How the rich get richer

[boedicca]

Social Security Rip Off - Recent studies showed that some retirees need social security to avoid poverty - 12% of them. The other 88% simply get to improve their lifestyle at the expense of working folk who support this Ponzei scheme. In fact, about $100 billion annually goes to retirees who make more than the average household income - a huge transfer of wealth from young to old and sometimes from the poor to the wealthy.

While there is a fair amount of truth in the OP, this one I gotta question. If the Fed' don't wanna pay the SS for which they have taxed me for the past 40 years, fine......BUT in that case I expect my money back with T-bill interest. From who's pocket is the money for that 'bailout' to come????? I suggest a Treasury issue of new currency once the Federal Reserve is abolished and its illgotten assets confiscated.

BTW a 10 - 15 year complete freeze on third world immigration would do far more for the struggling young worker than would cheating his parents/grandparents of their social security.

You need to read up on what Social Security is. It was put in place as retirement income insurance. The social contract was that if one paid in, one would later receive benefits. It is a Ponzi scheme given how the government has increased benefits far beyond CPI levels and used the earlier surplus contributions to fund other parts of the government. But the payees have a valid claim to get their benefits as that was the deal the government made.

Sadly, if that money had gone into individual accounts and invested properly (as is doen in Chile), we wouldn't have the looming insolvency nor the huge transfer of income from the young to the old.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly. Beware of liberals who cry about "social justice," "spreading the wealth," and "making things fair."

They can't make everyone happy. They CAN make us all miserable.

They can't make us all rich. They CAN make us all poor.

They can't feed everyone. They CAN starve everyone.

They can't give quality healthcare to everyone. They CAN ration it so those they consider "inconvenient" die.

Study the Soviet Union. That's the ultimate in such social planning and it meant the death of millions.

When liberals cry about the "rich getting richer" and the "poor getting pooerer" what they really mean is people are making money they can't get their hands on, and it is just burning their butt, that is true.

I am all for social justice but it is real easy to be a liberal when you are using other people's $.

Social justice = socialism.

And socialism = what I listed above.

Let's put it this way.

You have no coat. I have two coats. Jesus says, if I have two coats and someone else has no coat, give the man a coat!

But Jesus doesn't say some government body should force me to give up my extra coat. It is done of my own free will.

Now I can choose to be a selfish a-hole and not give up my coat, and say to you, go down to the church food pantry where they have coats you can get. Which is true.

My husband used to volunteer at a food pantry. There was food, showers, clothes and an unemployment office. They weren't used. My husband stopped volunteering, because he got disgusted at the truth that most of the people coming were just drug addicts, and the food pantry was nothing more than a way to facilitate them continuing to be pan handlers and drug addicts.

Now, when I offer my coat, YOU can say, "it's July, I don't need a coat." Or you can say "It's July now, but, hey I will need that coat come Janary, Thanks!"

Either way, it's YOUR freedom to accept or reject that coat.

So, freedom works this way.

But with the government involved, they take both coats, keep one, and give the other coat to whomever they choose.

Now we BOTH don't have a coat. That may be "fair," but it sure isn't a consolation come January.

So we both go down to the food pantry for a coat, but they don't have coats either, because there are less coats to go around, thanks to the government taking them all.

Now, that's over simplified, because taxes are far more complex, but it does give you the idea of the difference between freedom and the "fairness" the government would give us.

Fairness is not freedom. Fairness is the worst form of oppression, and it always involves the government taking away a freedom in order to make it fair.

It won't put one dime in your pocket. It's just designed to make you feel better because your neighbor doesn't have a coat either.

I am NOT for social justice.

Well stated...

What is your view of a social safety net?

What do we do with those that lack the skills, knowledge or personal integrity to make their lot in life better?

What would you like to see done with drug addicts? Paying for them to go to jail does not seem to work

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am all for social justice but it is real easy to be a liberal when you are using other people's $.

Social justice = socialism.

And socialism = what I listed above.

Let's put it this way.

You have no coat. I have two coats. Jesus says, if I have two coats and someone else has no coat, give the man a coat!

But Jesus doesn't say some government body should force me to give up my extra coat. It is done of my own free will.

Now I can choose to be a selfish a-hole and not give up my coat, and say to you, go down to the church food pantry where they have coats you can get. Which is true.

My husband used to volunteer at a food pantry. There was food, showers, clothes and an unemployment office. They weren't used. My husband stopped volunteering, because he got disgusted at the truth that most of the people coming were just drug addicts, and the food pantry was nothing more than a way to facilitate them continuing to be pan handlers and drug addicts.

Now, when I offer my coat, YOU can say, "it's July, I don't need a coat." Or you can say "It's July now, but, hey I will need that coat come Janary, Thanks!"

Either way, it's YOUR freedom to accept or reject that coat.

So, freedom works this way.

But with the government involved, they take both coats, keep one, and give the other coat to whomever they choose.

Now we BOTH don't have a coat. That may be "fair," but it sure isn't a consolation come January.

So we both go down to the food pantry for a coat, but they don't have coats either, because there are less coats to go around, thanks to the government taking them all.

Now, that's over simplified, because taxes are far more complex, but it does give you the idea of the difference between freedom and the "fairness" the government would give us.

Fairness is not freedom. Fairness is the worst form of oppression, and it always involves the government taking away a freedom in order to make it fair.

It won't put one dime in your pocket. It's just designed to make you feel better because your neighbor doesn't have a coat either.

I am NOT for social justice.

Well stated...

What is your view of a social safety net?

What do we do with those that lack the skills, knowledge or personal integrity to make their lot in life better?

What would you like to see done with drug addicts? Paying for them to go to jail does not seem to work

When you can't debate what someone has said, play the 20 questions game to find something you can attack them on.

What about the drug addicts own responsibility to themselves and society around them?

 

[Samson]

What do we do with those that lack the skills, knowledge or personal integrity to make their lot in life better?

X 1,000 the number of Federal Representatives from every state.

 

[The Rabbi]

Golly gee Mr Rabbi....

They call it an INCOME TAX. If 10% of income earners are paying 80% of the tax that must mean they are monopolizing 80% of available income.

If they don't like it...they are always able to "Trickle down" some of that income so they wouldn't have that unbearable burden

Monopolizing 80% of Available Income?

Income is not a natural resource that is just available to anyone to pick up off the ground for now effort. It is earned via a combination of investing capital, creativity, intellectual property, and hard work.

The top 10% actually earn far less than that - the latest info I have handy is approximately 38% - for which they paid 67% of total federal income taxes. On top of this they pay state, local, payroll, social security, medicare, and a myriad of excise taxes.

They also CREATE or FUND JOBS that employ the people who earn less (something that always escapes those who salivate over income redistribution).

How much of a person's income do you think they should pay in total taxes?

An even better dodge is the ability of the top 5% to aquire wealth without claiming it as income. The income tax is directed at the 9-5 worker who has no choice in declaring what he earns. The wealthy however, can defer wealth and funnel it into tax free vehicles.
This results in the worker having to pay a higher percentage of what he has actually earned

Proven wrong so you shift the argument, eh? What a shocker that.

 

[The Rabbi]

An even better dodge is the ability of the top 5% to aquire wealth without claiming it as income. The income tax is directed at the 9-5 worker who has no choice in declaring what he earns. The wealthy however, can defer wealth and funnel it into tax free vehicles.
This results in the worker having to pay a higher percentage of what he has actually earned

The ability to invest and hold assets for long term capital gains is not limited to only the top 5%. They pay capital gains taxes when the assets are sold - the holding of which benefits the economy as invested capital which CREATES JOBS.

History has shown that capital investments are much better for real private sector job creation than massive amounts of government debt.

At the end of the day, your version of public policy which is based on Envy destroys the vitality of an economy - as we see in high relief via the lack of new full time private sector jobs in the present.

They actually pay two taxes: the tax on actual appreciation of the asset and tax on the inflation the gov't has created.

 

[rightwinger]

Social justice = socialism.

And socialism = what I listed above.

Let's put it this way.

You have no coat. I have two coats. Jesus says, if I have two coats and someone else has no coat, give the man a coat!

But Jesus doesn't say some government body should force me to give up my extra coat. It is done of my own free will.

Now I can choose to be a selfish a-hole and not give up my coat, and say to you, go down to the church food pantry where they have coats you can get. Which is true.

My husband used to volunteer at a food pantry. There was food, showers, clothes and an unemployment office. They weren't used. My husband stopped volunteering, because he got disgusted at the truth that most of the people coming were just drug addicts, and the food pantry was nothing more than a way to facilitate them continuing to be pan handlers and drug addicts.

Now, when I offer my coat, YOU can say, "it's July, I don't need a coat." Or you can say "It's July now, but, hey I will need that coat come Janary, Thanks!"

Either way, it's YOUR freedom to accept or reject that coat.

So, freedom works this way.

But with the government involved, they take both coats, keep one, and give the other coat to whomever they choose.

Now we BOTH don't have a coat. That may be "fair," but it sure isn't a consolation come January.

So we both go down to the food pantry for a coat, but they don't have coats either, because there are less coats to go around, thanks to the government taking them all.

Now, that's over simplified, because taxes are far more complex, but it does give you the idea of the difference between freedom and the "fairness" the government would give us.

Fairness is not freedom. Fairness is the worst form of oppression, and it always involves the government taking away a freedom in order to make it fair.

It won't put one dime in your pocket. It's just designed to make you feel better because your neighbor doesn't have a coat either.

I am NOT for social justice.

Well stated...

What is your view of a social safety net?

What do we do with those that lack the skills, knowledge or personal integrity to make their lot in life better?

What would you like to see done with drug addicts? Paying for them to go to jail does not seem to work

When you can't debate what someone has said, play the 20 questions game to find something you can attack them on.

What about the drug addicts own responsibility to themselves and society around them?

So your answer is to allow drug addicts and those unable to take care of themselves to beg and steal on the streets. Put those we can in our prisons and let the rest beg door to door

 

[The Rabbi]

How about on site execution of drug dealers? Seems to work in Singapore.

 

[rightwinger]

Monopolizing 80% of Available Income?

Income is not a natural resource that is just available to anyone to pick up off the ground for now effort. It is earned via a combination of investing capital, creativity, intellectual property, and hard work.

The top 10% actually earn far less than that - the latest info I have handy is approximately 38% - for which they paid 67% of total federal income taxes. On top of this they pay state, local, payroll, social security, medicare, and a myriad of excise taxes.

They also CREATE or FUND JOBS that employ the people who earn less (something that always escapes those who salivate over income redistribution).

How much of a person's income do you think they should pay in total taxes?

An even better dodge is the ability of the top 5% to aquire wealth without claiming it as income. The income tax is directed at the 9-5 worker who has no choice in declaring what he earns. The wealthy however, can defer wealth and funnel it into tax free vehicles.
This results in the worker having to pay a higher percentage of what he has actually earned

Proven wrong so you shift the argument, eh? What a shocker that.

Rabbi, my friend

You have yet to prove anyone wrong on this board. Calling them idiots and morons has never substituted for proof

 

[The Rabbi]

An even better dodge is the ability of the top 5% to aquire wealth without claiming it as income. The income tax is directed at the 9-5 worker who has no choice in declaring what he earns. The wealthy however, can defer wealth and funnel it into tax free vehicles.
This results in the worker having to pay a higher percentage of what he has actually earned

Proven wrong so you shift the argument, eh? What a shocker that.

Rabbi, my friend

You have yet to prove anyone wrong on this board. Calling them idiots and morons has never substituted for proof

Actually it was Boedicca who proved you wrong. And that was just on this thread. On other threads virtually everyone opposed to you makes you look like the ignorant baboon you are.
So I guess you were proven wrong in your most recent post too.

 

[rightwinger]

Proven wrong so you shift the argument, eh? What a shocker that.

Rabbi, my friend

You have yet to prove anyone wrong on this board. Calling them idiots and morons has never substituted for proof

Actually it was Boedicca who proved you wrong. And that was just on this thread. On other threads virtually everyone opposed to you makes you look like the ignorant baboon you are.
So I guess you were proven wrong in your most recent post too.

You are still ducking the fact that you, yourself have yet to prove anyone wrong. You substitute namecalling (ignorant baboon is a nice one) and condescension for logic and fact.

Your posts are trite and offensive but have little actual supporting facts to back them

Your act is fooling no one

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, my friend

You have yet to prove anyone wrong on this board. Calling them idiots and morons has never substituted for proof

Actually it was Boedicca who proved you wrong. And that was just on this thread. On other threads virtually everyone opposed to you makes you look like the ignorant baboon you are.
So I guess you were proven wrong in your most recent post too.

You are still ducking the fact that you, yourself have yet to prove anyone wrong. You substitute namecalling (ignorant baboon is a nice one) and condescension for logic and fact.

Your posts are trite and offensive but have little actual supporting facts to back them

Your act is fooling no one

SO are you planning on addressing Boedicca's point about income taxation or just deflect to other subjects so you don't resemble a brainless member of the simian family?

 

[Rambunctious]

Read the links about tax loopholes and corporate welfare, those are things that are not earned, middle class and lower class people work just as hard and put in even more hours than the rich yet they are not getting richer, the rich put in less hours and get richer, the notion that everyone can somehow get rich and have the same opportunities to get rich just like the wealthy is pure individualistic lies and propaganda.

Corporate welfare? It seems to me that if I was employed by a corporation I would be happy to see that my government values the worth of the company I work for.
Corporations do a tremendous amount of good for our society and without them we would be in a world of hurt.
If a corporation gets a tax break or a "loop Hole" and can continue to create, employ, and innovate than that's a good thing for society and a worthy investment if you ask me. A far more worthy investment than extending unemployment compensation.

They're using the loopholes to make themselves richer, not to do anything for the good of the employees, that's why they reward the highest ranking people in the companies with bonuses and give people at the bottom very little.

I disagree with you completely. What on earth is so wrong with healthy wealthy corporations setting up house in your nation? Do some homework and fact checking on where the bulk of philanthropic contributions come from then tell me that corporations getting rich and receiving certain benefits is a bad thing.
I haven't even brought up the obvious fact that millions of people around the world benefit by the existence of wealthy corporations via employment and in most cases they are covered medically as well.
Do not fear greedy wealthy corporations if you need to fear something than be afraid of greedy wealthy politicians.

 

[CMike]

Golly gee Mr Rabbi....

They call it an INCOME TAX. If 10% of income earners are paying 80% of the tax that must mean they are monopolizing 80% of available income.

If they don't like it...they are always able to "Trickle down" some of that income so they wouldn't have that unbearable burden

Trickle up never works.

It sure works for the wealthy. That is how they have monopolized more of our national wealth

Thank you Ronald Reagan

Why are you so threatened by successful people? Why aren't they an inspiration for you?

 

[CMike]

It sure works for the wealthy. That is how they have monopolized more of our national wealth

Thank you Ronald Reagan

Perhaps you can take some advance sewer worker classes and you can advance. That why you may not be so envious of everyone else.

We sewer workers are proud of what we do for our society....unlike door to door salesmen

Actually I am very proud of what I do.

 

[CMike]

Who knows better how to use my $?
Myself or the government?

I do. Just send it all to me.

 

[boedicca]

I haven't even brought up the obvious fact that millions of people around the world benefit by the existence of wealthy corporations via employment and in most cases they are covered medically as well.
Do not fear greedy wealthy corporations if you need to fear something than be afraid of greedy wealthy politicians.

That's the part that always cracks me up.

If it's GREEDY for corporations to earn a profit and for people to want to keep what they've earned, what does that make people who want the government to take those profits and income away from others to give to themselves and the politicians that perform the seizures and transfers?

 

[CMike]

An even better dodge is the ability of the top 5% to aquire wealth without claiming it as income. The income tax is directed at the 9-5 worker who has no choice in declaring what he earns. The wealthy however, can defer wealth and funnel it into tax free vehicles.
This results in the worker having to pay a higher percentage of what he has actually earned

Proven wrong so you shift the argument, eh? What a shocker that.

Rabbi, my friend

You have yet to prove anyone wrong on this board. Calling them idiots and morons has never substituted for proof

You are assuming that you not an idiot and a moron. I would not make that assumption about yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Proven wrong so you shift the argument, eh? What a shocker that.

Rabbi, my friend

You have yet to prove anyone wrong on this board. Calling them idiots and morons has never substituted for proof

You are assuming that you not an idiot and a moron. I would not make that assumption about yourself.

Thanks for proving my point AmwayMike

 

[CMike]

I haven't even brought up the obvious fact that millions of people around the world benefit by the existence of wealthy corporations via employment and in most cases they are covered medically as well.
Do not fear greedy wealthy corporations if you need to fear something than be afraid of greedy wealthy politicians.

That's the part that always cracks me up.

If it's GREEDY for corporations to earn a profit and for people to want to keep what they've earned, what does that make people who want the government to take those profits and income away from others to give to themselves and the politicians that perform the seizures and transfers?

Looters.