Thou Shall Never Touch The Tax Cuts

[Bern80]

Have you proved elsewise?

Let me research this tonight at home and see if there is any data.

You seem to miss one of the main points of this thread. If a person does have connections to people in power who then pass laws, give subsidies, etc based on relationships and nothing else, this is total crap. When people in elected postion of power use that power to financially benefit their buddies, that is a conflict of interest.

I'm not denying that happens. I just don't believe it can be considered typical where attainment of wealth is concerned

Why does the Oil industry still get subsidies?

I'm gonna go with cause the government needs oil too? Just a guess.

 

[jillian]

I'm not denying that happens. I just don't believe it can be considered typical where attainment of wealth is concerned



I'm gonna go with cause the government needs oil too? Just a guess.

Er... no. Then the govt would just be paying its bills.

Subsidies? Try... because the VP devised our energy policy with oil execs.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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!!!

Hey, kid: roads, highways, and bridges are funded to a large extent by gasoline taxes and user fees. Not income taxes. Ergo, the poor and the middle class pay for most of our infrastructure.

 

[Shogun]

Except for what you're suggesting is cropped, isn't. 80% referrs to EVERYONE with net worth above 1 million dollars. That's what it was at the beginning of this tangent and that's what it still is.

NO it's not. YOU ADMITTED that opening up the criteria to include the mulit-millionaire would skew your 80% already, dude. for crying out loud.

 

[Bern80]

Older data, but all I could find with a quick search:

Interesting. I don't know how much credence can be lent to it seeing as they couldn't get to 100% with their four base analogy 69% total. I know they said at least, but that's a lot of leeway they left themselves.

Never the less we can try to translate it into that 80/20. We can debate what bases should go in what groups but I think home and first being part of the 80 is fair. Based on just there numbers that would be 56/13. Since they say 'at least' those would be the minimums. Who know what they really would be to make 100%

 

[Bern80]

NO it's not. YOU ADMITTED that opening up the criteria to include the mulit-millionaire would skew your 80% already, dude. for crying out loud.

What I said is if you raise the threshold it will skew the 80%. That is if ONLY people of a net worth of say 100 million and up are counted, and no less, then yes that percentage will fall.

I stand by what I have stated and what my source has always stated and again this is really, really simple. 80% of people with a net worth of a million dollars or more, and no less are first generation millionaires.

 

[Bern80]

Hey, kid: roads, highways, and bridges are funded to a large extent by gasoline taxes and user fees. Not income taxes. Ergo, the poor and the middle class pay for most of our infrastructure.

because the rich...don't....drive?

 

[Shogun]

What I said is if you raise the threshold it will skew the 80%. That is if ONLY people of a net worth of say 100 million and up are counted, and no less, then yes that percentage will fall.

I stand by what I have stated and what my source has always stated and again this is really, really simple. 80% of people with a net worth of a million dollars or more, and no less are first generation millionaires.

whatever you say, homey. you keep saying it and it will probably come true. Just ask Eots, he's got a brand new book from David Icke.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Er... no. Then the govt would just be paying its bills.

Subsidies? Try... because the VP devised our energy policy with oil execs.

LOL, So oil subsidies JUST started under Bush?

 

[Bern80]

whatever you say, homey. you keep saying it and it will probably come true. Just ask Eots, he's got a brand new book from David Icke.

If you can prove my source wrong or why it doesn't count or whatever go for it. I'll listen. You haven't exactley proven anything. You've told me I'm wrong based on nothing really and provided no counter evidence.

 

[Shogun]

If you can prove my source wrong or why it doesn't count or whatever go for it. I'll listen. You haven't exactley proven anything. You've told me I'm wrong based on nothing really and provided no counter evidence.

I've quotes the book and your own posts regarding how your single source crafted his results. Like I said, enjoy. I'll be reading WWZ tonight and I hope to god no zombies bust into my front room. Make sure you let me know how much you agree with Howard Zinn after reading his book too. After all... its a book. and it doesn't even narrow it's effective criteria in order to achieve a crafted result!

 

[midcan5]

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.

Bern80, Poor people work hard too, takes a heck of a lot more than hard work to become rich. Social class may be the better word for environment as you use it. A person with nothing can hardly get the capital the wealthy start with. We happen to know many rich people and almost all at the top inherited it or married into it. Sure a good idea can get you rich, but how many can even be Bill Gates given the predatory nature of that corporation. The craftsman works hard and unless she owns a construction company she will never be rich. Show us the poor person with no resources who made it. They are the rare ones. But actually the rich differ not one iota from the rest of us, they are just a little bit luckier.

 

[rayboyusmc]

LOL, So oil subsidies JUST started under Bush?

Why not check out if it has gone up under Bush? Plus, why are they still getting them when the last two years they have had record profits?

And yes, Cheney did meet with the oilies when he made our so called energy policy and still refuses to give out any information on what was discussed.

That is bullshit. He is a public official regardless of what he says that he is not governed by any body.

The well-choreographed "100 Hour" congressional Democratic blitzkrieg turns to the subject of Big Oil on Thursday when Pelosi & Co. will make quite a to-do over H.R. 6, the "Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act," or "CLEAN Energy Act" for short, a proposed $14 billion cut over ten years in the subsidies going to the petroleum industry. Free marketeers should have zero complaint in theory. There is no identifiable market failure that might cause private actors to significantly under-invest in domestic oil production. In practice, however, the Democrats are simply transferring subsidies from one energy sector to another with no net reduction of taxpayer funds going to corporate in-boxes. Moreover, they are sneaking in energy-tax increases under the rhetorical cover of a war on subsidies. Accordingly, there is little reason for conservatives to get particularly excited.

The case for oil subsidies is laughably thin. Proponents argue that the more you subsidize oil production, the more oil you'll get, and that, after all, is a good thing for consumers when gasoline prices are around $2.25 a gallon. Unfortunately, there's simply not enough unexploited oil in the United States that might be exploited as a consequence of those subsidies to greatly affect world crude oil prices. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf, for instance, demonstrates that even if domestic production subsidies were worth 10 percent of the current price of oil (and they are worth no more than about 3 percent today), the increased production that might result would only reduce oil prices by 0.4 percent. Even if reducing foreign oil dependence is the main objective, Metcalf shows that domestic production would only increase by a trivial 0.2 percent were domestic subsidies to increase threefold-above current levels.

Some on the Right, of course, would argue that any taxation of corporate activity is counterproductive in that it unfairly taxes earnings twice (once when booked by corporate accountants and then again when those earnings are disbursed to stockholders). From this perspective, tax breaks simply allow companies to keep what is best left to them in the first place and should not be thought of as a subsidy. A variation of this argument holds that the less government takes in the better, so all tax breaks (and tax cuts, for that matter) are worth embracing.

At a time when all oil producing countries are increasing their tax take to capture some of the increased value of the oil production (even the UK has recently increased the main tax rate from 40 to 50%), the Bush administration is busy doing the opposite. Recent executive decisions, and smart use by oil companies in lawsuits of ambiguous wording of the applicable laws, threaten to leave up to two thirds of Gulf of Mexico gas production paying no taxes, at a loss to taxpayers of $28 billion, according to the New York Times.

http://www.energybulletin.net/14394.html

WASHINGTON: It was after midnight, and every lawmaker in the committee room wanted to go home, but there was still time to sweeten a deal encouraging oil and gas companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"There is no cost," declared Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, who was presiding over Congressional negotiations on the sprawling energy bill last July. An obscure provision on new drilling incentives was "so noncontroversial," he added, that senior House and Senate negotiators had not even discussed it.

Barton's claim had a long history. For more than a decade, lawmakers and administration officials, both Republicans and Democrats, have promised there would be no cost to taxpayers for a program allowing companies to avoid royalties on oil and gas produced in publicly owned waters in the gulf.

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the benefits were 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.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/business/oil.php

 

[midcan5]

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.

No offense but you ain't close to rich, but you did Ok and your salary is quite good. Are you married as that too plays into this equation, do you have children, are they healthy.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't know, midcan. I know a number of rich people as well, including ones that made it all on their own starting with practically nothing.

The main difference I see between them and others (including myself) is the single-mindedness and the fact that the work consumes them. These guys eat, sleep, and breath whatever endeavor it is that made them successful. I'm the first to admit that I'm not willing to devote that much (the entirety) of my life to a business proposition. I have too many other things I want to do.

I know a guy who owned a chain of home medical stores and started out working a minimum wage job in a pharmacy. He was the guy who was always in early, always stayed late, was on the job even when he wasn't on the job. Most people working jobs, particularly at lower wages, simply won't put that kind of dedication and determination into it.

Just because you put that in doesn't mean you're going to wind up rich, of course, but I think if you're going to take yourself from nothing to something big you need a passion and dedication for work that borders on an obsession. Most of us don't have that. I don't.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, Poor people work hard too, takes a heck of a lot more than hard work to become rich. Social class may be the better word for environment as you use it. A person with nothing can hardly get the capital the wealthy start with. We happen to know many rich people and almost all at the top inherited it or married into it. Sure a good idea can get you rich, but how many can even be Bill Gates given the predatory nature of that corporation. The craftsman works hard and unless she owns a construction company she will never be rich. Show us the poor person with no resources who made it. They are the rare ones. But actually the rich differ not one iota from the rest of us, they are just a little bit luckier.

I commented on this before. Of course a tile layer or construction worker works hard. To atain wealth though also takes a considerable amount of mental effort.

Again, yes it will be harder for some than it is for others. That isn't any reason to begrudge the rich. As for the evidence provided I'm sure you've seen that Shogun and I have been going around about a certain book. Do me a favor and don't judge it based on nothing like he did. Judge for yourself how they did their research and then tell me effort only plays a marginal role in attaining wealth.

 

[Shogun]

pay attention to the stats too. 80% of a cropped sample clearly reflects the entire population of rich people.

 

[jillian]

You know, I'm not a statistician. But it seems to me that while there may be similarities among people who took themselves from zero to millions, no analysis is made of people with similar variables, including effort, who failed to rise from zero, for whatever reason.

I'm curious as to what percentage of the population tried to do the same things and failed.

And then I'd be curious as to what, if any, additional variables exist which resulted in the failure. Because, even if 80% of millionaires are self-made (and I seriously doubt that number) what percentage of the general population were those 80%? (I'm not sure if I'm asking the question clearly, btw). 1%? 10%?

Oh... and one last thing. If a person's million dollar net worth is made up largely of his house, he isn't rich. He's upper middle class.

 

[DeadCanDance]

It's easy for keybord warriors to claim they are self made, men of wealth.

The "I did it all on my own" cyber crowd is either delusional, or is a kid on mommy's computer somewhere, just trolling.

From the not-so-liberal Marketwatch.com:

The myth of the self-made millionaire

Societal support key to much wealth creation, report says

By Thomas Kostigen, MarketWatch.com


SANTA MONICA, Calif. (CBS.MW) -- Some of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in this country say there is no such thing as the "self-made man."

With more millionaires making rather than inheriting their wealth, there is a false conceit that they haven't received outside support, a new report says.

But society's role in wealth creation is significant, therefore society has an obligation to maintain a level playing field for opportunities to create wealth, contends the report, "I Didn't Do It Alone: Society's Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success."

The idea that if government would get out of the way, then every entrepreneur would automatically succeed is wrong, the report says.
The report is published by Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, a nonprofit group that researches and raises awareness on issues related to wealth and power. It has signed more than 2,200 multimillionaires and billionaires to a petition to reform and keep the inheritance tax; the "I Didn't Do It Alone" report was gleaned from small sample of those petitioners.
"Pro-business economic policies and tax policies are often centered on the myth of the self-made man," the report says. But the myth of "self-made" wealth "is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation."

Individuals profiled believe that they prospered in large part thanks to things beyond their individual control, such as social investments in education, research, technology and infrastructure, the report says. Or as Jim Sherblom, former CFO of Genzyme, says, "We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us."

He and others profiled believe it's vital to give back to society so that others in the next generation can have the same opportunities they had. This giving goes beyond taxes to charity and mentoring programs.

"This is not so much a call for increased taxes as it is a highlight of society's role and claim upon us as individuals. We each have a responsibility to the common wealth upon which individual wealth is possible," says Chuck Collins, the report's co-author.

In prepared remarks, Collins was more emphatic: "How we think about wealth creation is important since policies such as large tax cuts for the wealthy often draw on the myth of the self-made man... Taxes are portrayed as onerous, unfair redistribution of privately created wealth -- not as reinvestment or giving back to society. Yet, where would many wealthy entrepreneurs be today without taxpayer investment in the Internet, transportation, public education, legal system, the human genome and so on?"

Those Collins profiled in the report say their success is attributable to many factors, among them public schools and colleges, government investment in research and small business assistance, contributions of employees, and strong legal and financial systems.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...-889C-1D4B7982B9C3}&siteid=google&dist=google

 

[Steerpike]

Doesn't change the basics, though, Dead.

Sure, factors that contribute to success include education, availability of capital in the form of grants or investments, assistance of small business development organizations and the like, but you still have to have the drive to push yourself forward, through frustration after frustration, to get through all of those things.

I procure patents for people. Most of the individuals, after getting their patent, do nothing further. They don't have the motivation, or they lack the knowledge (and the motivation to get the knowledge) to know how to proceed next. Others do have the motivation, and they are the ones that tend to succeed. There are organizations where I live that will develop a business plan for you, go out and try to find capital, take and invention through various stages of develop, seek grants, etc. all at no upfront charge to the inventor. They only make money if the inventor is successful. But many people with an invention or business idea never even seek these guys out, or do the kind of digging that anyone could do to find out they exist.