Who NEEDS This Kind Of Income?

[MikeK]

How many symphonies did Mozart really have to compose?

Hoe many sculptures did Michelangelo really have to carve?

Those are absurdly invalid analogies. Prolific creativity produces no negative influences on anyone or anything.

Paul McCartney should have been content to have one Number 1 hit,why was he so greedy?

McCartney is but one example of the negative effects of capitalism on the fields of creative entertainment and sports. The inordinate sums of money generated by these industries is counterproductive to the best interests of the national economy and should be regulated. And you are quite right about the greed factor, access to such massive sums of money fosters that ugly and destructive condition in some.

 

[boedicca]

By the way, what I do with my money is none of your business unless it impacts you.

If what you do with your money is your business, then you are quite the hypocrite for advocating that the government take money away from other people.

Quelle Nonsurprise.

The Government of the U.S. is a government of and for the people. The 16th Amendment to our Constitution authorized "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived...".

It is legal for the U.S. Government to do so, you have no standing to ask what I make and what I spent it on, Capito?

The government having that power doesn't make it moral for you to ask them to abuse it by insisting that they direct taxes at other people for your benefit. I doubt your worldview will allow to you grok this.

 

[dblack]

I'm wondering if any of those here supporting punitive taxes on the rich, or other forms of wealth redistribution, have any concerns about the general concept of government deciding what we 'need'? That seems problematic to me, given that the concept of 'need' is highly subjective. Beyond air, food and water - what do any of us really need? The tone of the debate also seems to indicate an assumption that our rights only extend to what we 'need', which is troubling for the same reasons. Who decides what I 'need'?

 

[boedicca]

I'm wondering if any of those here supporting punitive taxes on the rich, or other forms of wealth redistribution, have any concerns about the general concept of government deciding what we 'need'? That seems problematic to me, given that the concept of 'need' is highly subjective. Beyond air, food and water - what do any of us really need? The tone of the debate also seems to indicate an assumption that our rights only extend to what we 'need', which is troubling for the same reasons. Who decides what I 'need'?

Oh, we know how this works already.

The politically connecteds' definition of need includes things that are denied the rest of us.

 

[Oddball]

I'm wondering if any of those here supporting punitive taxes on the rich, or other forms of wealth redistribution, have any concerns about the general concept of government deciding what we 'need'? That seems problematic to me, given that the concept of 'need' is highly subjective. Beyond air, food and water - what do any of us really need? The tone of the debate also seems to indicate an assumption that our rights only extend to what we 'need', which is troubling for the same reasons. Who decides what I 'need'?

Why do you hate the elderly, infirm the poooooor and the chiiilllldrrrreeennnnn?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A clear response to the question, the answer is the echo chamber cheers avarice, supports bigotry and holds a callous disregard for anyone in need.

It is the ABC's of the New Right.

who was resorting to biased and dishonest attacks again?

As for bias I plead guilty; dishonest it is not. "it's all about personal responsibility" is a justification for an ideology of callous disregard for the poor, aged, infirm and children.

Bigotry is obvious, the intolerance for ideas which conflict with there own is constantly attacked with pejoratives, libtard, demorat, commie; and those who look different are attacked simply for the color of their skin, not judged by the content of their character.
I admit a bias and an intolerance for the parrots on this message board who seem unable to explain with clear statements the implication of thier ideology. My bias is not based on their skin color or the God they worship but on there dishonesty. With few exceptions the racists on this board use code to convey their irrational hate.

As for avarice, the lust for money and power is the stuff of writing for all of human history - generally condemned as a deadly sin. The Republican Party has made lust for money and power into a virtue, something rather unique in human history which ultimately lead to the fall of those who like Midas were fixated on 'gold'.

Holding these views doesn't make me a Marxist as the Odd one asserts, though lacking the education and critical thinking skills he and others of the New Right characterize anyone who questions their ideololgy as such. A sure sign of bigotry and willful ignorance.

you do this very thing but to conservatives, you did it in the post i quoted. Also you attack people for holding conservative values and being "white" at the same time by saying they attack people with different values because of skin color. i find this section hypocritical.

This is a very dishonest assesment. Its a flat out lie about the majority of conservatives and anyone with intellectual honesty and the ability to step outside the left/right views in politics sees the dishonestly like I do.

I agree that does not make you a marxist

 

[MikeK]

Only government can accurately determine how much income any person truly needs

Bullshit!!!​

How many times can you fill your stomach, in one sitting??​

How many vehicles can you drive, at once?​

How many homes can you live-in, at once?​

Is it possible to be addicted to cash?? And...if so...why should the U.S. population be expected to support their addiction???​

​

What complete asinine twittery.

It's not asinine twittery. It is a sound argument. And to better understand it I recommend that you pick up a copy of Abraham Maslow's, Hierarchy Of Human Needs. I assure you it will alter your thinking.

You can live in, drive, fill your stomach, fill your bank, with exactly as much as you feel like because we have the right to pursue happiness as we please as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing so.

But the accumulation of excessive wealth is disruptive to economic balance, as we have seen in the past and are seeing now, which results in the impoverishment of many.

If you don't like it, move to...hell, I don't know. All the commie countries have wised up. Cuba, I guess. Of course, any country that pretends to abide by such foolishness is a corrupt tyranny, but that's okay, you can go anyway.

That kind of ad hominem nonsense contributes nothing to a discussion. For your information the equitable distribution of a nation's wealth, as was practiced here during the 50s, 60s and 70s, neither qualifies as communism nor does it eliminate the ability to acquire and enjoy individual wealth. It merely requires the application of reasonable socialist regulations to a capitalist economic system and maintains a broadly healthy balance.

You need to develop an understanding of the important difference between plenty and too much. Because greed is the same as gluttony and its satisfaction is a perversely destructive form of happiness.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm wondering if any of those here supporting punitive taxes on the rich, or other forms of wealth redistribution, have any concerns about the general concept of government deciding what we 'need'? That seems problematic to me, given that the concept of 'need' is highly subjective. Beyond air, food and water - what do any of us really need? The tone of the debate also seems to indicate an assumption that our rights only extend to what we 'need', which is troubling for the same reasons. Who decides what I 'need'?

Why do you hate the elderly, infirm the poooooor and the chiiilllldrrrreeennnnn?

I doubt anyone, even the most callous conservative "hate" the aged, the infirm, the poor and children. They simply don't care. Now, it's not necessary to have empathy, you clearly don't and I understand that. I have no empathy for the very rich, it is hard for me to imagine someone in the top 2% wanting more; I consider that obscene.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many symphonies did Mozart really have to compose?

Hoe many sculptures did Michelangelo really have to carve?

Those are absurdly invalid analogies. Prolific creativity produces no negative influences on anyone or anything.

Paul McCartney should have been content to have one Number 1 hit,why was he so greedy?

McCartney is but one example of the negative effects of capitalism on the fields of creative entertainment and sports. The inordinate sums of money generated by these industries is counterproductive to the best interests of the national economy and should be regulated. And you are quite right about the greed factor, access to such massive sums of money fosters that ugly and destructive condition in some.

Do you know how many Florins the Medici's paid Michelangelo? People were starving! And Il Magnifico was buying carved marble!! What a waste!

Yes, let's regulate how many records people can buy from any one composer. That's a great idea

 

[MikeK]

I'm wondering if any of those here supporting punitive taxes on the rich, or other forms of wealth redistribution, have any concerns about the general concept of government deciding what we 'need'? That seems problematic to me, given that the concept of 'need' is highly subjective. Beyond air, food and water - what do any of us really need?

Shelter, health care, social and economic stability, protective services and a sound environmental infrastructure.

The tone of the debate also seems to indicate an assumption that our rights only extend to what we 'need', which is troubling for the same reasons. Who decides what I 'need'?

Only you can decide that. But would you agree there are people in our world whose happiness depends on the unhappiness of others -- sexual sadists and serial murderers being the extreme examples of that? So until we know what your needs are that is a difficult question to answer.

So I'll ask, how much money would you need to satisfy you -- to make you happy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I'll admit it. Money isn't everything. But it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place IMO.

Money doesn't NEED to be everything, because it BUYS everything else.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Seriously!!!!!​

"It was the 1970s, and the chief executive of a leading U.S. dairy company, Kenneth J. Douglas, lived the good life. He earned the equivalent of about $1 million today. He and his family moved from a three-bedroom home to a four-bedroom home, about a half-mile away, in River Forest, Ill., an upscale Chicago suburb. He joined a country club. The company gave him a Cadillac. The money was good enough, in fact, that he sometimes turned down raises. He said making too much was bad for morale.

Forty years later, the trappings at the top of Dean Foods, as at most U.S. big companies, are more lavish. The current chief executive, Gregg L. Engles, averages 10 times as much in compensation as Douglas did, or about $10 million in a typical year. He owns a $6 million home in an elite suburb of Dallas and 64 acres near Vail, Colo., an area he frequently visits. He belongs to as many as four golf clubs at a time — two in Texas and two in Colorado. While Douglas’s office sat on the second floor of a milk distribution center, Engles’s stylish new headquarters occupies the top nine floors of a 41-story Dallas office tower. When Engles leaves town, he takes the company’s $10 million Challenger 604 jet, which is largely dedicated to his needs, both business and personal.

The evolution of executive grandeur — from very comfortable to jet-setting — reflects one of the primary reasons that the gap between those with the highest incomes and everyone else is widening.

The case of Dean Foods appears to bolster the argument that executive compensation moves with company size: The profits for Dean Foods in 2009 were roughly 10 times what they were in 1979, adjusted for constant dollars. Engles’s compensation has averaged 10 times that of Douglas.

“It’s a different company today,” company spokesman Jamaison Schuler said. He declined to comment further.

But back in the ’70s, something was holding executive salaries back.

Harold Geneen, the president of ITT, then one of the nation’s largest companies, told Forbes in 1975 that while he might be worth six times as much to the company as he was making, he hadn’t sought a raise.

Over at Dean Foods, Kenneth Douglas was likewise resistant to making more.

“He would object to the pay we gave him sometimes — not because he thought it was too little; he thought it was too much,” said Alexander J. Vogl, a members of the Dean Foods board at the time and the chair of its compensation committee. “He was afraid it would be bad for morale, him getting a big bump like that.”

“He believed the reward went to the shareholders, not to any one man,” said John P. Frazee, another former board member. “Today we get cults of personality around the CEO, but then there was not a cult of personality.”

Breakaway Wealth​

ME !! I need it, and I promise to spend it nicely.

 

[Oddball]

Okay, I'll admit it. Money isn't everything. But it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place IMO.

Money doesn't NEED to be everything, because it BUYS everything else.

He who says that money can't buy happiness doesn't know where to shop.

 

[MikeK]

Do you know how many Florins the Medici's paid Michelangelo?

No. Do you?

What I know about Michelangelo is he spent his every waking hour in creative effort and I've read or heard nothing to suggest that he enjoyed exceptional wealth. His lifestyle can hardly be compared with those of some of today's movie stars, rock stars and sports figures.

People were starving! And Il Magnifico was buying carved marble!! What a waste!

Michelangelo, like all Renaissance artists, was supported by the nobility and the Vatican. I've read or heard nothing to suggest he was excessive or uncharitable. He was a great artist who led a reasonably comfortable life and you call the results of his efforts "waste?"

Yes, let's regulate how many records people can buy from any one composer. That's a great idea

That's your suggestion, not mine. There are more sensible and constructive ways to regulate distribution of wealth.

 

[MikeK]

Money doesn't NEED to be everything, because it BUYS everything else. He who says that money can't buy happiness doesn't know where to shop.

Money can indeed buy happiness. The question is how much is enough.

What do you need to make you happy and how much money would it take to achieve that state of mind?

 

[Oddball]

What that takes is my business.

Who are you or anyone else to say what I do or don't need and/or when I'm "happy enough"?

 

[MikeK]

What that takes is my business.

Who are you or anyone else to say what I do or don't need and/or when I'm "happy enough"?

Wow!

All I asked is how much money it would take to make you happy.

That is an interesting response.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If what you do with your money is your business, then you are quite the hypocrite for advocating that the government take money away from other people.

Quelle Nonsurprise.

The Government of the U.S. is a government of and for the people. The 16th Amendment to our Constitution authorized "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived...".

It is legal for the U.S. Government to do so, you have no standing to ask what I make and what I spent it on, Capito?

The government having that power doesn't make it moral for you to ask them to abuse it by insisting that they direct taxes at other people for your benefit. I doubt your worldview will allow to you grok this.

Your topic sentence isn't clear. The government having that power doesn't make it moral for you to ask them to abuse it by insisting that they direct taxes at other people for your benefit. Phew. You're correct, my reading comprehension is challenged by this sentence.

Lets see if I can break it down to the undersandable. Your conclusion is based on the premise that I will benefit, or want some benefit from the government? Correct?

What benefit have I insisted the government provide me? In fact I earned what I have, and what I have is sufficient to meet my needs and much more.

In fact I want the government to direct taxes to benefit the American people, my kids and yours (if you have any); not to foreign wars where our interests are not critical; not to oil companies in the form of 'welfare'; not via a tax code written by and for corporate America, but shared with states and their subdivisions for the general welfare of all our citizens.

 

[Oddball]

What that takes is my business.

Who are you or anyone else to say what I do or don't need and/or when I'm "happy enough"?

Wow!

All I asked is how much money it would take to make you happy.

That is an interesting response.

Who says I'm not happy now?

 

[MikeK]

What that takes is my business.

Who are you or anyone else to say what I do or don't need and/or when I'm "happy enough"?

Wow!

All I asked is how much money it would take to make you happy.

That is an interesting response.

Who says I'm not happy now?

Actually, it's rather obvious.