Thou Shall Never Touch The Tax Cuts

[Bern80]

I cannot get to the site right now but the idea that rich people somehow earn their riches all on their lonesome is an absurdity that right wingnuts must believe as someday they too may hit the lottery, or more likely daddy and mommy will help them. But does anyone think the rich exist in a vacuum, they exist in a social network that provides for those riches and their use of the infrastructure that provides for them is immense. Think for a moment on that and then read Simon's idea noted below.

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer

If you can be rich then by essentially being born in the right place on the map, why are more people not rich?

 

[ReillyT]

If you can be rich then by essentially being born in the right place on the map, why are more people not rich?

What a fucking straw man. You are pathetic.

 

[midcan5]

If you can be rich then by essentially being born in the right place on the map, why are more people not rich?

That made zero sense. Are you telling us we can select that place? If so I'm waiting for this one.

 

[Bern80]

That made zero sense. Are you telling us we can select that place? If so I waiting for this one.

What a fucking straw man. You are pathetic.

That's essentially the argument the guy is making. And it's the same you made before Reily. That environment has more to do with success then however much work you put into it. Well if that's the case more people should be rich because your argument is that envirnment makes people rich more so than effort and there are a lot of pretty good environments in this country.

 

[Shogun]

Was he suggesting "trees and lakes" when using the word environment or, say, the NURTURE side of the whole Nature V nurture conflict which, in fact, is hardly a matter of mere geography?

 

[Bern80]

Was he suggesting "trees and lakes" when using the word environment or, say, the NURTURE side of the whole Nature V nurture conflict which, in fact, is hardly a matter of mere geography?

I don't really care what definition of environment he chooses to use.

 

[ReillyT]

I don't really care what definition of environment he chooses to use.

And that is why you look like a dumbass.

 

[ReillyT]

The name calling was uncalled for. I apologize.

 

[Bern80]

And that is why you look like a dumbass.

I'm not exactley sure how letting you define your terms makes me a dumbass to begin with so I'm not really offended.

I don't care what defiinition you use because I don't beleive it changes the outcome in that I don't believe environment (however you choose to define it) is more important than the actions of thd individual in creating success.

The concept that some just can't wrap their head around is that by in large success, wealth, etc. doesn't just 'happen' to people. I think most would probably agree with that, but that also runs counter to the notion that environment is the overriding factor in makeing a person wealthy. It also means when we talk about things like leveling the playing field or presenting more opportunities none of those things are going to make an individual wealthy. Could it happen? Yeah. People inherit the lottery or born to billionaires, but again they are the exception.

I perfect microcosm are professional athelets. They make tons of money playing sports. How many of them do you think didn't have to a work a lick to get where they are? Few if any. Why do you think people in the busines world are so different that the majority them didn't work for it?

 

[ReillyT]

The concept that some just can't wrap their head around is that by in large success, wealth, etc. doesn't just 'happen' to people. I think most would probably agree with that, but that also runs counter to the notion that environment is the overriding factor in makeing a person wealthy. It also means when we talk about things like leveling the playing field or presenting more opportunities none of those things are going to make an individual wealthy.

Your position isn't so complicated. We "get our heads" around it. We just think you are wrong.

You are simplifying to the point of absurdity. No one is saying that hard work and dedication aren't important to success. However, even those traits are developed (and can be under-developed), and there are many other factors that go into whether someone fails or succeeds economically - not all of which are in the control of the person in question.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It's time for another Ronny in the White House.

Prior to Ronny coming to power, weren't we allowed to take off interest paid on credit cards and major purchases as deductions on our income tax.

Why did that disapear during Ronnie's Reign? Is it that the rich don't pay interest on their purchases like the poor and middle class do?

Why is the Oil Industry still getting payments fromt the government when they are making record profits?

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + ...
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006


But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program's remaining restrictions proves successful.

''The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn't cost anything,'' said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ''Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil -- it's like subsidizing a fish to swim.''
But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ''royalty relief'' program.

They will still get this favored treatment today with Bush.

Bush has favored the rich and corporations over the individual since he first came in. If you can't see that, there is no need for any dialogue.

If the middle class represents let's say 70 of the population and they are doing well financially, the frigging economy will run just fine. To believe the rich top percent have to be spending their money to trickle down on the rest of US is true bullshit.

Is it possible that some of those on the top tier would like to eliminate the middle class?

Like I have said before there are some Americans who have achieved the American dream of financial success and will help others get there, and then there are those who have achieved it and don't want others to also get a piece of the pie.

 

[Bern80]

Your position isn't so complicated. We "get our heads" around it. We just think you are wrong.

You are simplifying to the point of absurdity. No one is saying that hard work and dedication aren't important to success. However, even those traits are developed (and can be under-developed), and there are many other factors that go into whether someone fails or succeeds economically - not all of which are in the control of the person in question.

I've never said it won't be more difficult for some than others. I'm well aware that the factors you speak of determine how easy or difficult it will be to attain to wealth.

At the end of day, however whether the person from the worst of circumstances can or can not be wealthy in this country is not determined by some extrinsic variable. If that were the case we would be able to say since x, y, and z, variables were present in your life, a level of x amount of wealth is all you can ever hope for.

If you maintain that environment(again however to choose to define it) is more a factor than personal action, then that is the reality of your position.

 

[ReillyT]

I've never said it won't be more difficult for some than others. I'm well aware that the factors you speak of determine how easy or difficult it will be to attain to wealth.

Once you accept that these other factors will make it easier or more difficult to achieve economic success (an unremarkable proposition), then it only makes sense that for those facing the greatest number of obstacles, it will become very difficult. Conversely, for others with significant advantages, it will be considerably easier. Thus, for two groups of people with equal drive and willpower, one can expect that the latter category will succeed considerably more often than the former.

 

[Bern80]

Once you accept that these other factors will make it easier or more difficult to achieve economic success (an unremarkable proposition), then it only makes sense that for those facing the greatest number of obstacles, it will become very difficult. Conversely, for others with significant advantages, it will be considerably easier. Thus, for two groups of people with equal drive and willpower, one can expect that the latter category will succeed considerably more often than the former.

That's what I can't wrap my head around. How do you measure a person's will power. How do you measure what they will or won't do to succeed? Sure you can say something like idividuals A and B that come from different environments are both willing to do X, Y and Z to become wealthy, but think that out a little.

It's the differing environments that make their will power almost uncomparable. Their environments would determine whether they had to do those things or not. In actuality your own argument has proved you wrong, think about it. For you to be right, willpower would have to be something you don't have any control over. The amount of effort you put forth you have no control over. You could not choose to try any harder and if you could no amount of effort would overcome certain obstacles.

The best way I can think to think about it is terms of potential. What someone has the ability to achieve. It should be fairly easy to determine the things one simply will not be able to do. Effort comes into play in whether that potential is reached or not. If that's the case then for each person there is a A level of effort that will allow them to reach that goal. that of course will be different for different people. But once you say no matter the effort the goal is not acheivable, well then you have to re-evaluate what their potential really is.

It is also surprising as a members of the left you and others are makeing this argument. Aren't you all supppossed to be the dream big guys, not the evil pragamatists and realists we righties are?

 

[Zoomie1980]

I cannot get to the site right now but the idea that rich people somehow earn their riches all on their lonesome is an absurdity that right wingnuts must believe as someday they too may hit the lottery, or more likely daddy and mommy will help them. But does anyone think the rich exist in a vacuum, they exist in a social network that provides for those riches and their use of the infrastructure that provides for them is immense. Think for a moment on that and then read Simon's idea noted below.

"The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work. “On moral grounds,” Simon added, “we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent.” Simon was not, of course, advocating so steep a rate of tax, for he was well aware of disincentive effects. But his estimate does undermine the argument that the rich are entitled to keep their wealth because it is all a result of their hard work. If Simon is right, that is true of at most 10 percent of it." Peter Singer

First off he's wrong. Wealth comes primarily though personal discipline, having a vision, and seeing it through. I'm 50, worth a little over a million dollars, make about $150,000/yr now, never owned a business, never been an executive. My mother dropped out of school after the eighth grade and was a hair-dresser. My father ran away from home at 15 and joined the Merchant Marine. He was a used car salesman for 45 years. I made good grades in school and got a scholarship to college, graduated, spent 10 years in the military and went on to become a computer guy. I started investing in a mutual fund at $50/month the day I graduated from college and have been doing that ever since. That was in 1980 and now that retirement nest egg is worth well over a million.

You may think I'm "rich" but I am not. I worked my my up and saved at least a little, even in bad times. I've never owned a house valued over $250,000 and never driven a car that cost more than $30,000, never spent more than $250 for a suit and never more than $100 for a pair of shoes. My haircuts cost me $15. I am the "typical" millionaire.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Prior to Ronny coming to power, weren't we allowed to take off interest paid on credit cards and major purchases as deductions on our income tax.

Why did that disapear during Ronnie's Reign? Is it that the rich don't pay interest on their purchases like the poor and middle class do?

Why is the Oil Industry still getting payments fromt the government when they are making record profits?



They will still get this favored treatment today with Bush.

Bush has favored the rich and corporations over the individual since he first came in. If you can't see that, there is no need for any dialogue.

If the middle class represents let's say 70 of the population and they are doing well financially, the frigging economy will run just fine. To believe the rich top percent have to be spending their money to trickle down on the rest of US is true bullshit.

Is it possible that some of those on the top tier would like to eliminate the middle class?

Like I have said before there are some Americans who have achieved the American dream of financial success and will help others get there, and then there are those who have achieved it and don't want others to also get a piece of the pie.

I've achieved a modest degree of success in my life and have come from pretty meager background to get it. I damned sure am NOT going to give anyone else anything to "help" them make it, other than advice. But I'm not going to keep them from getting it either. I simply don't care one way or the other. Other's success or failure is their own issue, not mine. I could care less what you do....I have trouble enough figuring what I need to do.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I'm always amazed to hear people who took subsidized government student loans, went to taxpayer subsidized public universities, and used tax-payer funded roads, transportation, and infrastructure to succeed in their educational and professional endeavors, claim that they made it "all on their own".

 

[Zoomie1980]

I'm always amazed to hear people who took subsidized government student loans, went to taxpayer subsidized public universities, and used tax-payer funded roads, transportation, and infrastructure to succeed in their educational and professional endeavors, claim that they made it "all on their own".

And who pays those roads, transportation and infrastructure???

The top 1% pay for 37% of it
The top 5% pay for 58% of it
The top 10% pay for over 70% of it.

You peons in the bottom 90% don't pay for sh!t but are by far the biggest USERS of it all!!!

 

[Toro]

And who pays those roads, transportation and infrastructure???

The top 1% pay for 37% of it
The top 5% pay for 58% of it
The top 10% pay for over 70% of it.

You peons in the bottom 90% don't pay for sh!t but are by far the biggest USERS of it all!!!

Given that the national debt has increased ~$4,000,000,000,000 under the Republican's deft stewardship of the economy - which is slipping back into recession BTW - you can include "Your children" in that category too.

 

[ReillyT]

How do you measure what they will or won't do to succeed?

You can't. It is not a quantifiable attribute.

The best way I can think to think about it is terms of potential. What someone has the ability to achieve. It should be fairly easy to determine the things one simply will not be able to do.

Why should it be easy? Life is complicated. The obstacles people face are many and unforeseen.

Effort comes into play in whether that potential is reached or not. If that's the case then for each person there is a A level of effort that will allow them to reach that goal. that of course will be different for different people. But once you say no matter the effort the goal is not acheivable, well then you have to re-evaluate what their potential really is.

For any individual person, I generally wouldn't say that anything is not achievable. However, in the aggregate, it is quite easy to say that things will not be achievable by the majority. If someone were 5'3" tall, I wouldn't say that it is impossible for them to start on a professional basketball team. However, if you were to ask me if all 5'3" people were capable (assuming they all put forth all of their effort) of playing professional basketball, I would be a fool to say yes. Even if there were many more professional basketball teams, the fact is that if you are 5'3" tall, you are suffering from a major handicap when it comes to professional basketball. Not everyone, despite their respective "best efforts" will succeed. That is also true for people 7'2", although I think we can all agree that someone 7'2" has an easier shot (no pun intended).

It is also surprising as a members of the left you and others are makeing this argument. Aren't you all supppossed to be the dream big guys, not the evil pragamatists and realists we righties are?

Try not to stereotype. We are idealists because we believe it is possible to create a world where people have greater opportunities to achieve their goals. However, we recognize life's limitations, even if we want to reduce those limitations. We are not blind and stupid.