My dad used to say that (minus the "um" ), and boy was he right.
But, life ain't the government. Life happens; the government doesn't/shouldn't - though one could argue differently.
Earlier today, I was listening to a bit of Dave Ramsay. He was speaking with a caller who felt that those who make more should pay more. An analogy was made regarding someone who has developed a larger business, employs more people, and likely makes more money (excuse me, earns more money).
The caller said, "Well, why would anyone need that much money?" And Dave said, "It's really none of your business; it's their money."
That's how I feel. If I've worked for what I have, if I've succeeded in the financial sense, who is anyone - government, neighbor, man on the street - to decide what I should do with it - that I must give more (assuming I wouldn't anyway, in the way of charity, donations, general spending, what have you) any more than one would tell someone not making much what they should do with theirs?
Both of us have worked for it...probably quite hard, too.
when someone says / has the attitude of ""Well, why would anyone need that much money?"" --- that is a person who has a fundamentally warped sense of what "fairness" is/should be. it comes from a sense of entitlement. The subtext of that is: "I can't physically or mentally accomplish what that person can accomplish; but was innocently born a human just as that person was, so they should help me."
and the funny thing is, that's not that far off from what should actually be. They immediately think the "help" should be in the form of direct and unconditional payment (ie rich should pay more taxes / redistribution of wealth). when in fact, all that person has to do is accept that the conditions of their existence are inherently "unfair" compared to everyone else's (by the way, these people usually don't stop to think that they just as easily could have been born in the African desert, tribal Afghasistan or North Korea. or 2000 years ago with no access to clean water). and when they accept that life isn't fair, they can realize that it is a BLESSING that other people in this world exist that can give them a chance to make their lives better. How many times have we heard it said that the janitor / waitress / maid is "earning an honest living". It's true. as is the old saying, "give a man a fish, and feed him for a day; teach him how to fish; and feed him for a lifetime". As long as both the janitor and the CEO have a quality of life that provides the conditions for them to survive and pursue happiness, that's all anyone can ask for and should be all that matters.
Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?
Simplify, indeed!
Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?
Yes, but they are rich so we have to hate them.
not true...we are suppose to love and coddle the rich, we should treat them like helpless little baby seals...
you know since they can't protect themselves...
have you hugged a wealthy person today....? if not, why do you hate 'merica so much...?
Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?
Simplify, indeed!
Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?
Yes, but they are rich so we have to hate them.
not true...we are suppose to love and coddle the rich, we should treat them like helpless little baby seals...
you know since they can't protect themselves...
have you hugged a wealthy person today....? if not, why do you hate 'merica so much...?
why would (or how could) you "love" or "hate" someone you didn't even know?
Even the IRS can't figure out their tax codes - all of what, 80,000 pages of it?
Simplify, indeed!
Granted I need to do some more research, but the bit I saw on the news this morning mentioned those who will have to pay 30% tax on investment income over $1M. This is money where taxes were already paid, so...it's a double tax?
Yes, but they are rich so we have to hate them.
not true...we are suppose to love and coddle the rich, we should treat them like helpless little baby seals...
you know since they can't protect themselves...
have you hugged a wealthy person today....? if not, why do you hate 'merica so much...?
Yes, seriously. I'm interested in your why. It seems like it is just because they have more $. They already would pay way more in taxes with a flat tax rate. They would already pay more in sales tax, etc as I'm sure they are spending more money. Just wondering if the sole reason that someone like Arod should pay a higher % is because he makes more money. Is that it?
I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?
*I realize that entertainers like ARod, Clooney, Stern, Vedder, etc make their money due to the masses purchasing their goods. And, that soldiers, teachers, fireman, etc get paid by tax dollars. That is how the system works
For me it comes down to two words/ideas: Value and Sacrifice.
I can't believe that I am being criticized for seeing the unfairness and imbalance in a system where a baseball player makes $25,000,000 a year and a soldier who fights and dies for this country gets paid $40-50,000.
Where are our values? Why is it such a crime to ask those who benefit most from a system that obviously favors certain people or certain occupations over others to pay a couple of bucks more?
Value: Who is more valuable to a society? A baseball player or a soldier/teacher? Teachers, soldiers, fireman, policeman, etc are the foundation of our society. Once we abandon that/them, we will see the cracks in our foundation expand. Once we place a higher value on sports, celebrities, etc., we displace that value. I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking ARod, Vedder, Stern, etc to pay more in taxes to fund those who make up the foundation of our society. We're talking about a $25,000,000 a year salary to play a game. So, it is not treasonous or anti-American to ask these individuals and others like them to pump more $$ into the system to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, to strengthen the foundation of this country, to strengthen SS and Medicare for our elders.
Sacrifice: How many times does ARod go to work with the threat of being killed? How many times does a fireman or policeman or soldier go to work with the threat of being killed.
Who sacrifices more? Who deserves more?
We all talk about "supporting the troops"; well, how about supporting them when they come home? How about supporting them with better pay? With job opportunities?
What the hell is the incentive to go into teaching, or to join the military in a system like this?
I will never understand the argument that a soldier making 40-50,000 a year should pay the same % as a baseball player making $25,000,000. That's "fair share?" A system that has the insane, ludicrous disproportionate pay as ours is not a fair system.
I have two friends from high school who took the Wall St route. One of whom joined me for the PJ20 festivities. he was able to "semi-retire" at 31 after 10 years on Wall St. My other friend is also a millionaire at 33. They both see the system as a joke, and as one that favors them tremendously. They believe in higher taxes on people like them, people who, in their words, "contribute nothing to society." They sit in front of a computer and make trades. Wow.
I have always liked this quote:
My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.
The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
does distribute the rest to society have to mean give more to the government and allow them to decide what part of society it goes to...just a thought
we can argue numbers and theories until we are blue in the face...about who gets what from where...it isn't going to change. You are set in the idea that the current government system is a problem...and so am I...we just believe in very different solutions.
But the overall question remains...what is fair? why should I rely on a group of elected officials who have been shown to be serially corrupt, to pick what is fair? to pick what should win? to pick who should be benefited the most from the entire country's income... how can fairness fluctuate with the election season? how can obvious political grand standing and games like this one be seen as actually trying to be more fair?
You can talk about the fairness of Arod's salary vs a firemens all you want, my or your values shouldn't be forced onto others by the government...plain and simply, there is far too much of that happening now, and giving them more money will only allow that to continue.
do you agree with this statement > The smaller the federal government is, the less power they have to continue manipulating the economy for the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns...and also > the benefits to society from the federal government's spending are felt equally by all...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
does distribute the rest to society have to mean give more to the government and allow them to decide what part of society it goes to...just a thought
we can argue numbers and theories until we are blue in the face...about who gets what from where...it isn't going to change. You are set in the idea that the current government system is a problem...and so am I...we just believe in very different solutions.
But the overall question remains...what is fair? why should I rely on a group of elected officials who have been shown to be serially corrupt, to pick what is fair? to pick what should win? to pick who should be benefited the most from the entire country's income... how can fairness fluctuate with the election season? how can obvious political grand standing and games like this one be seen as actually trying to be more fair?
You can talk about the fairness of Arod's salary vs a firemens all you want, my or your values shouldn't be forced onto others by the government...plain and simply, there is far too much of that happening now, and giving them more money will only allow that to continue.
do you agree with this statement > The smaller the federal government is, the less power they have to continue manipulating the economy for the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns...and also > the benefits to society from the federal government's spending are felt equally by all...
Thre problem is that both of these posts/statements make sense. And that is a big part of why this debate will go on and on.
I believe that neither of these, limited government or less regulation, taxes, etc is the real problem but are symptoms of the real problem. The more educated/evolved/responsible/compassionate/involved our society becomes, the more unnecesssry this debate becomes. We are the government. Improve us...improve our government.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I've always been interested in this too. Particularly, after our President gets up and preaches about "fair share". To me, fair share would mean the same percentage of what you make. So, if you make 100K you pay X%. If you make $300K, you pay X%, if you make $35K you pay X%. That seems to be fair because the rich still "pay more". But, we're all paying an equal percentage. Hence the term "fair share". I've always wanted to ask President Obama what exactly he means by "fair share". What's his definition of "fair"?
*I realize that entertainers like ARod, Clooney, Stern, Vedder, etc make their money due to the masses purchasing their goods. And, that soldiers, teachers, fireman, etc get paid by tax dollars. That is how the system works
For me it comes down to two words/ideas: Value and Sacrifice.
I can't believe that I am being criticized for seeing the unfairness and imbalance in a system where a baseball player makes $25,000,000 a year and a soldier who fights and dies for this country gets paid $40-50,000.
Where are our values? Why is it such a crime to ask those who benefit most from a system that obviously favors certain people or certain occupations over others to pay a couple of bucks more?
Value: Who is more valuable to a society? A baseball player or a soldier/teacher? Teachers, soldiers, fireman, policeman, etc are the foundation of our society. Once we abandon that/them, we will see the cracks in our foundation expand. Once we place a higher value on sports, celebrities, etc., we displace that value. I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking ARod, Vedder, Stern, etc to pay more in taxes to fund those who make up the foundation of our society. We're talking about a $25,000,000 a year salary to play a game. So, it is not treasonous or anti-American to ask these individuals and others like them to pump more $$ into the system to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, to strengthen the foundation of this country, to strengthen SS and Medicare for our elders.
Sacrifice: How many times does ARod go to work with the threat of being killed? How many times does a fireman or policeman or soldier go to work with the threat of being killed.
Who sacrifices more? Who deserves more?
We all talk about "supporting the troops"; well, how about supporting them when they come home? How about supporting them with better pay? With job opportunities?
What the hell is the incentive to go into teaching, or to join the military in a system like this?
I will never understand the argument that a soldier making 40-50,000 a year should pay the same % as a baseball player making $25,000,000. That's "fair share?" A system that has the insane, ludicrous disproportionate pay as ours is not a fair system.
I have two friends from high school who took the Wall St route. One of whom joined me for the PJ20 festivities. he was able to "semi-retire" at 31 after 10 years on Wall St. My other friend is also a millionaire at 33. They both see the system as a joke, and as one that favors them tremendously. They believe in higher taxes on people like them, people who, in their words, "contribute nothing to society." They sit in front of a computer and make trades. Wow.
I have always liked this quote:
My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.
The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
Couple things:
1) On the Rich Celebrities vs. Public Employee Salaries:
These rich celebrities you mentioned DO pay more (or SHOULD) under our progressive system. No one is arguing they “SHOULD UNDER OUR SYSTEM” point. I mean, I don’t think anyone is against “closing loopholes”. That said, loopholes are created, in my personal opinion, when there’s a complex system that attempts to treat people differently… in other words, our system. It’s the same as “black markets” which pop up when something becomes illegal and enforcement is difficult.
Anyway, yes... as you said the celebrities make more than teachers and that’s how the system works. People make choices with their own life. When training to be a fireman, you typically know what firemen make, you also know the risks of the job. But, let’s focus on the financial risk of pursuing that career for a second. There's financial risk and reward with every profession. There's (relatively) limited financial risk of failure in training to become a fireman in the sense that, if you work hard, you're pretty likely to achieve your goal. There's not a huge demand for that job. That's not true with music, acting or sports – which at the pinnacle you become a celebrity. There's a huge demand for jobs in these fields and the chances of failure are much higher. Thus, the financial risks are higher as well. For example, Eddie Vedder probably wouldn't be making a lot of money had he not been randomly discovered as a musician. He could have worked just as hard, and not made it. The risk of failure was greater. Or, just go to LA, look at all the waiters/waitresses (looking for their break)… what if it doesn’t come? What happens to them? They are taking a risk. "FINANCIAL" risk and reward are correlated.
So, the truth is NOT EVERY BASEBALL PLAYER MAKES $25K A YEAR. In fact, a lot of former baseball players don’t do that well. Some who don’t quite make it or unfortunate happens struggle because they may have missed out on college. Choosing a career as a baseball player is a huge risk. You give up college. You could get injured. You could not be very good. If it doesn't pan out, you're f'd. If it works out well, that's great, you have a chance to be rewarded. It's risk and reward.
As such, these people (athletes, musicians, etc) who DO make it, and are the best in their craft - are rewarded for their risk under our system. That’s how free-markets work.
Now, let’s go back to firemen, policemen, military and teachers and ask ourselves a quick question… what’s different? Can you really pay the best of the best teachers (based on their ability to teach)? Not really. And so it goes. The difference here is these are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. If we encouraged more competition and privatized more, the crappy teachers would be forced out or paid lower. The best teachers would be the “rock stars”, making good money, being valued by schools.
2) On “asking” the rich for more…
This is what you said: “I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking ARod, Vedder, Stern, etc to pay more in taxes to fund those who make up the foundation of our society.”
I take issue with this statement because you act as though you’re asking under this scenario. You (or the government) are NOT ASKING. Under these scenarios, you're not "asking", you're “forcing”. You're confiscating and redistributing. It's not a "nice" thing like ... "would you mind?" Instead - It's "pay or go to jail". Moreover, you're pretending like all people in that tax bracket are exactly the same - rich celebrities. Ummmm,... no. Which brings us to the next point…
3) Is it fair to paint those who would be taxed as millionaires as Eddie Vedder, Arod and the like? ARE OTHERS INCLUDED? LIKE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS?
Joe who owns a pizza joint down the street. Why don't you lump him in with the rich celebrity example? He's a sole proprietor. He makes $1.5 million a year with his pizza business. He also has a bunch of staff who works for him. You want to tax him (his business), which pays taxes through income, more too?
In fact, did you know about 90% of those who would be taxed in this region (millionaires) have “small business income”? That’s because almost three-fourths of small businesses pay their business taxes on the individual level.
Does this millionaires tax sound as good as it did when you were just focus on the rich celebrities now?
4) This doesn’t even get into the negative incentives that come along with taxing small businesses or rich celebrities/investors.
5) It also doesn't take into account issues like what happened to the Alternative Minimum Tax. You can start a tax high (millionaires), not change it for years, and all of the sudden inflation will make more and more people fall into the millionaire grouping.
6) This also doesn’t really get into my original point in this thread… which is… FAIR SHARE is SUBJECTIVE…. PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU’RE SAYING FAIR SHARE IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE PERSON.
In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
does distribute the rest to society have to mean give more to the government and allow them to decide what part of society it goes to...just a thought
we can argue numbers and theories until we are blue in the face...about who gets what from where...it isn't going to change. You are set in the idea that the current government system is a problem...and so am I...we just believe in very different solutions.
But the overall question remains...what is fair? why should I rely on a group of elected officials who have been shown to be serially corrupt, to pick what is fair? to pick what should win? to pick who should be benefited the most from the entire country's income... how can fairness fluctuate with the election season? how can obvious political grand standing and games like this one be seen as actually trying to be more fair?
You can talk about the fairness of Arod's salary vs a firemens all you want, my or your values shouldn't be forced onto others by the government...plain and simply, there is far too much of that happening now, and giving them more money will only allow that to continue.
do you agree with this statement > The smaller the federal government is, the less power they have to continue manipulating the economy for the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns...and also > the benefits to society from the federal government's spending are felt equally by all...
Thre problem is that both of these posts/statements make sense. And that is a big part of why this debate will go on and on.
I believe that neither of these, limited government or less regulation, taxes, etc is the real problem but are symptoms of the real problem. The more educated/evolved/responsible/compassionate/involved our society becomes, the more unnecesssry this debate becomes. We are the government. Improve us...improve our government.
This is at the bottom of everything. If the people mobilize and compromise, we will start moving in the right direction.
In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
does distribute the rest to society have to mean give more to the government and allow them to decide what part of society it goes to...just a thought
I won't speak for Warren, but I can guess from that statement that he trusts the government to invest in education, scientific research (both combined account for 4% of government spending), medicare, SS, etc.
I feel that the distribution should go to repairing and restoring the foundation of our society, of our country: infrastructure, scientific research, medical research, education, single-payer (maybe), etc. it should not go to handouts.
I realize that giving more $$$ to the government to invest/spend is a very, very difficult argument to make. Especially since 9/11. But, I, and others, will still make it.
we can argue numbers and theories until we are blue in the face...about who gets what from where...it isn't going to change. You are set in the idea that the current government system is a problem...and so am I...we just believe in very different solutions.
But the overall question remains...what is fair? why should I rely on a group of elected officials who have been shown to be serially corrupt, to pick what is fair? to pick what should win? to pick who should be benefited the most from the entire country's income... how can fairness fluctuate with the election season? how can obvious political grand standing and games like this one be seen as actually trying to be more fair?
You can talk about the fairness of Arod's salary vs a firemens all you want, my or your values shouldn't be forced onto others by the government...plain and simply, there is far too much of that happening now, and giving them more money will only allow that to continue.
Yes. We believe in different solutions (maybe not very).
Fairness, for me, is investing in programs that do two things:
1. Restore the foundation of the country
2. Employ workers through this restoration
3. Take care of our elders.
4. Invest in programs tat benefit all.
I'll put the ARod vs. fireman's salary discussion to rest. I just think it is ludicrous to have a system that benefits/rewards those (incredibly unfairly in terms of $$$) in sports or entertainment more than those who risk their lives on a daily basis.
do you agree with this statement > The smaller the federal government is, the less power they have to continue manipulating the economy for the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns...and also > the benefits to society from the federal government's spending are felt equally by all...
Questions are too narrow to answer. You are already answering your own questions, albeit in a subtle manner.
The system the government has in place benefits the rich and the corrupt. it has nothing to do with size, but more to do with structure and implementation.
I think the free-market libertarianism of Alan Greenspan and Hank Paulson can lead to far more manipulation, inequality, and corruption
In response to Inlet's last post. The post would be far too long if I quoted the whole thing.
1. Good point.
But if they fail, then they enter the work force just like we have had to. I'm not sure what you are saying here, and I can't say I agree or disagree.
it still doesn't convince me that those in entertainment or sports should have salaries that can be as much as 200-300 times more than an individual who risks their lives every day for their country, or for society.
What about teachers, fireman, soldiers, cops, nurses who are the best in their craft? How many of them make over a million dollars a year?
This still does not address the gross inequality of pay where someone who can hit a ball with a stick gets rewarded at 200-300 times the rate as a teacher, fireman, soldier, etc.
Saying that this is how our system works doesn't mean anything to me. it is still a system that lands us in this situation of gross income inequality.
You or I do not get the opportunity to star in commercials or advertisements. Actors and athletes do. They will never be in poverty--unless they're morons--and they will always have ways to make more money. A lot more money.
2.
I concede. Asking is maybe not the best word, BUT, in this case, someone who makes 10, 20, 30 million dollars a year is not harmed by this "asking."
And, I don't agree with the harshness of "pay or go to jail." I know the law, but that takes it a bit too far when we are dealing with multimillionaires. It's simply not relevant to what I was saying.
3.
Let's start a new discussion on this topic. I have different views as far as small businesses are concerned. I would slash taxes in half for small businesses, and I am very close to supporting single-payer, which, in my opinion, would lift a huge burden off of small businesses. By the way, no president in history, not Reagan, not Bush I, noone, would ever support GE paying $0 (or close to it) in taxes. That needs to be fixed
4.
They'll still invest. I disagree with this theory
5)
Drop the AMT and reform the tax code. It's been 26 years.
The whole Buffet Rule is a distraction from the bigger issue .... over-spending. It gets the public obsessed with class warfare instead of demanding accountability from our elected leaders.
This rule will not fix our budget problem if implemented. $47B over ten years is chump-change. We need to redirect focus at the main issue, which is spending.
The whole Buffet Rule is a distraction from the bigger issue .... over-spending. It gets the public obsessed with class warfare instead of demanding accountability from our elected leaders.
This rule will not fix our budget problem if implemented. $47B over ten years is chump-change. We need to redirect focus at the main issue, which is spending.
I disagree that the Buffett rule is a distraction. It was never intended or marketed as a solution to the debt.
We have had carte blanche since 9/11. It is killing us. I still feel though, that at this point, we need more revenue and less spending. We have the ability to do both. Unfortunately, 21% of our budget goes to the military. And 20% goes to healthcare.
No politician from either party is taking a serious approach to cutting spending.
They fear the single-issue voters too much.
Comments
when someone says / has the attitude of ""Well, why would anyone need that much money?"" --- that is a person who has a fundamentally warped sense of what "fairness" is/should be. it comes from a sense of entitlement. The subtext of that is: "I can't physically or mentally accomplish what that person can accomplish; but was innocently born a human just as that person was, so they should help me."
and the funny thing is, that's not that far off from what should actually be. They immediately think the "help" should be in the form of direct and unconditional payment (ie rich should pay more taxes / redistribution of wealth). when in fact, all that person has to do is accept that the conditions of their existence are inherently "unfair" compared to everyone else's (by the way, these people usually don't stop to think that they just as easily could have been born in the African desert, tribal Afghasistan or North Korea. or 2000 years ago with no access to clean water). and when they accept that life isn't fair, they can realize that it is a BLESSING that other people in this world exist that can give them a chance to make their lives better. How many times have we heard it said that the janitor / waitress / maid is "earning an honest living". It's true. as is the old saying, "give a man a fish, and feed him for a day; teach him how to fish; and feed him for a lifetime". As long as both the janitor and the CEO have a quality of life that provides the conditions for them to survive and pursue happiness, that's all anyone can ask for and should be all that matters.
not true...we are suppose to love and coddle the rich, we should treat them like helpless little baby seals...
you know since they can't protect themselves...
have you hugged a wealthy person today....? if not, why do you hate 'merica so much...?
why would (or how could) you "love" or "hate" someone you didn't even know?
Thanks for proving my point so well hater.
*I realize that entertainers like ARod, Clooney, Stern, Vedder, etc make their money due to the masses purchasing their goods. And, that soldiers, teachers, fireman, etc get paid by tax dollars. That is how the system works
For me it comes down to two words/ideas: Value and Sacrifice.
I can't believe that I am being criticized for seeing the unfairness and imbalance in a system where a baseball player makes $25,000,000 a year and a soldier who fights and dies for this country gets paid $40-50,000.
Where are our values? Why is it such a crime to ask those who benefit most from a system that obviously favors certain people or certain occupations over others to pay a couple of bucks more?
Value: Who is more valuable to a society? A baseball player or a soldier/teacher? Teachers, soldiers, fireman, policeman, etc are the foundation of our society. Once we abandon that/them, we will see the cracks in our foundation expand. Once we place a higher value on sports, celebrities, etc., we displace that value. I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking ARod, Vedder, Stern, etc to pay more in taxes to fund those who make up the foundation of our society. We're talking about a $25,000,000 a year salary to play a game. So, it is not treasonous or anti-American to ask these individuals and others like them to pump more $$ into the system to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, to strengthen the foundation of this country, to strengthen SS and Medicare for our elders.
Sacrifice: How many times does ARod go to work with the threat of being killed? How many times does a fireman or policeman or soldier go to work with the threat of being killed.
Who sacrifices more? Who deserves more?
We all talk about "supporting the troops"; well, how about supporting them when they come home? How about supporting them with better pay? With job opportunities?
What the hell is the incentive to go into teaching, or to join the military in a system like this?
I will never understand the argument that a soldier making 40-50,000 a year should pay the same % as a baseball player making $25,000,000. That's "fair share?" A system that has the insane, ludicrous disproportionate pay as ours is not a fair system.
I have two friends from high school who took the Wall St route. One of whom joined me for the PJ20 festivities. he was able to "semi-retire" at 31 after 10 years on Wall St. My other friend is also a millionaire at 33. They both see the system as a joke, and as one that favors them tremendously. They believe in higher taxes on people like them, people who, in their words, "contribute nothing to society." They sit in front of a computer and make trades. Wow.
I have always liked this quote:
My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.
The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.
does distribute the rest to society have to mean give more to the government and allow them to decide what part of society it goes to...just a thought
we can argue numbers and theories until we are blue in the face...about who gets what from where...it isn't going to change. You are set in the idea that the current government system is a problem...and so am I...we just believe in very different solutions.
But the overall question remains...what is fair? why should I rely on a group of elected officials who have been shown to be serially corrupt, to pick what is fair? to pick what should win? to pick who should be benefited the most from the entire country's income... how can fairness fluctuate with the election season? how can obvious political grand standing and games like this one be seen as actually trying to be more fair?
You can talk about the fairness of Arod's salary vs a firemens all you want, my or your values shouldn't be forced onto others by the government...plain and simply, there is far too much of that happening now, and giving them more money will only allow that to continue.
do you agree with this statement > The smaller the federal government is, the less power they have to continue manipulating the economy for the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns...and also > the benefits to society from the federal government's spending are felt equally by all...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Thre problem is that both of these posts/statements make sense. And that is a big part of why this debate will go on and on.
I believe that neither of these, limited government or less regulation, taxes, etc is the real problem but are symptoms of the real problem. The more educated/evolved/responsible/compassionate/involved our society becomes, the more unnecesssry this debate becomes. We are the government. Improve us...improve our government.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Couple things:
1) On the Rich Celebrities vs. Public Employee Salaries:
These rich celebrities you mentioned DO pay more (or SHOULD) under our progressive system. No one is arguing they “SHOULD UNDER OUR SYSTEM” point. I mean, I don’t think anyone is against “closing loopholes”. That said, loopholes are created, in my personal opinion, when there’s a complex system that attempts to treat people differently… in other words, our system. It’s the same as “black markets” which pop up when something becomes illegal and enforcement is difficult.
Anyway, yes... as you said the celebrities make more than teachers and that’s how the system works. People make choices with their own life. When training to be a fireman, you typically know what firemen make, you also know the risks of the job. But, let’s focus on the financial risk of pursuing that career for a second. There's financial risk and reward with every profession. There's (relatively) limited financial risk of failure in training to become a fireman in the sense that, if you work hard, you're pretty likely to achieve your goal. There's not a huge demand for that job. That's not true with music, acting or sports – which at the pinnacle you become a celebrity. There's a huge demand for jobs in these fields and the chances of failure are much higher. Thus, the financial risks are higher as well. For example, Eddie Vedder probably wouldn't be making a lot of money had he not been randomly discovered as a musician. He could have worked just as hard, and not made it. The risk of failure was greater. Or, just go to LA, look at all the waiters/waitresses (looking for their break)… what if it doesn’t come? What happens to them? They are taking a risk. "FINANCIAL" risk and reward are correlated.
So, the truth is NOT EVERY BASEBALL PLAYER MAKES $25K A YEAR. In fact, a lot of former baseball players don’t do that well. Some who don’t quite make it or unfortunate happens struggle because they may have missed out on college. Choosing a career as a baseball player is a huge risk. You give up college. You could get injured. You could not be very good. If it doesn't pan out, you're f'd. If it works out well, that's great, you have a chance to be rewarded. It's risk and reward.
As such, these people (athletes, musicians, etc) who DO make it, and are the best in their craft - are rewarded for their risk under our system. That’s how free-markets work.
Now, let’s go back to firemen, policemen, military and teachers and ask ourselves a quick question… what’s different? Can you really pay the best of the best teachers (based on their ability to teach)? Not really. And so it goes. The difference here is these are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. If we encouraged more competition and privatized more, the crappy teachers would be forced out or paid lower. The best teachers would be the “rock stars”, making good money, being valued by schools.
2) On “asking” the rich for more…
This is what you said: “I see absolutely nothing wrong with asking ARod, Vedder, Stern, etc to pay more in taxes to fund those who make up the foundation of our society.”
I take issue with this statement because you act as though you’re asking under this scenario. You (or the government) are NOT ASKING. Under these scenarios, you're not "asking", you're “forcing”. You're confiscating and redistributing. It's not a "nice" thing like ... "would you mind?" Instead - It's "pay or go to jail". Moreover, you're pretending like all people in that tax bracket are exactly the same - rich celebrities. Ummmm,... no. Which brings us to the next point…
3) Is it fair to paint those who would be taxed as millionaires as Eddie Vedder, Arod and the like? ARE OTHERS INCLUDED? LIKE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS?
Joe who owns a pizza joint down the street. Why don't you lump him in with the rich celebrity example? He's a sole proprietor. He makes $1.5 million a year with his pizza business. He also has a bunch of staff who works for him. You want to tax him (his business), which pays taxes through income, more too?
In fact, did you know about 90% of those who would be taxed in this region (millionaires) have “small business income”? That’s because almost three-fourths of small businesses pay their business taxes on the individual level.
Does this millionaires tax sound as good as it did when you were just focus on the rich celebrities now?
4) This doesn’t even get into the negative incentives that come along with taxing small businesses or rich celebrities/investors.
5) It also doesn't take into account issues like what happened to the Alternative Minimum Tax. You can start a tax high (millionaires), not change it for years, and all of the sudden inflation will make more and more people fall into the millionaire grouping.
6) This also doesn’t really get into my original point in this thread… which is… FAIR SHARE is SUBJECTIVE…. PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU’RE SAYING FAIR SHARE IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE PERSON.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
This is at the bottom of everything. If the people mobilize and compromise, we will start moving in the right direction.
I won't speak for Warren, but I can guess from that statement that he trusts the government to invest in education, scientific research (both combined account for 4% of government spending), medicare, SS, etc.
I feel that the distribution should go to repairing and restoring the foundation of our society, of our country: infrastructure, scientific research, medical research, education, single-payer (maybe), etc. it should not go to handouts.
I realize that giving more $$$ to the government to invest/spend is a very, very difficult argument to make. Especially since 9/11. But, I, and others, will still make it.
Yes. We believe in different solutions (maybe not very).
Fairness, for me, is investing in programs that do two things:
1. Restore the foundation of the country
2. Employ workers through this restoration
3. Take care of our elders.
4. Invest in programs tat benefit all.
I'll put the ARod vs. fireman's salary discussion to rest. I just think it is ludicrous to have a system that benefits/rewards those (incredibly unfairly in terms of $$$) in sports or entertainment more than those who risk their lives on a daily basis.
Questions are too narrow to answer. You are already answering your own questions, albeit in a subtle manner.
The system the government has in place benefits the rich and the corrupt. it has nothing to do with size, but more to do with structure and implementation.
I think the free-market libertarianism of Alan Greenspan and Hank Paulson can lead to far more manipulation, inequality, and corruption
1. Good point.
But if they fail, then they enter the work force just like we have had to. I'm not sure what you are saying here, and I can't say I agree or disagree.
it still doesn't convince me that those in entertainment or sports should have salaries that can be as much as 200-300 times more than an individual who risks their lives every day for their country, or for society.
What about teachers, fireman, soldiers, cops, nurses who are the best in their craft? How many of them make over a million dollars a year?
This still does not address the gross inequality of pay where someone who can hit a ball with a stick gets rewarded at 200-300 times the rate as a teacher, fireman, soldier, etc.
Saying that this is how our system works doesn't mean anything to me. it is still a system that lands us in this situation of gross income inequality.
You or I do not get the opportunity to star in commercials or advertisements. Actors and athletes do. They will never be in poverty--unless they're morons--and they will always have ways to make more money. A lot more money.
2.
I concede. Asking is maybe not the best word, BUT, in this case, someone who makes 10, 20, 30 million dollars a year is not harmed by this "asking."
And, I don't agree with the harshness of "pay or go to jail." I know the law, but that takes it a bit too far when we are dealing with multimillionaires. It's simply not relevant to what I was saying.
3.
Let's start a new discussion on this topic. I have different views as far as small businesses are concerned. I would slash taxes in half for small businesses, and I am very close to supporting single-payer, which, in my opinion, would lift a huge burden off of small businesses. By the way, no president in history, not Reagan, not Bush I, noone, would ever support GE paying $0 (or close to it) in taxes. That needs to be fixed
4.
They'll still invest. I disagree with this theory
5)
Drop the AMT and reform the tax code. It's been 26 years.
6
Okay. It is subjective. And....?
This rule will not fix our budget problem if implemented. $47B over ten years is chump-change. We need to redirect focus at the main issue, which is spending.
I disagree that the Buffett rule is a distraction. It was never intended or marketed as a solution to the debt.
We have had carte blanche since 9/11. It is killing us. I still feel though, that at this point, we need more revenue and less spending. We have the ability to do both. Unfortunately, 21% of our budget goes to the military. And 20% goes to healthcare.
No politician from either party is taking a serious approach to cutting spending.
They fear the single-issue voters too much.