posted on April 22, 2004 04:12:29 PM new
Near the sea, in my opinion, the class war is not so much as envying the rich or denying them the satistifaction of being rich, it is the socio-ecomonic methods employed by the prosperous to keep' the middle class and lower class down that makes it a waring faction. Its kinda like the baseball players who are getting million dollar contracts, but its the schleb who goes to the games that makes 14.00 an hour as a truck driver will now pay the price of 10.00 for a hotdog and soda or souvenier verses 6.00 (never mind the crap is worth about 2.00) so the owners can pay that guy the 20 million. Or even have you gone to the movies lately and bought a bucket of popcorn???
Hellannoying: I cant believe how contempteous you are toward Linda! It's a wonder she even bothers to reply to you at all. I sure hope the real democrates (not the ones busy archiving these ultra important chat threads) - show more class and talent than you do in getting a point across. It might help you to remember why Clinton was so successful. His intelligence spoke for itself; he rarely came across as a bully.
posted on April 22, 2004 04:39:29 PM new
neroter, I do see what your saying.
But, lets just for whatever sake take sports guys and celebrities out of the 'rich' catagory.
Now, we have *probably* 75% or more who worked hard, obtained their wealth through work and/or smart business moves.
I don't see anything wrong with that, and then are 'priveledged' to pay 35% taxes out of what they make, thats a big chunk
Ok back to the billion dollar ball player. No secret, I love baseball I go to games. The tickets are pricey. The food is too, and yes, I buy my favorite players shirts overpriced too. The thing is, that truck driver or me, chooses to go. Chooses to pay the overpriced food and souveiners. I don't have to, neither does that truck driver.
OK, what or who is hellannoying? LOL! wait, beginning to sound familiar...... I won't go there.... BUT I do agree with what you said! (now she'll be all over my case! )
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 22, 2004 05:18:09 PM new
NTS you brought up a very valid point. People are not forced to pay to go...
Matter of fact if demand dropped, probably so would prices
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 22, 2004 06:19:30 PM new
Hey, Linda_k, nearthesea,and ebayauctionguy.
All I can say to you people is we are coming after the likes of you this time around and you are all TOAST. Your Republican lies and now name calling are not working this time. END OF STORY.
posted on April 22, 2004 07:19:53 PM new
Near, she wont be all over you for what *I* said. Besides she likes you!
I will probably catch Helebores poison for it. (I'm calling you a flower, Helen - albeit a poisinous one ) But I dont care because I sincerely hope she takes a cue from Biden or Kennedy and learns how to put her point across without such scorn attached to it. She is a formidable and knowledgeable democratic crusader, so I thought I'd let her know I find the rudeness negates what she offers. ::shrug::
As far as choosing to go to a game or a movie,..yes, true. But you know what? I dont think people can work just for mere survival, without some enjoyment and fun in life. "Do you?"
That is just the most brutal and despairing of an existance. I personally feel its not even necessary for these players, movie stars, corporate CEO's, etc. to command such elaborate salaries because the middle and lower class is basically subsidizing them. In my eyes, 35% does not impair their standards of living in the least way, where 20 percent sure does for a family of four on 50,000.
Bigpeepa, my opinion: if the democrates are going to pull it off its because they've got the issues straight and some solutions lined up that appeal to the general population as trustworthy.
posted on April 22, 2004 07:32:12 PM new
nearthesea, Please don't think I am making a personal threat to you or anyone else and won't leave this post until you all understand that. Better words would have been your thinking is TOAST. People that think like you guys are going to have John Kerry as your leader. I believe that under Kerry's leadership you, Lindy_K and ebayauctionvet and others that think like you will become better and more compassionate thinkers towards your fellow man.
NOW THIS IS THE END OF THE STORY FOR ME ON THIS POST.
[ edited by BIGPEEPA on Apr 22, 2004 07:34 PM ]
posted on April 23, 2004 08:58:36 AM newNow, we have *probably* 75% or more who worked hard
And they didn't gain any of their wealth from using public resources ? They din't use the roads, they haven't benefited from public schools or hospitals, they haven't used any government powers to give them a monopoly or other advantages, and they had their own police and fire protection ?
No one "earns" it on their own.
Some hit the lottery and some don't. It has far less to do with hard work that it does with luck-- i.e., being in the right place at the right time.
If hard work determined who would grow wealthy, underground coal miners would be the richest people on earth.
No one suggestes that anyone be stripped of their wealth, but it make sense that they pay into the system commenserate with their wealth.
A CEO making $15 million a year won't even miss paying an extra million. A family of 4 making $40K a year would miss even $500.
It is also a myth that all this extra wealth is invested in "new" businesses.
Few with wealth invest that way. What they will do is buy up a fledging company as it becomes successful, either through private purchase or through public stock purchaes.
The closest thing to excess capital being directly invested in new ventures in VC funds. But they invest at various stages of the pro forma companies, and they are seldom active when there are competitive opportunities, either in money markets or public stocks.
posted on April 23, 2004 09:04:59 AM new
reamond of course they use the roads etc, that you mentioned, of which they helped pay for with their tax dollars. Should the rich build their own private roads with their own money and not use public ones, that they helped pay for? A lot do send their children to private school, but also have to help pay for the public schools that their children don't attend... just like the guy who doesn't make much at all, has to help pay for the schools, and doesn't have children!
I don't believe in luck. I do believe that they DO invest. I don't think its a myth that billionaires help with business, thus helping the economy, they do.
The lotto. Coincidences or sychronicity
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 23, 2004 09:21:24 AM new
So NTS, if you agree they use public resoureces, then why shouldn't they pay a progressive tax on that wealth ?
Suppose that the public resource is a pond with fish in it that we all get our fish from. We all pay to have the pond stocked, we all pay for fish food, we all pay for a watchman to protect the pond, we all pay for a water filtration system.
We all cast our line in the pond to get our daily fish.
Joe Smart comes along and finds that if you use a net, you can catch more fish quicker. The government ( we,us ) gives Joe a monopoly on nets, and allows Joe to sell the excess fish he caught.
Joe becomes very wealthy.
However, we all have to bear the costs of Joe "earning" more wealth. We also now have more costs involved due to the strain Joe is putting on the fish population.
And Republicans believe that Joe should not pay decidely more than the rest of the people that use the pond ?
What if Joe Smart invented a process that allowed the pond to support more fish and created a surplus of fish for the rest of us to catch and sell ?
The same principals would apply.
Omydar and Bill Gates both benefitted greatly from public resources. In fact, had it not been for those public resources, they would not have made their fortunes.
There is nothing unfair asking them to pay taxes commensurate with their wealth.
Edited to add--- Get a copy of the book below, it is very enlightening, and written by a republican conservative.
Perfectly Legal : The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--And Cheat Everybody Else (Hardcover, 2003)
Author: David Cay Johnston
posted on April 23, 2004 09:24:50 AM new
A lot of it is envy....jealousy that while we all have the same opportunities some do better than others.
I always look to people like the two HP guys that started their business in their garage...and look where they took it. They deserve to keep what they've earned....not have their wealth re-distributed because others weren't so successful.
The roads [etc] they already paid their part for shouldn't cost them more because they were successful.....unless you want to say those who pay no taxes shouldn't be allowed to use them at all.
posted on April 23, 2004 09:36:12 AM newI always look to people like the two HP guys that started their business in their garage...and look where they took it. They deserve to keep what they've earned....not have their wealth re-distributed because others weren't so successful.
The HP guys used all kinds of public resources. And the "others" weren't successful because they didn't get the opportunity to use the public resources that Hewlitt and Packard did.
The roads [etc] they already paid their part for shouldn't cost them more because they were successful.....unless you want to say those who pay no taxes shouldn't be allowed to use them at all.
How have they already "paid" their part ? These costs go on continuosly. Those who don't pay any taxes have little or no income and use very little public resources.
posted on April 23, 2004 11:17:53 AM new
reamond - Surely you're joking....
Many of those who don't pay taxes are government dependant in some way. And our tax dollars support many of the structures the poor/low income use that the middle class/wealthy do not. [like say - Cal-trans etc. - free health care, etc, etc.]
It's envy....and the desire to re-distrubite wealth pure and simple. They pay MORE than their fair share of taxes.
posted on April 24, 2004 01:19:04 AM new
NTS, thanks. I like your posts too! :0)
Linda, I dont really think its envy. It's a matter of where the excess lies. Now if you wanted to throw 'Christian principles' into the mix as Bush is so often found doing; we could take it from there. [I] To him that has, more will be given. But so more much greater is the responsibility.[/]
Look at Oprah and some of the other very wealthy who have been extraordinarily fortunate. They seem to embody that concept and it hasnt impaired their wealth one bit.
I dont know because I've never been rich, I've been comfortable - but to me, there is a reason why the term filty rich came into existance. Think about it.
posted on April 24, 2004 07:45:55 AM new
Defining 'rich' nowadays is tough. Used to ba a 'millionaire' was, now, these days, you have to be a billionaire.
Most rich give a good part of their money to charity. I know Bill Gates does. And him and his wife are on the board of his charity, that does a lot of things, advanced education here in the U.S. and money for the poverty in Africa, besides other things. Thats just one guy, most of them do it, yes reamond, you should know that.
I admit, I think I get envious, I wish I had all the money to do whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted. Hey but a lot of the rich can't do whatever ANY time, because they still have busisesses to run, and are very busy people.
I would love to go out and buy my classic car, take a trip anytime I wanted, buy the farm -again, this time a huge one I could think of a lot of things
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 24, 2004 01:58:44 PM new
neroter - Whatever the word usage is...it's still the same thing....taking from those who have [are successful] and giving to those who have not [for whatever reason].
Too much like socialism for my taste.
I have absolutely no problem with generous people like Bill Gates, Oprah or any rich person giving however much they wish to whomever they wish. That's done everyday in America. People donate/support causes they believe in. That's the way it should be to me....give according to willingness to give....not by government decree to make life more 'fair' because some are successful and some are not.
posted on April 24, 2004 03:25:36 PM new
Wne the rules of the game are stacked in the wealthy's favor, government is the only entity that can make the situation fair.
posted on April 24, 2004 03:51:48 PM newIt's a matter of where the excess lies.
Excess is good. If the rich want to buy a $50 million house, a $10 million boat, a $1 million car, or a $1,000 bottle of wine, they are voluntarily redistributing their wealth which results in lots of high paying jobs. Yacht builders make a lot more money than Walmart employees. Bill Gates doesn't take his rare Ferrari to Jiffy Lube. It takes a large, well-paid work force to maintain all that expensive stuff.
As long as the rich get rich honestly, I don't have a problem with it. I think it was the 8th Commandment that said "Do not covet your neighbor's property."
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Apr 24, 2004 03:57 PM ]
posted on April 24, 2004 04:33:03 PM new
whle surfing Yahoo I came accross this statement.
Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates and his wife Melinda are the most generous charitable donors in America, Business Week magazine said on Thursday, as the couple gave away or pledged a staggering $23 billion — more than half of their net worth.
posted on April 24, 2004 05:54:15 PM new
Socialism=BAD...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 25, 2004 01:11:46 PM new "Hellannoying: I cant believe how contempteous you are toward Linda! It's a wonder she even bothers to reply to you at all. I sure hope the real democrates (not the ones busy archiving these ultra important chat threads) - show more class and talent than you do in getting a point across. It might help you to remember why Clinton was so successful. His intelligence spoke for itself; he rarely came across as a bully."
Neuroter, I have been overhauling my computer for the last several days so I missed your message. I understand that you think I am a bully toward linda and that you find that annoying.
I agree that Clinton sets a standard of perfection toward which we should all aim our every thought and action. I doubt that Clinton would address me as Hellannoying even if he thought so. He would, as you say, "show more class and talent".
Clinton is not a whiner either. Maybe we should both strive for such perfection.
take sports guys and celebrities out of the 'rich' catagory.
