A non-combative, serious question for the left.

[Skull Pilot]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

Some rich don't mind paying their fair share and are not owened by money.

Define fair share.

It is not fair that one person has a higher percentage of his income taken from him than another

 

[Skull Pilot]

Feel free to start a thread about it.

I'm answering the question you asked. Economic issues aren't the only ones in the world and they're far less important to upper income voters. Those voters are going to place a higher value on social issues and foreign policy. If they have left-wing views on those issues, they'll vote for liberal candidates, even though it may cause some harm to their bottom line. It's also possible they are also liberals on economic issues, placing a higher value on fairness and equality than pursuit of wealth at all costs.

Well put. And, says a lot about the right wing.

From everything we see, its about money for them. More for the wealthy and taking it from the working class.

How is a person keeping more of his own money taking anything from the working class?

People take a job of their own free will and agree to trade their labor for dollars. As long as they get what they were promised no one is taking anything from them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm answering the question you asked. Economic issues aren't the only ones in the world and they're far less important to upper income voters. Those voters are going to place a higher value on social issues and foreign policy. If they have left-wing views on those issues, they'll vote for liberal candidates, even though it may cause some harm to their bottom line. It's also possible they are also liberals on economic issues, placing a higher value on fairness and equality than pursuit of wealth at all costs.

Well put. And, says a lot about the right wing.

From everything we see, its about money for them. More for the wealthy and taking it from the working class.

How is a person keeping more of his own money taking anything from the working class?

People take a job of their own free will and agree to trade their labor for dollars. As long as they get what they were promised no one is taking anything from them.

It is all so simple, isn't it?

 

[Sallow]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

Why? Because there are several schools of thought on how to build a sustainable economy that is not subject to wild flucuations.

One is to build a nation with a small group of very rich people that run the show.

The other is to build a nation where social mobility is possible through hard work and education. Buffet is in this school of thought.

It's also something the constitution mandates.

 

[Sallow]

I'm answering the question you asked. Economic issues aren't the only ones in the world and they're far less important to upper income voters. Those voters are going to place a higher value on social issues and foreign policy. If they have left-wing views on those issues, they'll vote for liberal candidates, even though it may cause some harm to their bottom line. It's also possible they are also liberals on economic issues, placing a higher value on fairness and equality than pursuit of wealth at all costs.

Well put. And, says a lot about the right wing.

From everything we see, its about money for them. More for the wealthy and taking it from the working class.

How is a person keeping more of his own money taking anything from the working class?

People take a job of their own free will and agree to trade their labor for dollars. As long as they get what they were promised no one is taking anything from them.

Mostly because it's everyone that both pays..and has a hand in that person's success. A good example would be Bill Gates who actually got the DOS from another guy named Gary Kildall..

The Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates

But thats not the end of the story. Microsoft became wildly successful after the internet became public. The internet itself was "invented" by both government and academic entities. And the infrastructure that it works on was paid for by everyone. This is not including the judicial entities Microsoft makes use of to protect it's brand..again paid for by everyone. Along with the roads, bridges, airports, and sea ports used to physically ship Microsoft products, or the police that protect those points, or the firemen that make sure that if there is a fire..that fire is dealt with quickly. All paid for by everyone.

 

[editec]

Some wealthy Americans are still patriots.

They fully understand that their wealth is the result of us having a functional nation.

They see this nation trending down and they're quite reasonably concerned that their gravy train will break down if the American society derails.

So basically their willingness to accept a greater share of the taxation is ENLIGHTEN SELF INTEREST.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well put. And, says a lot about the right wing.

From everything we see, its about money for them. More for the wealthy and taking it from the working class.

How is a person keeping more of his own money taking anything from the working class?

People take a job of their own free will and agree to trade their labor for dollars. As long as they get what they were promised no one is taking anything from them.

Mostly because it's everyone that both pays..and has a hand in that person's success. A good example would be Bill Gates who actually got the DOS from another guy named Gary Kildall..

The Man Who Could Have Been Bill Gates

But thats not the end of the story. Microsoft became wildly successful after the internet became public. The internet itself was "invented" by both government and academic entities. And the infrastructure that it works on was paid for by everyone. This is not including the judicial entities Microsoft makes use of to protect it's brand..again paid for by everyone. Along with the roads, bridges, airports, and sea ports used to physically ship Microsoft products, or the police that protect those points, or the firemen that make sure that if there is a fire..that fire is dealt with quickly. All paid for by everyone.

You did not answer my question.

Kildall fucked up and paid for it. No one took anything from him.

And what does your little anecdote have to do with my statement. If you agree to work for a certain amount of pay and you receive that pay then no one has taken anything from you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama?

Why don't you ask them?

Because about the only thing more important to the Hollywood Elite than money, is Image. 99% are incredibly Generous and helpful people, When ever there is a Camera near by.

Didn't really answer my question.

Why is the right wing so obsessed with the Hollywood elite?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I mean, Obama himself is very wealthy, Sarah Jessica Parker is too, a local douchebag ambulance chaser who hosted Obama's visit to Orlando is very rich. Are these people willing, say if obama wins and coud get his way, to give away all their money and property so that the poor can have homes, three squares, cars, TVs, iPhones, etc.

Are you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The core of the tax issue boils down to whether or not the top tax rate is 35% or 39%.

If someone has significant income in that bracket, they might care about whatever the difference is, on the other hand,

they might care more about the GOP's radical anti-progressive social agenda.

You know who doesn't have significant income in that bracket?

Mitt Romney. Most of his income is taxed at 15%.

 

[JoeNormal]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

Unless your version of spread the wealth is pure communism, it doesn't mean that everyone has the same amount of stuff. In the case of America, it might mean that instead of some people having 100,000 times as much as others, maybe they'd have 100x.

Why would anyone advocate that? because huge disparities in wealth cause a ton of social problems.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Some wealthy Americans are still patriots.

They fully understand that their wealth is the result of us having a functional nation.

They see this nation trending down and they're quite reasonably concerned that their gravy train will break down if the American society derails.

So basically their willingness to accept a greater share of the taxation is ENLIGHTEN SELF INTEREST.

bravo common sense lives @ USMB

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

False premise(s).

Spreading the wealth is not akin even distribution of wealth


huge fail

move-on is more than just a dot org

The OP is full of false premises, so any answer you get will be nonsensical. The very idea that spreading the wealth means everyone being given an equal share is not only fantasy, but madness on public display. Yet you deign to lend legitimacy to the argument? Think about it...

 

[Flopper]

Cash has dwindling returns for some people. If you are a greedy ban owner there is never enough, but if you are not psychotically obsessed with more and more wealth there comes a point where more money becomes rather pointless. There is only so much you can spend before the spending becomes rather pointless in relation to your happiness. At the high end it seems the happiness gotten from spending becomes relative to your position to the people around you. In other words it is good to own a one of a ind thing not because it brings quality to your life, but because it is something others do not have. If you do not define your self worth by what you have that others do not then having more money really doesn't bring much to your life at a certain point where you can afford whatever it is you want and do not worry about having what others want.

I would have to wonder if certain people famous for their talents and accomplishments have a higher degree of probability to associate their self worth with their artistic accomplishments therefor do not so easily fall into the realm of having to buy greatness as talentless rich people have to.

At any rate it seems clear that different people get different things from wealth. While some people's greed can never be satiated and therefor higher taxes become a problem for them despite having enough to never have to worry about survival and doing what they want to ever again, others find that they come to a point where money no longer matters to them so if it helps other people they can have some. In the end I don't thin a few taxes are going to stop warren buffet from doing whatever he wants and being happy, and I would imagine warren knows that also which is why he doesn't care if he loses some income to taxes.

Most people are not driven by a desire to accumulate a great fortune. However, we have built our society around the idea that it is. Money is not the only mark of success.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Where the fuck are ya, dummy?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The core of the tax issue boils down to whether or not the top tax rate is 35% or 39%.

If someone has significant income in that bracket, they might care about whatever the difference is, on the other hand,

they might care more about the GOP's radical anti-progressive social agenda.

You know who doesn't have significant income in that bracket?

Mitt Romney. Most of his income is taxed at 15%.

And, everyone in the military is taxed a federal rate of 28 percent, with an additional 4 percent tacked on if your state doesn't give military exemptions for state taxes.

Why is it that Mittens gets to pay a tax rate that is only around half of what the men and women fighting for this country do?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Cash has dwindling returns for some people. If you are a greedy ban owner there is never enough, but if you are not psychotically obsessed with more and more wealth there comes a point where more money becomes rather pointless. There is only so much you can spend before the spending becomes rather pointless in relation to your happiness. At the high end it seems the happiness gotten from spending becomes relative to your position to the people around you. In other words it is good to own a one of a ind thing not because it brings quality to your life, but because it is something others do not have. If you do not define your self worth by what you have that others do not then having more money really doesn't bring much to your life at a certain point where you can afford whatever it is you want and do not worry about having what others want.

I would have to wonder if certain people famous for their talents and accomplishments have a higher degree of probability to associate their self worth with their artistic accomplishments therefor do not so easily fall into the realm of having to buy greatness as talentless rich people have to.

At any rate it seems clear that different people get different things from wealth. While some people's greed can never be satiated and therefor higher taxes become a problem for them despite having enough to never have to worry about survival and doing what they want to ever again, others find that they come to a point where money no longer matters to them so if it helps other people they can have some. In the end I don't thin a few taxes are going to stop warren buffet from doing whatever he wants and being happy, and I would imagine warren knows that also which is why he doesn't care if he loses some income to taxes.

Most people are not driven by a desire to accumulate a great fortune. However, we have built our society around the idea that it is. Money is not the only mark of success.

True............look at George Washington Carver.

 

[flacaltenn]

We're talking about the same folk who make $Mill's endorsing shitty products and make 500 times the wage of the staffer that brings them a silver and satin lunch tray??

Social conscience my ass. "Enlightened self interest" -- git-out. It's guilt.. Now those sports figures EARN their Millions...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where the fuck are ya, dummy?

casting a very wide net here, eh?

 

[francoHFW]

Include capital gains as regular income Pffft!