Re: Tax The Rich?
like, say, a 401K or a pension?
Originally posted by Zero Tolerance
if you aren't interested you can always just put your money in your mattress. bear in mind inflation runs about 3 - 5% in good times, so in effect you are losing 3 - 5% of your accumulated wealth every year. and now that the government is spending like a drunken sailor, and is about to spend like a drunken sailor on steroids (more bailouts and stimuli), expect inflation to be even higher in the next few years. It could break 10 - 12% like under the Carter admin. Can you imagine, losing 10% of your purchasing power every single year?
Notwithstanding, hundreds of thousands of people just lost millions of dollars in said investments; I personally know some who have lost hundreds of thousands. Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."
OTOH, the market has over all been consistently up 5 - 10% per year average. if you put money in a conservative mutual fund 5 years ago, you are pretty much guaranteed to be up 5 years from now, even despite the current market. this is hardly Law Vegas, here.
irrelevant. even so, if you have a retirement fund other than social security, like most of the middle class, then you do invest.
To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves."
it's not just urban Detroit. even in suburbia, the quality of education has stagnated or declined despite the regular increase of funds to schools.
The reasons for Detroit's plight are imbricated, but if you want to choose one thing that ruined the schools in Detroit, it isn't the way that the city funds its schools because the resources were there when they put that system in place.
the whites didn't fly without reason, and certainly it wasn't just due to racism. i wonder if you sources cover that.
It's the white flight that has been persistent since the riots of 1967, where many whites would flee inner-city Detroit towards the suburbs and create "havens" there with vocational and educational opportunity that the (mostly black) population can't access for reasons that far exceed the scope of this topic, but if you're really interested in the history of Detroit, read Sidney Fine's Violence in the Model City
then Reynolds Farley, Sheldon Danziger, and Harry J. Holzer's Detroit Divided
and you will at least have your own virtual Masters Degree in the history of the city of Detroit (I would suggest more, but reading Fine's virtual encyclopedia is ambitious enough!!!).
you make my point in such an amazingly cogent manner i am at a loss at how you you don't get it...
I have a problem with your usage of "pro-choice" because "pro-choice" is unparallel to "pro-life" (The subject of abortion is about killing babies, bottom line. Save all that "rights" rhetoric for a Confederate states empathizer).
... hence your use of "anti-tax" is as meaningless as "pro-choice." both are rampant misnomers for the purpose of skewing the perception of the debate without adding further content.
Additionally, I use "anti-tax" to recognize those against the "redistribution of wealth."
vs. the present-FDR days, where everyone was just SOL, rich, poor, and middle alike?
Your comments here suggest a longing to return to what, the pre-FDR days when the poor were just S.O.L?
ability is moot here. that you don't consider whether the government should be in the position to "take care of its own" in the first place is telling.
No thanks. I would think that in the 21st
century, a country like the US would be able to take care of its own regardless of individual citizen ability or ambition.
then you need to relearn your US history. I'd start with Amity Sheal's The Forgotten Man, which outlines in painful detail the disastrous policies of the New Deal and how they aggravated the Depression. then, you can look into the relationship between welfare, single motherhood, and the many generations of people who've been locked into a cycle of poverty.
Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded.
anyways, since you totally missed my point, let me ask you directly: how do you think the poor got by in the 6 thousand years of written history before the existance of the modern welfare state?
minimalize it to temporary unemployment benefits, and benefits to people who are permanently incompacitated in a way that makes them unable to work. there are other ideas i'll consider for extenuating circumstances, but the general principle is contained in the proverb, "if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat" (2Th 3)
In that case, what adjustments would you make?
unless you are in government work, you would be out of a job. who finances your industry? who finances them? even if you are in government work, you'd be out of a job. how will the government pay you now that all those rich people who paid the taxes are dead?
Manhattan, because it would make people go deep into their hearts like how I perceived 9/11 did. And I wouldn't be out of a job, because I work in an industry that's necessary for places like Manhattan to even exist. If a meteor hit Hollywood, in the end, it would be like, "so what," as long as all the pollutants do not shroud the earth's atmosphere, resulting in the death of everyone.
to talk about how, say, Manhattan depends on your industry without recognizing that your industry likewise depends on Manhattan (and/or other places) shows how grossly ignorant you are about how the economy works. everything is dependant on something else, and everything is interdependant. no man's an island, so the saying goes.
if anyone had any doubt that you are part of the problem, this statement has sumarilly and thoroughly removed it.
Obviously *I* do, which is why I vote, and why I favor "taxing the rich."
are you some sort of fur trader, travelling up and down the Mississippi on a wooden raft? you don't have to tell my what you do, just don't suppose that you can separate yourself from the general economy so easily.
Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with my employment because it has very little to do with what goes on on Wall Street or Capital Hill.
and please, please don't tell me you are in retail. the 2003 tax cuts have been helping everyone who paid income taxes. if you work in an industry that is affected increased purchasing power, whether lower or upper class, they did affect your industry positively in some manner. (oh, and "welfare recipient" doesn't count as an industry )
Yeah and....? The Bush admin is done. over. finito. fin. kaput. in 12 days we will have a Democrat administration and a Democrat Congress. If you thought the Bush admin was a roller coaster ride, you ain't seen nutin yet.
I repeat, high gas and ect. will be all that I remember from the Bush administration.
now, one last question. Zero, do you believe that the purpose of taxation is to punish those who are successful and prudent with their money while subsidizing mediocrity (at best) and laziness (at worst), rather than to simply fund public services that everyone benefits from? why or why not?
Last edited by Sheepdog; January 9th 2009 at 12:02 AM.
Living so free is a tragedy
When you can't be what you want to be
Living so free is a tragedy
When you can't see what you need to see
-- Powerman 5000, "Free"