The Rich Get Richer? What Do You Think of This?

[Tee&A]

This just comes down to a question of whether you find the current distribution of wealth disturbing. Many of us are quick to point out the destitute in other countries and how an elite few hide the wealth away and deny them even the basic necessities for living, but when they're shown the same destitution in our own country, they tell those people to "Get a job." Kind of sad really. I myself would give heavily if I were filthy rich, but I think that's a moral choice to make, and it shouldn't be forced on anyone. The greedy will get theirs in the end.

Amen, and amen again. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Tee&A]

It might surprise you to learn that in America the people who give the greatest percentage of their financial resources to charity are those in the lowest income levels, and the percentage given away decreases as income rises. Compound that with the notion that those in the lowest income levels have the least amount of 'disposable income' after covering their basic living expenses, and many are struggling as it is. Compare that with the uber wealthy who could give away half, three quarters of their income or more, and it wouldn't affect their lifestyle at all. Think about that.

I have thought about, and I'm aware of the statistics on giving to charity among various tax-brackets. But, I still feel don't feel that it's my place--or anyone else's for that matter--to tell someone what to do with their money and how much they could give away without affecting their lifestyles. Who am I to say how much giving a certain amount would affect someone? I don't know what their expenses are or what they owe and to whom. I can certainly estimate what I think they should be able to live on, but I didn't make their money for them so it isn't my place to do that. They should be able to give what they want (if they want to give at all) without any scrutiny. That's why it's called "charity".

I am blessed and comfortable (thank you, God) but I am certainly no Bill Gates. That having been said, the best comparison I can use to this topic is my financial relationship with my family. When I visit them, I am constantly reminded that because of "what I have" and "how I live", I could "take care" of one or more of them with ease. This is because they think my money is greener because I have more of it than they. I disagree. If I made $50,000 more a year or made $50,000 less a year, it should be of no circumstance.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Really? Why don't you ask all the baby girls who were aborted, killed or abandoned to make room for a boy?

what 1 percent? there are slightly more gay males than lesbians anyway.

Why don't you ask the parents who were restricted by the government to having one child?

If that weren't draconian enough, it goes against everything in the tradition of Chinese family life, where the elderly are revered and children are expected to take care of their parents in old age. Who will take care of these parents if something happens to that one child, or he/she shirks his traditional responsibility?
The Chinese government? HAHAHAHAHA.

well lets imagine china without the policy, looks pretty much like africa/india, with some extra toxic waste to add. ven as to india, india also had such a policy once .

So what are you saying? chidlren are slaves to be used to take care of the elderly?
They will actually have the technology to bring better medical care to these people, and won't be using all the resouces to keep it away from them either.

go do the research, there is a multiple more male infanticide being done in india than in china, even with their policy

i never said that we should 'obliterate' all children, i simply said that we should ensure that there is a space for these children, that they can be raised to a state where they could actually contribute meaningfully, to both their own lives and others. and that they aren't treated as pets

 

[maxcok]

what 1 percent? there are slightly more gay males than lesbians anyway. . . .

:confused13: What the hell are you even talking about? Nevermind . . .

You are confused, naive and ill-informed, or you're just making things up as you go along. You don't use the quote function properly, and your posts ramble all over the place and are largely incoherent.

Not to mention you're completely off topic.

I'm not going to waste my time with you. Carry on.


p.s. I said nothing about "obliterating" children. Don't put words in my mouth. I fucking hate that. .."pets?"

 

[maxcok]

I have thought about, and I'm aware of the statistics on giving to charity among various tax-brackets. But, I still feel don't feel that it's my place--or anyone else's for that matter--to tell someone what to do with their money and how much they could give away without affecting their lifestyles. Who am I to say how much giving a certain amount would affect someone? I don't know what their expenses are or what they owe and to whom. I can certainly estimate what I think they should be able to live on, but I didn't make their money for them so it isn't my place to do that. They should be able to give what they want (if they want to give at all) without any scrutiny. That's why it's called "charity".

I am blessed and comfortable (thank you, God) but I am certainly no Bill Gates. That having been said, the best comparison I can use to this topic is my financial relationship with my family. When I visit them, I am constantly reminded that because of "what I have" and "how I live", I could "take care" of one or more of them with ease. This is because they think my money is greener because I have more of it than they. I disagree. If I made $50,000 more a year or made $50,000 less a year, it should be of no circumstance.

I certainly didn't call into question the amount of your charitable giving, or anyone else's. I just laid out the data, and people can make their own comparisons and draw their own conclusions. To be clear, what follows is not intended to be a reflection on you or any other individual. The disparity between rich and poor in America hasn't been this great since the time of the robber barons leading up to the Great Depression 80 years ago, and it's getting worse. I wish we didn't have to rely on charity at all, but the inequites are great, and it's politically unpopular, if not political suicide, to suggest that the government should level the playing field in any way.

I had the experience of working for and associating with uber wealthy people over 3+ decades, starting in the early 80's during the "Reagan Revolution". What I observed over that time is that greed begets wealth, and typically the more wealth people accumulate, the greedier and more powerful they become. It's a sickness.
I've seen how people will lie, cheat, and embezzle to get a bigger piece of pie, when they already have more pie than they could possibly consume in a lifetime. I've observed over the same period how those with money, both wealthy individuals and corporations, have increasingly taken control of the levers of political and economic power in this country. Their singleminded goal is to accumulate even more wealth at the expense of everyone else and the health of society as a whole. I've watched as financial regulations have been systematically chipped away, allowing wealth to flow increasingly into the coffers of the few, and leading directly to the economic disparities and the financial crisis we're in now.

It chaps my ass to hear (most) people of means complain about the taxes they have to pay and resent that anyone else in society might benefit, watch them wriggle out of paying by any shady means the law allows or their accountant cooks up, benefit from the social status of their charitable contributions, while in reality it's often offset by a tax credit, employ illegal domestic help at substandard wages without paying Social Security, Workmen's Comp, benefits, etc., while they wallow in the attitude that "I've made it all on my own, it's all mine, fuck everybody else", etc., etc., -- all the while contributing to advance the careers of politicians who will tilt the playing field further in their favor and serve their financial interests above all else. Then figure out a way to take a tax write-off for it. I heard a woman complain at the 'housewarming' party for her 35,000 sq/ft mansion that she didn't like it because it was "too small" while her guests complained that the Democrats were going to raise their taxes, all the while munching on sevruga caviar and swilling vintage champagne. I wanted to puke.

Certainly more people in most economic strata could be more generous in proportion to their good fortune, and better yet, support economic policies and politicians that promote social and economic justice, even if they themselves have to toss a little more into the kitty. Instead, most people want someone else to pay, being more concerned with their own position on the economic ladder and reaching for the next higher rung, and then the one above that. It is ironic indeed that the greatest percentage of charitable giving comes from those least able to afford it, many of whom may be as in need of charity as those who benefit from their giving.

Greed is the bane of human existence. It disgusts me.

 

[Tee&A]

I certainly didn't call into question the amount of your charitable giving, or anyone else's. I just laid out the data, and people can make their own comparisons and draw their own conclusions. To be clear, what follows is not intended to be a reflection on you or any other individual. The disparity between rich and poor in America hasn't been this great since the time of the robber barons leading up to the Great Depression 80 years ago, and it's getting worse. I wish we didn't have to rely on charity at all, but the inequites are great, and it's politically unpopular, if not political suicide, to suggest that the government should level the playing field in any way.

I had the experience of working for and associating with uber wealthy people over 3+ decades, starting in the early 80's during the "Reagan Revolution". What I observed over that time is that greed begets wealth, and typically the more wealth people accumulate, the greedier and more powerful they become. It's a sickness.
I've seen how people will lie, cheat, and embezzle to get a bigger piece of pie, when they already have more pie than they could possibly consume in a lifetime. I've observed over the same period how those with money, both wealthy individuals and corporations, have increasingly taken control of the levers of political and economic power in this country. Their singleminded goal is to accumulate even more wealth at the expense of everyone else and the health of society as a whole. I've watched as financial regulations have been systematically chipped away, allowing wealth to flow increasingly into the coffers of the few, and leading directly to the economic disparities and the financial crisis we're in now.

It chaps my ass to hear (most) people of means complain about the taxes they have to pay and resent that anyone else in society might benefit, watch them wriggle out of paying by any shady means the law allows or their accountant cooks up, benefit from the social status of their charitable contributions, while in reality it's often offset by a tax credit, employ illegal domestic help at substandard wages without paying Social Security, Workmen's Comp, benefits, etc., while they wallow in the attitude that "I've made it all on my own, it's all mine, fuck everybody else", etc., etc., -- all the while contributing to advance the careers of politicians who will tilt the playing field further in their favor and serve their financial interests above all else. Then figure out a way to take a tax write-off for it. I heard a woman complain at the 'housewarming' party for her 35,000 sq/ft mansion that she didn't like it because it was "too small" while her guests complained that the Democrats were going to raise their taxes, all the while munching on sevruga caviar and swilling vintage champagne. I wanted to puke.

Certainly more people in most economic strata could be more generous in proportion to their good fortune, and better yet, support economic policies and politicians that promote social and economic justice, even if they themselves have to toss a little more into the kitty. Instead, most people want someone else to pay, being more concerned with their own position on the economic ladder and reaching for the next higher rung, and then the one above that. It is ironic indeed that the greatest percentage of charitable giving comes from those least able to afford it, many of whom may be as in need of charity as those who benefit from their giving.

Greed is the bane of human existence. It disgusts me.

You made a lot of good points, especially about taxation and the current state of our government. My original post was strictly pertaining to charity, but I can see how you tied greed and politics into the mix.

We're living under a true state of plutarchy, because plutocracy no longer covers it. It's very amusing to me how little the "average Joe" knows about our system of government, and that he doesn't realize how the decisions he makes in the voting booth affects his life. Since when did Public Servants (read "Politicians" here) make on average 9 times more than the poor schmoes that elected them into office (and the average increases in lower income areas)? Since when did Public Servants become more concerned with upping their already healthy incomes by taking money from lobbyists to mandate policies that subsequently bend over poor Joe schmoe, the same Joe Schmoe that elected him into office? Oh, yeah. That's right: when we elected them in.

This country is now more concerned about idealism than action; we would rather hold on to concept than common sense, even when we see that concept hasn't progressed us at all and common sense has gone the way of the Pet Rock. Repubs scream at Democrats, Dems scream at Republicans, and all the while their followers don't realize that both parties are making out like bandits and don't give a damn about any agenda that doesn't involve them making more money.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

As Paul Krugman frequently writes, people talk about this wealth gap as if no one knows what unseen force drives it. But it's quite obvious where it comes from: National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

From the time FDR became president in 1932 until the Reagan Revolution of the '80s, the income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans ranged from 63% to 92%.

Think about that --92%! From 1950-1963 -- probably the all-time high point of American power and prosperity; a period when tens of millions moved from working-class struggle to middle-class comfort; the age when the suburbs were invented -- almost all income over $400k per year went straight to the federal government!

When the low-tax, laissez-faire, free-market ideology of the '80s took hold, that top rate dropped off a cliff. At the same time, middle-class wages stagnated, the jobs that sustained a middle class went overseas and the rich elevated to a position of wealth and power unknown since the 19th century.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

:confused13: What the hell are you even talking about? Nevermind . . .

You are confused, naive and ill-informed, or you're just making things up as you go along. You don't use the quote function properly.., and your posts ramble all over the place and are largely incoherent.

spotted this trend in many studies done and on many statistical figures taken. , wiki also notes this ", usually finding there are slightly more gay men than lesbians." on it's page on homosexuality. and http://igfculturewatch.com/1999/11/30/more-gays-than-lesbians/ http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm

Not to mention you're completely off topic.

Yes, I have already noted this, tho I have not been the one to branch off.

I'm not going to waste my time with you. Carry on.

...more intimidation , blah bleh.

Either address the argument I made in my post, or leave it

p.s. I said nothing about "obliterating" children. Don't put words in my mouth. I fucking hate that. .."pets?"

no, but that is what it sounded like you were saying about my views.

As to "pets"/"accidents"/"slaves - instead of a good honest policy", well yes, that is how many/most people in this world see children.

 

[maxcok]

^ ^ ^ :rolleyes2: Moving on . . . .

You made a lot of good points, especially about taxation and the current state of our government. My original post was strictly pertaining to charity, but I can see how you tied greed and politics into the mix.

We're living under a true state of plutarchy, because plutocracy no longer covers it. It's very amusing to me how little the "average Joe" knows about our system of government, and that he doesn't realize how the decisions he makes in the voting booth affects his life. Since when did Public Servants (read "Politicians" here) make on average 9 times more than the poor schmoes that elected them into office (and the average increases in lower income areas)? Since when did Public Servants become more concerned with upping their already healthy incomes by taking money from lobbyists to mandate policies that subsequently bend over poor Joe schmoe, the same Joe Schmoe that elected him into office? Oh, yeah. That's right: when we elected them in.

This country is now more concerned about idealism than action; we would rather hold on to concept than common sense, even when we see that concept hasn't progressed us at all and common sense has gone the way of the Pet Rock. Repubs scream at Democrats, Dems scream at Republicans, and all the while their followers don't realize that both parties are making out like bandits and don't give a damn about any agenda that doesn't involve them making more money.

It wasn't my intention to push this toward a political discussion, but it's really not possible to detach the discussion of money, charity and the economy from politics for two reasons: A) It's political decisions that have created the conditions for these vast and growing economic inequalities and the abysmal state of our economy, and B) the amount of money required to mount an effective political campaign has increased to obscene proportions, overwhelmingly coming from corporations, their lobbyists, other special interest groups and 'political action committees'. As they say, "follow the money", and somehow it always leads you straight to politics. Now that you've picked up that banner and carried it forward, I guess we're off and running. :wink:

I would say we've moved beyond plutarchy, and we are now living in a corporate oligarchy, or corporatocracy - that's where the real power, control and influence resides. To be clear and to be fair, it is the Republicans who have systematically reduced taxes on their real constiuency, corporations and the affluent, Republicans who have systematically done away with financial regulations over the past 30-40 years, and who have chipped away at campaign finance restrictions, culminating with total obliteration in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision . That decision overnight rolled back nearly a hundred years of campaign finance law, declaring corporations to be "people" and therefore entitling them as a matter of "free speech" to inject unrestricted amounts of money into political campaigns. Depending how they contribute, they can even do so anonymously. As a result, this mid term is now the most expensive election in American history, already well outpacing the past Presidential election. The Republicans are collecting donations for these so-called "political action committees" at a rate of seven times the pace of the Democrats, mostly originating from corporations and anonymous wealthy donors. Our democracy has truly been bought and sold, and it's only going to get worse.

Also to be clear and fair, there has been plenty of "action" advanced by the Democrats in the Congress on behalf of the people, only to be stonewalled by the Republicans in a cynical ploy to paint the Democrats as ineffective so they can regain power. You are correct in that members of both parties spend an inordinate amount of time collecting money from corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, but it's rare that they're lining their pockets, they're filling their campaign chests. Unfortunately, that's what's required now in this out of control system to mount an effective election campaign, and the Democrats have to play along with the Republicans in order to compete. It is true that throwing that much money at a congressional member tends to have an influence on how they vote and craft legislation to varying degrees, and that is the insidious crux of the matter. But beyond that point the 'equivalencies' between the two major parties end and become false. There really are still clear distinctions between them and their respective agendas. Whereas the Republicans are ultimately in service to their corporate masters above all, the Democrats are still the more likely of the two to pursue legislation that is good for the people and in the best interest of the country as a whole. How much longer that can continue, or how much they can accomplish in view of all the foregoing is problematic to say the least.

*wonders how long before this thread gets moved to the Politics forum*