How the rich get richer

[CMike]

Just a bit more from Atlas Shrugged. This is from a character called Francisco about money.

Capitalism Magazine - "Francisco's Money Speech"

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

 

[Misty]

The government shouldn't take money from taxpayers and give it to anyone unless it is in service of the government.

No corporate handouts, no foreign handouts, no fake grants and stupid programs.

 

[Misty]

Ayn Rand was very wise. But atlas shrugged is a long long long long book. So let this one sentence some it up.

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason;..."

 

[Againsheila]

I can't believe that idiots on the right believe in reward the rich who loophole themselves out of taxes. These idiots believe that shouldering the tax burden of the rich with their own hard earned money is ok even thought these rich people have done nothing ofr them, class case of economic and political Stockholm Syndrome and a terrible case at that. I've never heard of any people who earn less money doggedly support rewarding and making the rich richer under the false assumption that all wealthy people have earned their money. They should be pushing to make the tax laws apply equally to everyone and not be favorable to the rich only.

Screw the loopholes. Let's just make the tax rate straight down the board at 10%.

That way we all have more money. We can all profit on our own labor.

You can't treat people equally until you realize there is no difference between a poor man and a rich man. There is no reason why one should pay nothing and the other pay everything.

Have some respect for yourself.

Having handed out lunches to the homeless for awhile, I can tell you there is a difference. Usually in lost opportunities or not having had the opportunities at all. You can't get blood out of a turnip. You want someone who is living on $20,000 with a family of four, paying $1000 a month rent to pay 10% of their money for income taxes while a family making $billions, also pays 10%? What exactly is that family of four suppose to do without in order to pay that 10%? They are already growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc. <yes, I'm using a real example of a family I know of except that they actually make LESS than $20,000 a year and yes, their rent is $1000 a month, that's cheap around here>

 

[boedicca]

Having handed out lunches to the homeless for awhile, I can tell you there is a difference. Usually in lost opportunities or not having had the opportunities at all. You can't get blood out of a turnip. You want someone who is living on $20,000 with a family of four, paying $1000 a month rent to pay 10% of their money for income taxes while a family making $billions, also pays 10%? What exactly is that family of four suppose to do without in order to pay that 10%? They are already growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc. <yes, I'm using a real example of a family I know of except that they actually make LESS than $20,000 a year and yes, their rent is $1000 a month, that's cheap around here>

Consider how the size of government and complexity of the tax system affects that family of four:

- Big government reduces economic growth and job creation; the jobs that may enable the breadwinner to earn more money are not being created.

- The cost of many things are higher due to government interference (housing and rents were driven way above natural market levels as the government mandated increasing home ownership, and the housing bulb took place).

Nobody advocating a flat tax is saying that there shouldn't be a basic level which is exempt (for everyone, btw) - after that, the tax kicks in.

 

[Newby]

I find it sort of amusing that this think-piece immediately becomes the grounds for partisan bickering.

Nothing in that linked article is not true, and both parties are responsible for it.

Do any of you Republican loyals really think McCain wouldn't have bailed out the banks?

Why?

Bush II did, and ain't he a Republican?

Precisely my thoughts, thats why I said I did agreed with neither Obama nor Bush granting the funds.

But getting back on topic and not to sound a bit partisan, I find it funny that people rally behind the right when it comes to taxation yet don't understand how the system works. They think less taxes equals more money which is partly true, but is irrelevant when it comes to the rich people who pay tax consultants and lawyers to skim tax codes and laws for loopholes which effectively lower down their tax rate. Thats translates into the middleclass and lower class being leaned on more heavily to anchor the tax burden.

The facts don't agree with you though.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

by Gerald Prante


Fiscal Fact No. 183

The Internal Revenue Service has released new data on individual income taxes, reporting on calendar year 2007, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow. Individual income tax collections increased substantially that year, while the overall average effective tax rate remained about the same.

In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

 

[Newby]

Who said that? The rich should own up to their part of the tax burden instead of shifting onto middle and lower classes, its the equivalent of a millionare going into a clothes stores and doing price tag switching.

The top 10% of income earners already pay like 80% of income tax collected.
You'll need a new gig here.

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

I wonder what that finite income number is?? How do you 'monopolize' income??

 

[rightwinger]

Having handed out lunches to the homeless for awhile, I can tell you there is a difference. Usually in lost opportunities or not having had the opportunities at all. You can't get blood out of a turnip. You want someone who is living on $20,000 with a family of four, paying $1000 a month rent to pay 10% of their money for income taxes while a family making $billions, also pays 10%? What exactly is that family of four suppose to do without in order to pay that 10%? They are already growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc. <yes, I'm using a real example of a family I know of except that they actually make LESS than $20,000 a year and yes, their rent is $1000 a month, that's cheap around here>

Consider how the size of government and complexity of the tax system affects that family of four:

- Big government reduces economic growth and job creation; the jobs that may enable the breadwinner to earn more money are not being created.

- The cost of many things are higher due to government interference (housing and rents were driven way above natural market levels as the government mandated increasing home ownership, and the housing bulb took place).

Nobody advocating a flat tax is saying that there shouldn't be a basic level which is exempt (for everyone, btw) - after that, the tax kicks in.

Right Wing myths

Big government reduces economic growth and job creation; The US became an economic superpower AFTER we adopted big government policies in the 30s

The cost of many things are higher due to government interference Totally unsubstantiated.

 

[Avatar4321]

Having handed out lunches to the homeless for awhile, I can tell you there is a difference. Usually in lost opportunities or not having had the opportunities at all. You can't get blood out of a turnip. You want someone who is living on $20,000 with a family of four, paying $1000 a month rent to pay 10% of their money for income taxes while a family making $billions, also pays 10%? What exactly is that family of four suppose to do without in order to pay that 10%? They are already growing their own food, making their own clothes, etc. <yes, I'm using a real example of a family I know of except that they actually make LESS than $20,000 a year and yes, their rent is $1000 a month, that's cheap around here>

Consider how the size of government and complexity of the tax system affects that family of four:

- Big government reduces economic growth and job creation; the jobs that may enable the breadwinner to earn more money are not being created.

- The cost of many things are higher due to government interference (housing and rents were driven way above natural market levels as the government mandated increasing home ownership, and the housing bulb took place).

Nobody advocating a flat tax is saying that there shouldn't be a basic level which is exempt (for everyone, btw) - after that, the tax kicks in.

Right Wing myths

Big government reduces economic growth and job creation; The US became an economic superpower AFTER we adopted big government policies in the 30s

The cost of many things are higher due to government interference Totally unsubstantiated.

Actually, we became a super power after we adopted small government in the 20s.

 

[boedicca]

Right Wing myths

Big government reduces economic growth and job creation; The US became an economic superpower AFTER we adopted big government policies in the 30s

The cost of many things are higher due to government interference Totally unsubstantiated.

It's a leftwing myth that FDR's Big Government programs spurred the economy:

It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.

Let's start with the New Deal. Its various alphabet-soup agencies—the WPA, AAA, NRA and even the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)—failed to create sustainable jobs. In May 1939, U.S. unemployment still exceeded 20%. European countries, according to a League of Nations survey, averaged only about 12% in 1938. The New Deal, by forcing taxes up and discouraging entrepreneurs from investing, probably did more harm than good.

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade. ...

Burt Folsom: Did FDR End the Depression? - WSJ.com

 

[CMike]

Ayn Rand was very wise. But atlas shrugged is a long long long long book. So let this one sentence some it up.

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason;..."

I would summarize Atlas Shrugged in this way, don't loot the producers (the ones with the brains and the ability to make things happen).

What happens if they don't produce? What if they say nuts to it, it's not worth it, cash out and live in Mexico? Where will this country be if they all went on strike?

We are living Atlas Shrugged right now. We have a president, who is a looter. He wants to loot from the producers, and give to the non-producers. Of course, he makes "special exemptions" for his friends.

But look at who Barak Hussein is. He has never produced anything, other than a book.

Barak Hussein was born with a silver spoon in his life. He has lived a privlidged life. He doesn't even have the most basic education.

No I don't mean an education on how he would change the constitution, and how much he and his minions hate America. An education of actually having to meet a payroll or run a business. He has never done this.

Barak Hussein's entire background is based on him thinking how horrible America is, despite his privlidged life.

You can scoof at Sarah Palin, but she is far more educated than Barak Hussein. Why? Because she and her husband had a commercial fishery business, and had to actually work for a living.

I've said this before, several years ago, I was in really bad financial shape. Michigan was very hard hit economically. I took a job doing door to door sales for commission only. I traveled all through the state, leaving on Monday and returning home on Friday, working.

I then started my own business doing the same thing. My income increased 12 times since that time, and my taxes for 2009 more than doubled my entire income for 2007.

I also employ quite a number of people now. I employ them for the sole purpose of wanting to make as much money from them as possible. That said, the ones that work, do very well. I normally pay the ones them between $3,000 and $1,000 per week. I provide livelihoods for them.

I want to make it clear that I didn't hire them to provide livelihoods. I hired them to make as much profit from them as I can. The fact, that they make a good living, is a by product to me, but not my purpose.

I also provide a good product to my customers.

Money is the great equalizer.

And no there shouldn't be a limit on how much profit or money a person should make There isn't one pie that never increases. If the country does well, the pie itself increases, and everyone can get a bigger piece.

 

[manu1959]

The Redistribution Of Wealth To The Rich

they work....

 

[Mr. Peepers]

If the country does well, the pie itself increases, and everyone can get a bigger piece.

Bullshit. Doesn't work that way. The rich get richer because they are parasites on the lower classes. They use their labor and talent to become wealthy but do not adequately compensate those people for their hard work and talent. How else do you explain the 400x gap in what executives vs. front line employees make? The pie is only increasing for those who can buy legislation to funnel even more money their way. The middle class is SHRINKING, not growing. The rich have their tax cuts and loopholes and corporate welfare... so WHY is the middle class shrinking? Why is poverty increasing? Why is the income gap larger than right before the great depression? Hmm??? Trickle down doesn't work. Never has and never will. Why do you think it is considered "voodoo economics"? Trickle up DOES work. Look at the age of prosperity after WWII until the 70's when wages started to stagnate...

 

[FrankieGA]

Why is it so hard to understand for you Peepers? Work Hard, Sacrifice, and you too can be one of the Evil Rich. Do nothing but sit on your ass and wind up poor. Its really up to you in the end. The poor are the ones who wind up living off of the welfare system created in this country by ALL politicians. The longer you stay there, the longer they stay in power. Once you can start thinking for yourself, the Gov't is in trouble. Start doing as CMike did and the Gov't gets scared. What is your discontent with the "RICH" people. Is it because you have not tasted the fruit of hard work and determination?

 

[Intense]

If the country does well, the pie itself increases, and everyone can get a bigger piece.

Bullshit. Doesn't work that way. The rich get richer because they are parasites on the lower classes. They use their labor and talent to become wealthy but do not adequately compensate those people for their hard work and talent. How else do you explain the 400x gap in what executives vs. front line employees make? The pie is only increasing for those who can buy legislation to funnel even more money their way. The middle class is SHRINKING, not growing. The rich have their tax cuts and loopholes and corporate welfare... so WHY is the middle class shrinking? Why is poverty increasing? Why is the income gap larger than right before the great depression? Hmm??? Trickle down doesn't work. Never has and never will. Why do you think it is considered "voodoo economics"? Trickle up DOES work. Look at the age of prosperity after WWII until the 70's when wages started to stagnate...

Some pretty biased value judgments and profiling Peeps??? What's up with that??? Sounds like You need an intervention, man. Sounds like you are confusing Bureaucrats with the movers and shakers. We All need boundaries Peep, some temporal, some with exception, some permanent. Let's not confuse that with obstructionism any longer than We are forced to. The middle class is shrinking because of Government Obstructionism, We are even being displaces by Government workers who are now the new middle class. If You don't Produce, Manufacture, Develop, Distribute, Service, Sell, that get's pretty close to the definition of Parasite or obstructionist to me.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Why is it so hard to understand for you Peepers? Work Hard, Sacrifice, and you too can be one of the Evil Rich.

Not anymore. That is a complete myth. That path doesn't work anymore. The cost of living has now outstripped most people's wages. I do work very hard, live modeslty and save. Know how much I was able to save each month 10 years ago making LESS? $200 a month BESIDES my 401K. Know how much savable income I have now with no lifestyle changes? $40 a month, if I'm lucky. Know how much my cost of living raise is each year? 2-3% at MOST. Know how much my rent has gone up in the past three years? 8.5% - almost $200 a month. Know how much my power has gone up? 30%. Know how much trasit costs have gone up in 3 years? 20%. I think you get the picture.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The middle class is shrinking because of Government Obstructionism, We are even being displaces by Government workers who are now the new middle class. If You don't Produce, Manufacture, Develop, Distribute, Service, Sell, that get's pretty close to the definition of Parasite or obstructionist to me.

You're joking, right?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Is it because you have not tasted the fruit of hard work and determination?

Few get justly compensated for their hard work and determination anymore. And they're working longer and harder for less and less. So no, most workers aren't tasting that fruit. Again, read about the income gap if you don't believe me.

 

[FrankieGA]

And you think the Fed's have nothing to do with this? You say you may have $40 a month to save now, kiss that goodbye, once the dreaded Bush tax cuts end this year guess what happens, your taxes go up 5%. Oh and then Obamanismcare goes into effect and your taxes go up again.Now you can't even afford the place you live in, so you look to the Fed's for a subsidy. They decide to grant you one because you are considered low income and need the help. Guess what happens now? You are now in the welfare system of the Federal Government of the United States. And not only are you there becuase you haven't got the money to get off of it, but so does the company you work for. They can no longer afford to even think of giving you a raise, because guess what? Thats right their taxes have gone up too, along with their responsiblity for offering healthcare in a system that does not allow true competition, especially now that the Fed has gotten involved and severly taken away a level playing field.

Are you ok with that? Or would you at least like to have the ability to try and pursue something a little more lucrative in the long run? I.E. Reduced tax's ????

 

[FrankieGA]

There is no doubt a huge income gap growing in this country, and its because the Fed's have created the New Middle Class by employing and overpaying many who work for them.Don't belive me, go read the ariticle