4.4 percent. But in the deep recession year of 2009, it cut the rate by 8 percent.”
“The program lifted the average poor person’s income up about six percent closer to the [Poverty] line over the length of the study, making poverty less severe. When the benefits were included in the income of families with children, the result was that children below the threshold moved about 11 percent closer to the line.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html?_r=1
I wonder what the suggestion is – from those who believe there’s too many “handouts” by government – to the American children who would otherwise go hungry without these types of programs.
And note that nowhere will it be demonstrated that a program like SNAP makes anyone rich.
We have been a nation for almost 250 years Michael, “the goal” is still relatively elusive, and that is by design. The wage/benefit as well as the tax structure favors those who are well beyond 10 million in wealth and punishes those who are not.
You need to grasp the fact that you and your “wealthy” friends are not the wealthy and rich we are speaking of. Comfortable and owning property, even to the tune of net worth 10 million or greater is not what we are talking about, we are talking about those who make that much in “income” and more per year, those who make 10 times that in income even. You are in our boat mister, you just refuse to realize it. That you might be in first class and us in coach is not relevant to this discussion, you are middle class and you are part of those being hammered. Blind loyalty to those who are not is just silly.
169 – Michael Howdyshell – I cannot discuss investments here, but I will say that each individual should must invest according to their own needs and assets. There are no one size fits all. Also, you are wrong about dividend stocks this past year; who knows about the coming year.
173. Kristen – Exactly
Michael – The goal is not for everyone to move into the top 10%. You are showing your age again. The goal is to have a happy productive life, to enjoy your children and family. Too many people make their career their goal, or wealth accumulation, or fame, or whatever floats their boat, yet remain unhappy. The goal should be happiness and contentment with your place in life. You cannot do this when you are hungry, your children are hungry, and you can’t pay your bills. Working two jobs to get by is not the answer.
Again, you show your lack of knowledge of place and genetics when you brag of your wealthy friends. You can kiss their ass all you like and good luck, you are the perfect Romney guy. However, the middle class is made up of people who work for a living on a day to day basis that seek to pay their bills and protect their family. They need a government that fairly taxes them, provides protection from businesses that seek to overcharge for shoddy products and services, educates their children, protects their health, and keeps a strong economy for employment. Kissing the wealthy’s butt will not produce these results. We have the lost decade to prove it.
#177 Richard, among the top 5 regrets of people looking back on their lives? Working too hard and not taking the time to enjoy their families while their kids were growing up.
Richard
I’m 100% sure om right about dividends as I’m secretary treasurer of a c corp, and we pay dividends to stockholders.
179 – Michael A Howdyshell – You are a small privately held corporation. I was speaking of investments in publicly held corporations. Most small corporations avoid the dividend problem and the double taxation of the Utility Doctrine by becoming Sub-S corporations. Some have chosen C corp status to take advantage of the 15% rate on dividends even though the income is subject to taxation at the corporate level as well. They do this when the corporate tax plus the 15% is less than the tax on the funds at just the personal level. Accordingly there is no real double taxation. And Michael, I assume you approve of extorting money from the middle class, but just don’t tax the wealthy? By the way, you asked me what I considered middle class, what income levels do you consider middle class vs. wealthy?
179. Michael Howdyshell – by the way, being secretary treasurer of a construction company does not make you right, it just makes you liable.