Holy smokes! I log out and click another link and come across this one. Yeah I know it's a youtube link but I was surprised to hear what was said, especially on CNBC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k


Barney Frank saying that there "...needs to be an immediate focus on spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat.....Yes I believe later on their should be tax increases. Speaking personally I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

I have an idea? How about we cut spending and not find a way to label people as rich so we can take theirs? I could have placed this under that REDISTRIBUTION thread but thought this deserved one of its own.

If Obama is a socialist, as the R's are saying, and Obama gets elected, does that mean that he has a mandate from the people to pursue socialistic programs? If the R's are telling everyone that Obama wants to engage in wealth distribution and they still vote for him, does that mean that they like the idea of taxing rich people more?
Me thinks that the R's are painting themselves into a corner with their rhetoric. But you know what, maybe the people in this country are becoming less and less enamored of the "free market" ideology that leaves many of them out in the cold. Perhaps they are more than ready to say "Yes, let's tax those millionaires who made their money off the backs of those who earned it for them."
This may be the "equal and opposite reaction" to the incredibly decadent ways of corporate bosses who make millions of dollars while the employees don't get health insurance or vacation or raises because "times are tough" or the bottom line might be negatively impacted.

The pendulum has begun to swing back. Nothing to be alarmed about; this is how the American system has worked for quite a while. All you defenders of rich folks, don't worry... it will swing back in a generation or two.

OK after that post I had an epiphany; I agree that rich people should be taxed more. I am not afraid to say it and here's why.

NOBODY is worth $50 million a year. Not until the employees have full health coverage, plenty of vacation/sick time, free child care, a healthy work place etc... Not until the shareholder has gotten the highest dividend possible. When the CEO has created damn near Nirvana, then he or she can be paid anything near that amount.
Nobody needs ten houses. Nobody needs two yachts with helicopter landingd pads. Nobody needs to spend $9,000.00 on a shower curtain or tens of thousands of dollars for a gold toilet. NOT while there are people in the world who cannot get clean water or enough food. Not while there are people living under highways or in their cars. Not while people work 80 hrs a week and get no vacation or sick days.

There... I said it. I don't hate rich people; I despise the waste and decadence that results from the upward distribution of wealth away from the people that created it with their sweat and blood. I despise the inheritance of great wealth because money is power and, if we continue to give these undeserving, inbred narcacisstic children of priveledge the power of that great wealth, we will suffer the same fate as Rome. If that makes me a socialist, or a commie or a whatever, I guess that's what I am.
Good day, comrades.

Simpleman,

I'm going to use Sam Walton (in the pre-BORG days) and Bill Gates as examples here.

While Wal-Mart has become a less than desirable place, when Walton started it, it increased the standard of living in rural America. I remember Enid in the 1970's, and I remember that we weren't driving to OKC unless we had no other choice. The roads were bad, and our car worse. We were limited to what was available in Enid. Wal-Mart at the time provided things other stores did not.

Sam Walton gained his wealth by finding a need and filling it, and he deserved every penny. I've talked to 20 and 30 year Wal-Mart employees who go back to the days of Walton, and back then the company treated folks fairly and paid a decent wage as you advanced. To say nothing of the tax revenue they brought to communities where they were established.

And Walton gave back quite a bit over the years.

Gates also earned his money. It's easy to see him as being a ruthless money grubber, but he got in on the ground floor of an exploding industry in much the same way as Ford did the automotive industry. And while Gates has MADE billions, he has also given back billions. Do I think his net worth is excessive? Yes and no. I would find it hard to have that much, but I'd rather it be in the hands of someone who does good with it than someone who hoards it.

Carnegie, for all his faults, was progressive for his day, and his workers enjoyed what were then considered "good" benefits (although in the light of today's workforce they would be considered lousy). And the Carnegie legacy still continues to impact us.

It is not money that is the root of all evil, but the LOVE of money. Wealthy people DO make this country stronger when they realize their responsibility to the community.

quote:

Nobody needs ten houses. Nobody needs two yachts with helicopter landingd pads. Nobody needs to spend $9,000.00 on a shower curtain or tens of thousands of dollars for a gold toilet.

You're absolutely correct. But it's their right to have all those things. At least according to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

BTW, does anyone need to spend the record-breaking amount of campaign dollars that Obama has, in a public election? What are your feelings on the millions Obama has spent to get elected?

quote:

You're absolutely correct. But it's their right to have all those things. At least according to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

And it is equally right for the working class to press for a fair wage.

Hmm. I would hate to have people start deciding what I need and don't need. If John Travolta wants to buy a 747 so he can look cool, I rationalize the need for that by thinking about the Boeing employees that will have their salaries paid thanks to another sale. I wonder whether I should focus on the celebrity's gold toilet seat, or on the mouths being fed in the family of the guy who made the seat?

I'm in agreement with folkieokie. Let's celebrate wealthy entrepreneurs who give back to the community. Henry Ford made his workers the highest paid employees of their day, because he wanted them to be able to afford the cars they were building. If a CEO makes $200 million while his employees qualify for food stamps, the company is not successful, IMO.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jawbone,

Simpleman, I really don't know what to say about your little socialist tirade, but it exhibits a tremendous lack of understanding of markets, salaries and motivation to be productive and also exhibits a deep-seated desire to control peoples' lives. And, no people don't want more government involvement in their lives. I saw a poll a couple of days ago showing greater than 80 percent of Americans don't want more government solutions in their lives.

Also, when you libs go off on these little sessions, why is it that CEO's are always named as the evil doers. What about the NBA, NFL, MLB, actors, singers, and other entertainers? What about Oprah?

quote:

What about Oprah?

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Percentage Perspective :
---------------------------
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
-

I agree with Simpleman.

I guess it may be legally OK to have all this stuff while others are hungry and cold and sick but I find it repugnant. They should be ashamed. I am ashamed for them.

I'm not sure where we can go on this
"tax the rich" thing - most agree that they will never pay and we can't make them. We concede, we cave.

Most do not want limits on CEO pay because then the companies won't be able to attract the best and the brightest who work very very hard for their money.

Most agree that we need money for infrastructure, repairing bridges and highways and national parks, healthcare and education.

Wall Street likes it when the lessers get a stimulus because then there is money to be spent.

We need money, we can't tax the rich, Wall Street likes it when we have money.

Let's raise the minimum wage to $25.00 an hour, or $52,000.00 a year. Everyone will have a little money. Wall Street will be happy. The taxable base will be hugely increased. Many many bad things would be alleviated for families. We can fix those collapsing bridges.

The top won't pay. The only way to get the money needed is to enlarge the bottom.

quote:

Originally posted by lynaqua:
Percentage Perspective :
---------------------------
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
-

If Mr. Buffett wants to contribute another 15% to the US Treasury, NO ONE is going to stop him. Or, perhaps he would consider giving that same 15% to a charity to help feed and house children or educate them etc...the point is, that if he really wants to part with another 15% or MORE, then he has a checkbook - use it.

The reason he pays less tax is because our tax code taxes dividends and capital gains at a maximum of 15% while "earnings" (wages) are taxed within our normal progressive tax rate structure. This break on dividends/cap gains is seen as a mechanism to encourage INVESTMENT in companies. It is a tax reward for putting your money at risk - and, if we've learned anything in the past few weeks it is that money in the stock market is at risk.

I guess he could also pay his poor secretary more. I bet she works plenty hard, is well educated and does a lot to make his life and business run smoothly - is $60K really enough ? I mean, the man made $46M last year and he only parts with a paltry $60K for his assistant ?

Oh, but wait. Regardless of his wealth or his earnings, HER skills and talents have a market value. He could pay in excess of that market value, but then, why would he do that.

quote:

Let's raise the minimum wage to $25.00 an hour, or $52,000.00 a year.

Yep, and I guarantee you that when unemployment rises to 20% and up and someone with an education finds that they make the same $25 an hour as the guy who makes their burger at McDonald's because there's no way they will pay more, what will we do?

Sounds good in theory; in practice all it will do is devalue the dollar. And no matter what you think it WILL be a disincentive to achievement. There's no way I am going to stay with pursuing my degree if it doesn't mean some improvement in my standard of living. Selfish? No, practical.

Ha ha ha! There is no way out. I guess that if your degree paid the same as minimum wage then you would have to do it for love!

I just wanted to point out that the $9,000.00 shower curtain and the solid gold bathroom fixtures were purchased by a preacher-man, to go in one of his many bathrooms in his OKC "house." I know many Enidites are not from these parts, so I didn't know if they would get the reference. "The least of us" my posterior.

When you figure out how to get the money to fix the bridges let me know! All of this pessimism is getting me down!

quote:

I just wanted to point out that the $9,000.00 shower curtain and the solid gold bathroom fixtures were purchased by a preacher-man, to go in one of his many bathrooms in his OKC "house." I know many Enidites are not from these parts, so I didn't know if they would get the reference. "The least of us" my posterior.

The VAST majority of preachers I know don't have CARS worth $9,000, let alone shower curtains. But it's nice to create stereotypes, isn't it?