For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
Renata
"It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
That's not America.
...
It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
It is not acceptable that the greed of corporate America has resulted
in the CEOs of large corporations earning over 500 times what their
average worker makes.
...
Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits. It
is now being sued by workers in twenty-eight states because the
company is not even paying the overtime it should be paying.
...
Now how many of you know that today the American worker is working
longer hours by far than the people in any other industrialized
country? Today, 40 percent of American workers are working fifty hours
a week or more. That's the collapse of the middle class, and we have
got to turn that around.
The scandal of our time is that with all the explosion of technology
and productivity the average American is not working fewer hours and
making more money. We are not down to a thirty-hour week. The middle
class is not expanding, and poverty has not been eliminated. On the
contrary, it has increased.
Because of the greed of corporate America, real wages in the private
sector are 8 percent less than they were thirty years ago. And where
has all of that accumulated wealth gone? It has gone to the people on
top, who have seen a huge increase in the percentage of wealth and
income they receive.
..."
The rest of the article is at:
Reprinted from The Progressive:
http://www.progressive.org/
feb04/sand0204.html
I just read in the paper today that there are ~9 million unemployed
folks in this country. This does not include children and retired
seniors. Why you would try to include folks who either can't be
employed (ain't too many 2 year olds who are being sought for those
CEO positions) or are done w/employment is crazy
Renata
On 23 Jan 2004 07:52:31 -0800, [email protected] (David Hall)
wrote:
>
>Well if you're going that route, what percentage of the population are
>"unemployed"-meaning that they have no jobs? This would include most
>children from 0 to at least 16 and a significant majority of those
>over 65 (don't forget to add in those "house-spouses" who choose to
>not be financially employed). This is in addition to those who are
>actually unemployed. I imagine that is well over your 26%. So back to
>the previous posters point.
>
>Dave Hall
smart, not dumb for email
kenR wrote:
> Well, as 5 or six years ago, the top 5 percent owned over
> 60 percent of the wealth.
Is this an "accident?" Or the result of a "silver spoon" being in their
mouths when born? I think not.
I have bought two books because they had a handful of paragraphs. From ISBN
1-56052-078-7 page 9,
---------------------
Here's proof that planning works. Back in the 1950s, a behavioral research
team from the Harvard Business School took a random sample of 100 members of
the senior class and asked them what they would like to be doing 10 years
from graduation. All 100 said they would like to be wealthy, successful,
and significant forces in the business world.
The researchers noted that of the 100 seniors, only 10 had drawn up specific
goals and put them in writing.
Ten years later, the research team paid a follow-up visit to the 100
subjects. They found that the 10 graduates who had written down their goals
*owned 96 percent of the total wealth* of the 100-student sample.
Planning *does* pay off.
---------------------
I know people who are millionaires. I have met a billionaire. I am still a
hundred-aire or thousand-aire.
IMO the people I know who MADE IT, actually MADE IT by hard work, multiple
failures, sacrifice, etc. They have already paid more than their "fair
share" of taxes (*) They furthered their education when others of their
generation were watching TV. They contemplated their futures while others
were contemplating their navels. Why punish those who chose to succeed?
Why reward those (like me) who tried to do as little as they could and still
get by?
-- Mark
(*) I am in favor of a 100% flat tax at some certain rate. People making
$100/month pay X%. People making $1,000,000 / month pay X%.
BTW, I know I'll pay more taxes under the flat rate plan. That's fine with
me.
1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
more advatage of the government's largess & services).
2) Yup, CEO's deserve some compensation for the job they do. But the
difference between their salary and the folks who work for themhas
gotten ridiculous. Capitalism is alive and well in a number of places
on this world, but only in this country is the salary difference so
skewed. W/out the worker bees, your CEO don't get a lot of normal
work done.
Both points in a way are examples where the system has gone to
extremes.
Renata
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:00:20 -0600, "todd"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Let's imagine that a good portion of those 13,000 have created companies
>that employ large numbers of people. Now, I wouldn't disagree that some of
>the corporate CEOs are overpaid, but not because of the amount of their
>compensation, but because their companies just aren't performing. For the
>ones that perform well, who's to say that they are compensated too much? I
>liken this to the idea that athletes are paid too much. IMHO, if they
>generate a certain level of revenue for their team, they have a right to a
>fair percentage of that revenue. The same would go for a CEO. There are
>still a few communist countries around. If you think we should emulate
>their economic model, please suggest one where you'd like to live. The
>truth is, capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it seems to be the best one
>going. Some people, because of better opportunites, better preparation,
>harder work, just plain luck, etc, are going to do better than others.
>There's a quote on this topic that I happen to agree with.
>"...there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can
>afford and poor people can't. But I don't believe that the Federal
>Government should take action to try to make these opportunities exactly
>equal, particularly when there is a moral factor involved.".
>Who said this? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? Nope. This was said by (are
>you sitting down?) Jimmy Carter in 1977.
>I'm nowhere near that 13,000, but I don't feel the need to punish them in
>order to even things out.
>
>todd
>
>"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
--snip--
>>
>> The statement that strated these shenanigans,
>> " It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
>> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families."
>>
--snip--
>>
>> Renata
>
smart, not dumb for email
"todd"
>
> "Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> > to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> > This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> > the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> > more advatage of the government's largess & services).
>
> You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't people on the left who
> don't want to take money away from the wealthy and distribute it "more
> fairly". As for paying their fair share, it has been pointed out about two
> dozen times in this thread that the top 5% of wage earners earn about 35% of
> all income, but pay 56% of all income tax. Conversely, the bottom 50% of
> wage earners earned about 14% of all income, but paid 4% of all income tax.
> If you want a progressive tax system, it looks like we've got it.
>
> todd
You are confusing the issue with facts.
"Doug Winterburn"
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:19:06 -0600, todd wrote:
>
> > I know it doesn't sound as good in a sound bite as "we want these rich
> > people to pay their fair share". I think a lot of people would be surprised
> > to find out that they are, in fact, rich by the definition of many on the
> > left. I also enjoy listening to people like Warren Buffet who think the
> > rich are undertaxed. With a net worth of 30 billion or so, if he thinks
> > he's undertaxed, he should send a few billion extra to the Treasury
> > Department.
>
> He could really show the strength of his convictions by emulating the old
> Millionaire TV show with about 10 or 20 of his 30 billion and create
> 10,000 or 20,000 new millionaires from the available pool of poor people.
> That way, he'd eliminate the big scrape off of government. But can you
> imagine the chorous of wailing when all those new millionaires saw over
> half of their new found wealth disappearing down the gullet of the
> government animal.
>
> -Doug
Not only that but many of those new millionaires will be broke
again in no time. I don't envy the rich, I just don't want to do
what it takes to get there. Often the rich kids squander
inherited money by not having the personal makeup of the
overacheiver that got it in the first place. I suppose that's
true redistribution of wealth in action.
>I just read in the paper today that there are ~9 million unemployed
>folks in this country. This does not include children and retired
>seniors. Why you would try to include folks who either can't be
>employed (ain't too many 2 year olds who are being sought for those
>CEO positions) or are done w/employment is crazy
>
>Renata
Read the remarks of whomever I was responding to. When the first poster said
that x number of families was about equal to the number of unemployed (by which
he meant the number of people not making an income), the next poster wanted to
extrapolate families to number of people. That is fine if you also extrapolate
the comparitive the same way, thus you need to try to determine the number of
people in the population not earning any money. I realise that this is all
meaningless drivel as comparisons go, but if you are going to try to compare
two things, at least try to keep them comparable. Of course if you like to
confuse those you are having discussions with by comparing apples to sea
turtles, enjoy!
Dave Hall
Renata <[email protected]> writes:
> 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> more advatage of the government's largess & services).
Of which "largess and services" are the wealthy taking
advantage to a higher degree than others? Most public
services (police, fire protection, sanitation, etc.) are
provided on a per capita basis (or close to it) and the
wealthy get no more benefit than the poorest.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:19:06 -0600, todd wrote:
> I know it doesn't sound as good in a sound bite as "we want these rich
> people to pay their fair share". I think a lot of people would be surprised
> to find out that they are, in fact, rich by the definition of many on the
> left. I also enjoy listening to people like Warren Buffet who think the
> rich are undertaxed. With a net worth of 30 billion or so, if he thinks
> he's undertaxed, he should send a few billion extra to the Treasury
> Department.
He could really show the strength of his convictions by emulating the old
Millionaire TV show with about 10 or 20 of his 30 billion and create
10,000 or 20,000 new millionaires from the available pool of poor people.
That way, he'd eliminate the big scrape off of government. But can you
imagine the chorous of wailing when all those new millionaires saw over
half of their new found wealth disappearing down the gullet of the
government animal.
-Doug
In rec.woodworking
kenR <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
>> - Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
>> - Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
>>
>> Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
>
>Well, as 5 or six years ago, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent of
>the wealth.
If you have a point to that statement, I confess that I do not know what it
is.
In rec.woodworking
kenR <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> In rec.woodworking
>> kenR <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
>> >> - Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
>> >> - Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
>> >>
>> >> Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
>> >
>> >Well, as 5 or six years ago, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent of
>> >the wealth.
>>
>> If you have a point to that statement, I confess that I do not know what it
>> is.
>>
>
>Well, gee, 60% is greater than 50%. I thought that was obvious, but I
>apparently overestimated my audience.
Math isn't your strong suit is it Ken? Of course 50% is greater than 60%
but just because I have an IQ 50% higher than you doesn't mean that you can
bench press 60% more than me.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "owning 60% of the
wealth" and "paying 50% of the income tax." The two are barely related.
Many of those 5% paying 50% of the taxes have very little "wealth" ie
assets. Most of them are doctors, lawyers and business owners that blow
every penny they make just like the poor guy does. They just blow it on
more expensive things like European vacations and cars and "stuff."
bruce responds:
>Many of those 5% paying 50% of the taxes have very little "wealth" ie
>assets. Most of them are doctors, lawyers and business owners that blow
>every penny they make just like the poor guy does. They just blow it on
>more expensive things like European vacations and cars and "stuff."
Makes you want to weep it's so heartrending.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
I meant, they (the more well to do) got more stuff that needs
protectin', for example. They're much more interested in order and
law, for example. Versus a bum on the street, or even a step or two
above that.
Renata
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:27:30 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
>> to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
>> This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
>> the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
>> more advatage of the government's largess & services).
>>
>
> 'scuse me? The rich are taking more advantage of government largesse?
>What largesse exactly would that be? The problem we have is that many
>of the bottom 50% are taking advantage of entitlement programs and other
>largesse. What we have in that bottom 50% is a large dependency class
>that can be counted upon to vote for those who continue those benefits
>and the expansion of those benefits by "making the rich pay their fair
>share"
>
>
--snip--
smart, not dumb for email
In article <[email protected]>, fatheree21
@NOcomcastSPAM.net says...
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "todd"
> > >
> > > "Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> > > > to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> > > > This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> > > > the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> > > > more advatage of the government's largess & services).
> > >
> > > You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't people on the left who
> > > don't want to take money away from the wealthy and distribute it "more
> > > fairly". As for paying their fair share, it has been pointed out about
> two
> > > dozen times in this thread that the top 5% of wage earners earn about
> 35% of
> > > all income, but pay 56% of all income tax. Conversely, the bottom 50%
> of
> > > wage earners earned about 14% of all income, but paid 4% of all income
> tax.
> > > If you want a progressive tax system, it looks like we've got it.
> > >
> > > todd
> >
> >
> > You are confusing the issue with facts.
>
> I know it doesn't sound as good in a sound bite as "we want these rich
> people to pay their fair share". I think a lot of people would be surprised
> to find out that they are, in fact, rich by the definition of many on the
> left. I also enjoy listening to people like Warren Buffet who think the
> rich are undertaxed.
Something I have found that helps with the mental gymnastics when
encountering statements from such as Mr Buffet who say the rich need to
pay their fair share, or Barbra Streisand who say we must protect the
environment (while living in a mansion and being driven around in limos)
is you need to add the things they fail to add to their statements that
provide what they really mean. In Buffet's case it is something on the
order of "The other rich need to pay their fair share", or Barbra, "We
[you] need to preserve the environment for me" HTH
> With a net worth of 30 billion or so, if he thinks
> he's undertaxed, he should send a few billion extra to the Treasury
> Department.
>
> todd
>
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita writes:
>
> > Something I have found that helps with the mental gymnastics when
> >encountering statements from such as Mr Buffet who say the rich need to
> >pay their fair share, or Barbra Streisand who say we must protect the
> >environment (while living in a mansion and being driven around in limos)
> >is you need to add the things they fail to add to their statements that
> >provide what they really mean. In Buffet's case it is something on the
> >order of "The other rich need to pay their fair share", or Barbra, "We
> >[you] need to preserve the environment for me"
>
> Is that a little bit like the "Don't eat animals" guy who wears leather
shoes
> and belt?
>
> Charlie Self
> "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Or Arianna Huffinton railing against SUVs, but taking a trip on a friend's
private plane. Her justification was that "it was going there anyway".
todd
"todd"
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mark & Juanita writes:
> >
> > > Something I have found that helps with the mental gymnastics when
> > >encountering statements from such as Mr Buffet who say the rich need to
> > >pay their fair share, or Barbra Streisand who say we must protect the
> > >environment (while living in a mansion and being driven around in limos)
> > >is you need to add the things they fail to add to their statements that
> > >provide what they really mean. In Buffet's case it is something on the
> > >order of "The other rich need to pay their fair share", or Barbra, "We
> > >[you] need to preserve the environment for me"
> >
> > Is that a little bit like the "Don't eat animals" guy who wears leather
> shoes
> > and belt?
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
> >
> > http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
> Or Arianna Huffinton railing against SUVs, but taking a trip on a friend's
> private plane. Her justification was that "it was going there anyway".
>
> todd
Or Rosie ODonuts railing against gun ownership while
being protected by armed guards.
Mark & Juanita writes:
> Something I have found that helps with the mental gymnastics when
>encountering statements from such as Mr Buffet who say the rich need to
>pay their fair share, or Barbra Streisand who say we must protect the
>environment (while living in a mansion and being driven around in limos)
>is you need to add the things they fail to add to their statements that
>provide what they really mean. In Buffet's case it is something on the
>order of "The other rich need to pay their fair share", or Barbra, "We
>[you] need to preserve the environment for me"
Is that a little bit like the "Don't eat animals" guy who wears leather shoes
and belt?
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> more advatage of the government's largess & services).
>
'scuse me? The rich are taking more advantage of government largesse?
What largesse exactly would that be? The problem we have is that many
of the bottom 50% are taking advantage of entitlement programs and other
largesse. What we have in that bottom 50% is a large dependency class
that can be counted upon to vote for those who continue those benefits
and the expansion of those benefits by "making the rich pay their fair
share"
> 2) Yup, CEO's deserve some compensation for the job they do. But the
> difference between their salary and the folks who work for themhas
> gotten ridiculous.
On this, I agree. The problem we have with the current executive
compensation system is that the so-called "independent" boards are
nothing more than an incestuous association of fellow-CEO's and
executives. So the "independent" member of one board is CEO of another
corporation who has the CEO of yet other corporations sitting on their
Boards. Of course all the board members agree that the CEO's are doing a
fantastic job, thus deserving of increased compensation and stock
options. In good times, the stock options are based upon the profits
and growth the company is enjoying, in bad times, the options are based
upon how rapidly the CEO sheds expenses (employees) and avoids losing
even more money.
The one best way for this problem to be resolved in not government
intervention -- that will just screw things up even more and add more
hands to the trough. What needs to happen is the large institutional
investors like pension funds and insurance companies need to start
throwing their weight around and demanding changes.
> Capitalism is alive and well in a number of places
> on this world, but only in this country is the salary difference so
> skewed. W/out the worker bees, your CEO don't get a lot of normal
> work done.
>
> Both points in a way are examples where the system has gone to
> extremes.
>
> Renata
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:00:20 -0600, "todd"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Let's imagine that a good portion of those 13,000 have created companies
> >that employ large numbers of people. Now, I wouldn't disagree that some of
> >the corporate CEOs are overpaid, but not because of the amount of their
> >compensation, but because their companies just aren't performing. For the
> >ones that perform well, who's to say that they are compensated too much? I
> >liken this to the idea that athletes are paid too much. IMHO, if they
> >generate a certain level of revenue for their team, they have a right to a
> >fair percentage of that revenue. The same would go for a CEO. There are
> >still a few communist countries around. If you think we should emulate
> >their economic model, please suggest one where you'd like to live. The
> >truth is, capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it seems to be the best one
> >going. Some people, because of better opportunites, better preparation,
> >harder work, just plain luck, etc, are going to do better than others.
> >There's a quote on this topic that I happen to agree with.
> >"...there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can
> >afford and poor people can't. But I don't believe that the Federal
> >Government should take action to try to make these opportunities exactly
> >equal, particularly when there is a moral factor involved.".
> >Who said this? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? Nope. This was said by (are
> >you sitting down?) Jimmy Carter in 1977.
> >I'm nowhere near that 13,000, but I don't feel the need to punish them in
> >order to even things out.
> >
> >todd
> >
> >"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> --snip--
> >>
> >> The statement that strated these shenanigans,
> >> " It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> >> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families."
> >>
> --snip--
> >>
> >> Renata
> >
>
> smart, not dumb for email
>
Mark Jerde wrote:
> I have met a billionaire.
Will someone *PLEASE* take issue with this? <g> 45 years ago this guy
couldn't really read a newspaper. 40 years later he's selling videos to
people like me for $1k.
Yes, he's read over six thousand, five hundred biographies. No sense
replicating the mistakes of others. Only fools don't learn from history.
-- Mark
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> > to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> > This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> > the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> > more advatage of the government's largess & services).
> >
>
> The IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of
> all income taxes. The top 1 percent of Americans - those who earn more than
> about $300,000 a year - pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income
> taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than
> half.
>
> -source: ABC News
>
> Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
> - Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
> - Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
>
> Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
>
>
>
Well, as 5 or six years ago, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent of
the wealth.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In rec.woodworking
> kenR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
> >> - Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
> >> - Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
> >>
> >> Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
> >
> >Well, as 5 or six years ago, the top 5 percent owned over 60 percent of
> >the wealth.
>
> If you have a point to that statement, I confess that I do not know what it
> is.
>
Well, gee, 60% is greater than 50%. I thought that was obvious, but I
apparently overestimated my audience.
Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I meant, they (the more well to do) got more stuff that needs
> protectin', for example. They're much more interested in order and
> law, for example. Versus a bum on the street, or even a step or two
> above that.
I don't think that's a supportable statement at all. Crime affects
the poor, both in number of incidents and economic impact, far more
than it does even the moderately wealthy.
John
Renata <[email protected]> wrote in news:ct0b10hulfeqehc66kv3985om6d7glgo7u@
4ax.com:
> Now, who has the mansion that needs protectin' from burglars? The
> lovely Porsche? Who has loads of dough that needs protectin'? If you
> ain't got nothing, what the heck do you need to protect? OTOH, you
> might be a tad jealous that some folks just get all the breaks and try
> to even things out by takin's a bit from the richer folk.
You sort of missed the point.
Firstly, there's much less crime in wealthy areas - in large part
because it takes a lot of effort for criminals to move from where
they're at to where the rich folk live, and criminals tend to be
lazy. So the guy with the Porsche is at less risk of it being
stolen than the guy with the beatup 79 Cutlass.
Secondly, if the Porsche is stolen, the owner calls the insurance,
goes to work in his other car, and goes out & buys a new Porsche
when the insurance pays off. The guy with the 79 Cutlass, on the
otherhand, is screwed if it's stolen - no insurance, no money to
replace it, and how's he going to get to work today?
John
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:44:43 +0000, Mark Jerde wrote:
> (*) I am in favor of a 100% flat tax at some certain rate. People making
> $100/month pay X%. People making $1,000,000 / month pay X%.
>
> BTW, I know I'll pay more taxes under the flat rate plan. That's fine with
> me.
The number in 2000 was 16% of AGI. That was the rate of doing your "fair
share" of income tax.
-Doug
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> more advatage of the government's largess & services).
>
The IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of
all income taxes. The top 1 percent of Americans - those who earn more than
about $300,000 a year - pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income
taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than
half.
-source: ABC News
Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
- Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
- Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
In article <[email protected]>, "Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of
>all income taxes. The top 1 percent of Americans - those who earn more than
>about $300,000 a year - pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income
>taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than
>half.
>
>-source: ABC News
>
>Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
>- Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
>- Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
>
>Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
>
Can't be determined from the facts at hand.
In order to answer that question, one needs to know what portion of the income
is earned by the top 1% and top 5%. If those groups are earning 34% and 50% of
the total income, respectively, then they're paying their fair share now. If
they're earning 17% and 25% respectively, then they're paying much *more* than
"fair share".
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Doug Miller responds:
>>Let's take a look at that on instant replay:
>>- Richest 1% pay 34% of the income tax
>>- Richest 5% pays 50% of the income tax
>>
>>Just how much more is required of them to "pay their fair share?"
>>
>Can't be determined from the facts at hand.
>
>In order to answer that question, one needs to know what portion of the
>income
>is earned by the top 1% and top 5%. If those groups are earning 34% and 50%
>of
>the total income, respectively, then they're paying their fair share now. If
>they're earning 17% and 25% respectively, then they're paying much *more*
>than
>"fair share".
And if they're earning 50% and 66% respectively, they're underpaying.
I don't know where they fall. Does anyone?
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:24:24 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
> And if they're earning 50% and 66% respectively, they're underpaying.
>
> I don't know where they fall. Does anyone?
One more try - according to the IRS:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inrate.pdf
pdf page 10/irs page 15
in 2000 (latest year of this report) the top 1% paid 37.4% of income taxes
with 20.8% of income. The top 5% paid 56.3% of income taxes with 35.3% of
income. I'm sure gabriel will jump in again and claim that they are all
greedy bastards who hide their income in mattresses and other not
verifiable schemes as well as doing grab and dash of the poor's food
stamps.
-Doug
In article <[email protected]>, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:24:24 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
>> And if they're earning 50% and 66% respectively, they're underpaying.
>>
>> I don't know where they fall. Does anyone?
>
>One more try - according to the IRS:
>
>http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inrate.pdf
>
>pdf page 10/irs page 15
>
>in 2000 (latest year of this report) the top 1% paid 37.4% of income taxes
>with 20.8% of income. The top 5% paid 56.3% of income taxes with 35.3% of
>income.
In which case it is clear that these groups are already paying _far_more_ than
their fair share.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
I reread the articles and it must be late. I'm not sure where either
of you were going with the comparisons to family size and percentage
of unemployment or what kids and retired folks have to do w/
unemployment - since they don't count
I calculate that there are ~150,000,000 folks that want to or should
be employed (6% unemployment rate, population of 285 million).
Forget gramps and junior.
The statement that strated these shenanigans,
" It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families."
That's 13,000 vs 20,000,000.
And, I'd guess those top 13,000 don't have mom and dad going out to be
wage earners and contributing toward the total like the bottom
20,000,000 do (with a few of the kids maybe working at Mickey D's
too).
Renata
On 24 Jan 2004 17:07:27 GMT, [email protected] (David Hall) wrote:
>>I just read in the paper today that there are ~9 million unemployed
>>folks in this country. This does not include children and retired
>>seniors. Why you would try to include folks who either can't be
>>employed (ain't too many 2 year olds who are being sought for those
>>CEO positions) or are done w/employment is crazy
>>
>>Renata
>
>Read the remarks of whomever I was responding to. When the first poster said
>that x number of families was about equal to the number of unemployed (by which
>he meant the number of people not making an income), the next poster wanted to
>extrapolate families to number of people. That is fine if you also extrapolate
>the comparitive the same way, thus you need to try to determine the number of
>people in the population not earning any money. I realise that this is all
>meaningless drivel as comparisons go, but if you are going to try to compare
>two things, at least try to keep them comparable. Of course if you like to
>confuse those you are having discussions with by comparing apples to sea
>turtles, enjoy!
>
>Dave Hall
smart, not dumb for email
Now, who has the mansion that needs protectin' from burglars? The
lovely Porsche? Who has loads of dough that needs protectin'? If you
ain't got nothing, what the heck do you need to protect? OTOH, you
might be a tad jealous that some folks just get all the breaks and try
to even things out by takin's a bit from the richer folk.
Renata
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:54:48 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I meant, they (the more well to do) got more stuff that needs
>> protectin', for example. They're much more interested in order and
>> law, for example. Versus a bum on the street, or even a step or two
>> above that.
>
>I don't think that's a supportable statement at all. Crime affects
>the poor, both in number of incidents and economic impact, far more
>than it does even the moderately wealthy.
>
>John
smart, not dumb for email
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd"
> >
> > "Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> > > to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> > > This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> > > the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> > > more advatage of the government's largess & services).
> >
> > You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't people on the left who
> > don't want to take money away from the wealthy and distribute it "more
> > fairly". As for paying their fair share, it has been pointed out about
two
> > dozen times in this thread that the top 5% of wage earners earn about
35% of
> > all income, but pay 56% of all income tax. Conversely, the bottom 50%
of
> > wage earners earned about 14% of all income, but paid 4% of all income
tax.
> > If you want a progressive tax system, it looks like we've got it.
> >
> > todd
>
>
> You are confusing the issue with facts.
I know it doesn't sound as good in a sound bite as "we want these rich
people to pay their fair share". I think a lot of people would be surprised
to find out that they are, in fact, rich by the definition of many on the
left. I also enjoy listening to people like Warren Buffet who think the
rich are undertaxed. With a net worth of 30 billion or so, if he thinks
he's undertaxed, he should send a few billion extra to the Treasury
Department.
todd
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1) No one wants to take money away from the wealthy. But they do need
> to pay their fair share, which is a tad higher than the everyday peon.
> This idea that their fair share should be exactly equal to the rest of
> the folks' is ridiculous (they have more expendable income, and take
> more advatage of the government's largess & services).
You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't people on the left who
don't want to take money away from the wealthy and distribute it "more
fairly". As for paying their fair share, it has been pointed out about two
dozen times in this thread that the top 5% of wage earners earn about 35% of
all income, but pay 56% of all income tax. Conversely, the bottom 50% of
wage earners earned about 14% of all income, but paid 4% of all income tax.
If you want a progressive tax system, it looks like we've got it.
todd
todd wrote:
> I'm nowhere near that 13,000, but I don't feel the need to punish them in
> order to even things out.
I don't either, FWIW. I do think they're greedy bastards though. If I had
a $100 million a year job, I'd put in my notice the day I took the job,
work out my two weeks, and retire for life. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In article <[email protected]>, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>Now, who has the mansion that needs protectin' from burglars? The
>lovely Porsche? Who has loads of dough that needs protectin'? If you
>ain't got nothing, what the heck do you need to protect? OTOH, you
>might be a tad jealous that some folks just get all the breaks and try
>to even things out by takin's a bit from the richer folk.
>
Sadly, that's not the way it works in the real world. The poor are victims of
crime *far* more often than the wealthy.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
Let's imagine that a good portion of those 13,000 have created companies
that employ large numbers of people. Now, I wouldn't disagree that some of
the corporate CEOs are overpaid, but not because of the amount of their
compensation, but because their companies just aren't performing. For the
ones that perform well, who's to say that they are compensated too much? I
liken this to the idea that athletes are paid too much. IMHO, if they
generate a certain level of revenue for their team, they have a right to a
fair percentage of that revenue. The same would go for a CEO. There are
still a few communist countries around. If you think we should emulate
their economic model, please suggest one where you'd like to live. The
truth is, capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it seems to be the best one
going. Some people, because of better opportunites, better preparation,
harder work, just plain luck, etc, are going to do better than others.
There's a quote on this topic that I happen to agree with.
"...there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can
afford and poor people can't. But I don't believe that the Federal
Government should take action to try to make these opportunities exactly
equal, particularly when there is a moral factor involved.".
Who said this? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? Nope. This was said by (are
you sitting down?) Jimmy Carter in 1977.
I'm nowhere near that 13,000, but I don't feel the need to punish them in
order to even things out.
todd
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I reread the articles and it must be late. I'm not sure where either
> of you were going with the comparisons to family size and percentage
> of unemployment or what kids and retired folks have to do w/
> unemployment - since they don't count
>
> I calculate that there are ~150,000,000 folks that want to or should
> be employed (6% unemployment rate, population of 285 million).
> Forget gramps and junior.
>
> The statement that strated these shenanigans,
> " It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families."
>
> That's 13,000 vs 20,000,000.
> And, I'd guess those top 13,000 don't have mom and dad going out to be
> wage earners and contributing toward the total like the bottom
> 20,000,000 do (with a few of the kids maybe working at Mickey D's
> too).
>
> Renata
Mark Jerde wrote:
> I have met a billionaire.
I had an email conversation with this person in January 2004. In the 45
years it has taken this billionaire to amass his fortune he has read over
6,500 biographies. It was his desire to emulate the things others found
sucessful and avoid the things others found fruitless. Using the yardstick
of $$, IMO he has been successful. I have many books, but I'm no where
close to having read 6500 biographies!
Many of us (myself included) have spent 40 +/- years with items of little
import. IMO the tiny few who focused on the important things should not be
taxed on their foresight, especially when they have already paid on the
order of 2x their "fair share" of the taxes!
-- Mark
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:33:25 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> brought
forth from the murky depths:
>The article said, "not a 'Hey' to the 9 million unemployed Americans"
>(Molly Ivans in the WashPost yesterday). I believe she was commenting
>on shrub's SOTU.
I'm still freaked about actually shaking my head in
dismay to his statements right along with a Democrat,
Sen. Kennedy, during that show.
>But, based on my estimate that there are 150 million Americans who CAN
>be employed, 9 million unemployed would be around the current official
>unemployment rate.
>
>So, yeah, apparently not counting those who have fallen off the rolls.
...which might effectively raise the number by what, 50%?
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
What are ya telling us? These subsistance wages are what people accept. Don't
like it? Don't accept it. Don't rely on someone else to take care of you
financially, especially to the point of dependance on that entity(read:welfare
system).There's plenty to go around if you have the gumption. Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:09:16 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:46:09 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>BTW, according to Merrill Lynch (Pierce Pfenner & Psmith), the
>>>wealthiest 1% would include _all_ Americans with a wealth of
>>>$1 million or more, so that's not just the Bill Gateses.
>>>
>>
>> This makes no sense. There are a lot of people that have a million
>> bucks which would account for far more than 1% of the population.
>
>Merrill Lynch did a survey on "high net worth" individuals (it is,
>of course, their business to find such people & sell them services).
>They found there to be ~2.2 million millionaires in the US. That's
>considerably less than 1% of the population. I don't know if
>2.2 million is a "lot of people" by your standards...
>
>The Merrill Lynch survey is here:
>http://www.cgey.com/finance/pubs/WWR2003.pdf
>
>Now, if you go by the Census Bureau numbers, which include the value
>of real estate (self-assessed value, at that) you come up with about
>8 million millionaires, or rather less than 4% of the population
>(note too, that the Census Bureau would be counting 1999 wealth, in
>other words before the stock market declines of 2000-2002).
>
>Of course, the number of people who claim to have a million bucks,
>especially in singles bars, is probably quite a bit larger.
>
>John
>
>(who hopes to have a million bucks, someday)
having a million bucks might be OK, as long as it doesn't mean I have
to hang around in singles bars....
Bridger
Acceptable to whom? Lenin?
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
> cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> "It is not acceptable > That's not America.
> ...
> It is not acceptable
SNIP SOCIALIST CLAPTRAP
Can't get you to think, either.
YOU are "the rich" to the rest of the world.
NOW how committed are you to wealth redistribution?
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Acceptable to whom? Lenin?
> >
> > > "It is not acceptable > That's not America.
> > > ...
> >
> > SNIP SOCIALIST CLAPTRAP
> >
> Ahhh! A conservative intellectual shows his knowledge with a reasoned
> rebuttal of the issues.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
It is un-American to shop at WalMart isn't it?
RB
Renata wrote:
> For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
> cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> "It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
> owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
>
> That's not America.
> ...
> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
>
> It is not acceptable that the greed of corporate America has resulted
> in the CEOs of large corporations earning over 500 times what their
> average worker makes.
> ...
> Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
> Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits. It
> is now being sued by workers in twenty-eight states because the
> company is not even paying the overtime it should be paying.
> ...
> Now how many of you know that today the American worker is working
> longer hours by far than the people in any other industrialized
> country? Today, 40 percent of American workers are working fifty hours
> a week or more. That's the collapse of the middle class, and we have
> got to turn that around.
>
> The scandal of our time is that with all the explosion of technology
> and productivity the average American is not working fewer hours and
> making more money. We are not down to a thirty-hour week. The middle
> class is not expanding, and poverty has not been eliminated. On the
> contrary, it has increased.
>
> Because of the greed of corporate America, real wages in the private
> sector are 8 percent less than they were thirty years ago. And where
> has all of that accumulated wealth gone? It has gone to the people on
> top, who have seen a huge increase in the percentage of wealth and
> income they receive.
> ..."
>
> The rest of the article is at:
> Reprinted from The Progressive:
> http://www.progressive.org/
> feb04/sand0204.html
I agree completely with your comments about the abuse of H-1B visas.
The most telling events to me were sitting in senior management meetings
at a fortune 100 company a few years ago and discussing how we were
going to get labor costs down. I was disgusted to observe the same HR
VP that was strategizing about ways to "retire" higher priced labor
(older workers) in favor of lower priced help testifying before the US
House of Representatives about the need for increased H-1B visas. The
reason he gave was that there are not enough qualified workers. The
honest reason would have been to complete the statement: "there aren't
enough qualified workers at the salary we want to pay."
Either our elected representatives are dumber than a rock or they have a
ring through their noses. My opinion is that they have joined the
world's oldest profession and are selling out to any one with a PAC that
will help to perpetuate their employment and position.
If the current trend continues I foresee the destruction of this country
as it is reduced to the level of the third world nations were are
importing.
RB
Ray Kinzler wrote:
> I would like to throw a little different slant on this and that is the
> fact that corporate America is doing two things that are undermining
> the middle and eve lower classes and the government isn't doing
> anything about it: (1) out-sourcing jobs like engineering, IT, help
> desk, accounting, etc. and (2) abusing to the hilt the H-1B and L-1
> visas saying that there is a shortage of American workers for the
> jobs.
>
> Now, a previous poster said something like Wal-Mart is providing a
> wage and if you don't like it, don't take it. By utilizing the above
> scenario, companies are forcing wages DOWN and if you say you don't
> want it, they will find somebody to give it to by giving it to a
> foreigner who would gladly accept even LESS than what was previously
> offered.
>
> If you don't think this is true, look again. I work in the IT field
> and I See it happening everyday. In fact, it is worse than you can
> imagine. They hire Indian outsourcing firms to come in and replace
> the programmers but first those same programmers must train their
> replacements--talk about humiliation. And I witnessed this first-hand
> because 38 others and myself went through it.
>
> This is nothing other than discrimination; at least age discrimination
> if not some other kind. I do not think it would be lawful in this
> country to replace everybody in the company with other Americans
> because it would be considered discrimination but for some reason this
> is permitted.
>
> I could rant on but I think you get the point.
>
> As for the notion that shopping at Wal-Mart is un-American, I actually
> feel that is true. A few years back, they touted themselves for
> selling American. Now, anything that is not Chinese or on the same
> level is what is sold because they mandate that distributors sell to
> them for 2-3% less this year than last. Here is an article published
> in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that I totally agree with:
> http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04018/262404.stm
>
> I don't agree with the federal government sticking its nose into thing
> too much else you end up with a socialistic society but I do think it
> should do something to help make the American worker more attractive
> to the American company.
>
> And we need to rid ourselves of the Wal-Mart mentality that the only
> thing that matters is low prices because we can't have it both ways:
> low prices and decent wages.
>
> (Rant off.)
Why am I reminded of the story of Stalin remarking on the "constitution" of
the USSR with the old Russian saying
"bumaga vse terpit."
"Paper will put up with anything. "
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >OK, one more try. I'd be perfectly willing to adjust my income downwards
> >(i.e. be harmed) to help out poor countries if others who have a lot more
> >than I would do so first.
>
> That was far from clear in your original post; all that _was_ clear was
your
> willingness to apply the adjustment to those with more assets than
yourself.
> In any event, it's clear now, and I apologize for impugning your motives.
John McCoy wrote:
> If you had looked at the URL I quoted, or read upthread, you'd
I always amaze myself at the capacity I have to stick a foot in my mouth,
sorry.
> That's true - you can take any random group of 100 people and
> figure there's a millionaire amoung them :-)
I always remember a quote from on of my business mentors (it kind of
applies): "There's only two things a person can never hide about himself:
Being poor, and being an idiot." I loved that quote because it's so true.
Some people might dress to the nines have a Mercedes-Benz, but after 5
minutes of chat, you know the truth without asking a question...
Anyway, some random, Friday quote for ya...
--
gabriel
The article said, "not a 'Hey' to the 9 million unemployed Americans"
(Molly Ivans in the WashPost yesterday). I believe she was commenting
on shrub's SOTU.
But, based on my estimate that there are 150 million Americans who CAN
be employed, 9 million unemployed would be around the current official
unemployment rate.
So, yeah, apparently not counting those who have fallen off the rolls.
Renata
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:33:43 GMT, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:42:21 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> brought
>forth from the murky depths:
>
>>I just read in the paper today that there are ~9 million unemployed
>>folks in this country. This does not include children and retired
>>seniors. Why you would try to include folks who either can't be
>>employed (ain't too many 2 year olds who are being sought for those
>>CEO positions) or are done w/employment is crazy
>
>Isn't that just a chart of those who are CURRENTLY on the
>unemployment payroll? After your time runs out, you may
>still be unemployed (for 8 months) but are no longer tracked;
>no longer one of their statistics.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
>* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
>* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------
smart, not dumb for email
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> NOW how committed are you to wealth redistribution?
>>
>As long as they do it to the people who can afford the loss without
>blinking before they get to me, I'll go along with it.
>
And when they do get to you, what then?
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and
by that time no one was left to speak up." [Martin Niemoller]
In article <[email protected]>, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>I'm not really spiteful. It's annoying when the federal government
>makes a big issue of how EVERYONE is getting a tax break, but then: 1)
>you find out that the refunds are not proportional (weighted toward
>the affluent)
Well, DUH! The burden of *paying* taxes is not proportional *either*, falling
much more heavily on the rich than on the poor. Why are you upset that the
people who pay the most in taxes will receive the greatest benefit from a tax
cut? This should not come as a surprise to any thinking individual.
> AND 2) the resulting impact affects the lower strata
>folks (e.g. not the top 1%) much more disproprtionately (because the
>state's fees and taxes are flat not graduated, for example).
>
It's not the Federal government's fault that the tax laws in your state do not
conform to your ideas of what's fair or not. Take that up with your state
legislature if you don't like it.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
I'm not really spiteful. It's annoying when the federal government
makes a big issue of how EVERYONE is getting a tax break, but then: 1)
you find out that the refunds are not proportional (weighted toward
the affluent) AND 2) the resulting impact affects the lower strata
folks (e.g. not the top 1%) much more disproprtionately (because the
state's fees and taxes are flat not graduated, for example).
I do also disagree w/a lot of the government's spending, but there
seems little that can be done quite yet. Everyone re-elects their
favorite congresscritter 'cause, of course, they take care of the home
towns (AKA pork). We all have our opinions on which social programs
are good or not. e.g. I don't think the government has any business
in sticking their nose into marriage, and then spending $1.5 billion
(or proposing to) is absurd.
Rereading the stuff below, I can't believe some folks would actually
not be greatly annoyed by some of these stats. Where is this country
going? Businesses (etc.) seem to take advantage of you any way they
can - you satisified in leaning over and saying, "more, more, more"?
Renata
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 05:56:20 GMT, "Don" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>You'd be better off if you directed your ire at the 56% of your income that
>goes toward taxes, rather than be spiteful of those that have more than you.
>The first part you can fix, the second part you can't.
>*Think*
>
>
>"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
>> cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>>
>> "It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
>> owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
>>
>> That's not America.
>> ...
>> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
>> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
>>
>> It is not acceptable that the greed of corporate America has resulted
>> in the CEOs of large corporations earning over 500 times what their
>> average worker makes.
>> ...
>> Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
>> Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits. It
>> is now being sued by workers in twenty-eight states because the
>> company is not even paying the overtime it should be paying.
>> ...
>> Now how many of you know that today the American worker is working
>> longer hours by far than the people in any other industrialized
>> country? Today, 40 percent of American workers are working fifty hours
>> a week or more. That's the collapse of the middle class, and we have
>> got to turn that around.
>>
>> The scandal of our time is that with all the explosion of technology
>> and productivity the average American is not working fewer hours and
>> making more money. We are not down to a thirty-hour week. The middle
>> class is not expanding, and poverty has not been eliminated. On the
>> contrary, it has increased.
>>
>> Because of the greed of corporate America, real wages in the private
>> sector are 8 percent less than they were thirty years ago. And where
>> has all of that accumulated wealth gone? It has gone to the people on
>> top, who have seen a huge increase in the percentage of wealth and
>> income they receive.
>> ..."
>>
>> The rest of the article is at:
>> Reprinted from The Progressive:
>> http://www.progressive.org/
>> feb04/sand0204.html
>
On 22 Jan 2004 17:05:20 GMT, [email protected] (Tom) wrote:
>What are ya telling us? These subsistance wages are what people accept. Don't
>like it? Don't accept it. Don't rely on someone else to take care of you
>financially, especially to the point of dependance on that entity(read:welfare
>system).There's plenty to go around if you have the gumption. Tom
>Someday, it'll all be over....
hi tom.. like the signature line! sad but true it is correct. no one
gets out alive and somday it will all be over. Think of the world as a
rather large machine. fueled by greed it keeps chugging along year
after year century after century milenium after............. untill
such time as man changes his reasoning [ probly never ] the machine
will keep going. the cavemen traded in whatever was available then.
the kings and queens of long ago traded in what was available to them
and the american settlers did the same. many of the things these
people traded in are gone now. these days we trade in cold hard cash,
oil, whatever. someday these will be gone too but something else will
take the place of these things ect. ect. ect.... but greed will never
run out so the machine keeps chugging along day after day year after
year m.................................... so sit back and enjoy the
show while it lasts! skeez
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> John McCoy <[email protected]> writes:
> >Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> >> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
> >
> >This seems a little misleading. The bottom 20 million is ~7.5%
> >of the population, which is roughly equal to the unemployment
> >rate. Making a comparision between a group, any group, which
> >has income and a group which has no income isn't terribly useful.
> >
>
> I would assume that the definition of family here is more than
> a single individual. Assuming family refers to two individuals,
> you're talking about 14% of the population. Assuming 3 people
> yields about 20% and a family size of 4 would be 26% of the
> population. Quite a bit above the unemployment level.
>
> scott
Well if you're going that route, what percentage of the population are
"unemployed"-meaning that they have no jobs? This would include most
children from 0 to at least 16 and a significant majority of those
over 65 (don't forget to add in those "house-spouses" who choose to
not be financially employed). This is in addition to those who are
actually unemployed. I imagine that is well over your 26%. So back to
the previous posters point.
Dave Hall
Dave Hall writes:
>
>Well if you're going that route, what percentage of the population are
>"unemployed"-meaning that they have no jobs? This would include most
>children from 0 to at least 16 and a significant majority of those
>over 65 (don't forget to add in those "house-spouses" who choose to
>not be financially employed). This is in addition to those who are
>actually unemployed. I imagine that is well over your 26%. So back to
>the previous posters point.
>
But those are not factored in to unemployment figures. There is some factoring
of teenagers (16 to 18?), though I don't think there should be, unless the
teenager is no longer in school. And for those drawing unemployment, 39 weeks
(max) into that, job or no job, you're off the list.
One thing we can be certain of: unless the limits of any statistical analysis
are included in the analysis, the result is inaccurate enough to qualify as
bullshit.
Charlie Self
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:42:21 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> brought
forth from the murky depths:
>I just read in the paper today that there are ~9 million unemployed
>folks in this country. This does not include children and retired
>seniors. Why you would try to include folks who either can't be
>employed (ain't too many 2 year olds who are being sought for those
>CEO positions) or are done w/employment is crazy
Isn't that just a chart of those who are CURRENTLY on the
unemployment payroll? After your time runs out, you may
still be unemployed (for 8 months) but are no longer tracked;
no longer one of their statistics.
----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aw gee, why did you go and have to do that? Just look at all the wasted
keystrokes ...
Renata wrote:
> For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
> cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> "It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
> owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
>
> That's not America.
> ...
> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
>
> It is not acceptable that the greed of corporate America has resulted
> in the CEOs of large corporations earning over 500 times what their
> average worker makes.
> ...
> Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
> Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits. It
> is now being sued by workers in twenty-eight states because the
> company is not even paying the overtime it should be paying.
> ...
> Now how many of you know that today the American worker is working
> longer hours by far than the people in any other industrialized
> country? Today, 40 percent of American workers are working fifty hours
> a week or more. That's the collapse of the middle class, and we have
> got to turn that around.
>
> The scandal of our time is that with all the explosion of technology
> and productivity the average American is not working fewer hours and
> making more money. We are not down to a thirty-hour week. The middle
> class is not expanding, and poverty has not been eliminated. On the
> contrary, it has increased.
>
> Because of the greed of corporate America, real wages in the private
> sector are 8 percent less than they were thirty years ago. And where
> has all of that accumulated wealth gone? It has gone to the people on
> top, who have seen a huge increase in the percentage of wealth and
> income they receive.
> ..."
>
> The rest of the article is at:
> Reprinted from The Progressive:
> http://www.progressive.org/
> feb04/sand0204.html
Alright socialists... listen up, because I'm only going to say this once.
"Wealth" is not a zero sum game. The fact that someone has wealth does not
mean someone else is being deprived of wealth. Until you can accept that
basic fact, you will be forever trapped in your theoretical construct.
Wealth is CREATED. But if you still can't accept that, try this one. Those
"wealthy" families you speak of would share it with people and do so
gladly... as long as the people CHOOSE to provide someone of value in
exchange (such as high-end custom furniture?!).
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Acceptable to whom? Lenin?
> >
> > > "It is not acceptable > That's not America.
> > > ...
> >
> > SNIP SOCIALIST CLAPTRAP
> >
> Ahhh! A conservative intellectual shows his knowledge with a reasoned
> rebuttal of the issues.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:04:46 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
> >Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits.
>
> Not to mention recently getting caught buying 50k life insurance
> policy on non-essential folks, like greeters, without the listed
> person's knowledge.
>
> It's illegal, and really creepy to boot!
>
> Barry
>
I guess it's more of an incentive to hire the older, previously retired
folks. Watch out for Wall-Mart's new "Hire the HIV" program.
It never ceases to amaze me how willing some people are to publicly show
how readily they have substituted raw greed for ethics and integrity.
John McCoy <[email protected]> writes:
>Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
>> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
>
>This seems a little misleading. The bottom 20 million is ~7.5%
>of the population, which is roughly equal to the unemployment
>rate. Making a comparision between a group, any group, which
>has income and a group which has no income isn't terribly useful.
>
I would assume that the definition of family here is more than
a single individual. Assuming family refers to two individuals,
you're talking about 14% of the population. Assuming 3 people
yields about 20% and a family size of 4 would be 26% of the
population. Quite a bit above the unemployment level.
scott
Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
> cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
Well, a couple of quick thoughts, without really taking any sort
of position on the issue...
> "It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
> owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
What is the definition of "wealth" for this statement? My guess is
that it's liquid assets (stocks, bonds, money in the bank, etc), but
not real estate. In general, lower income folk have a greater
proportion of their money invested in their home (i.e. real estate)
than higher income folk.
BTW, according to Merrill Lynch (Pierce Pfenner & Psmith), the
wealthiest 1% would include _all_ Americans with a wealth of
$1 million or more, so that's not just the Bill Gateses.
> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
This seems a little misleading. The bottom 20 million is ~7.5%
of the population, which is roughly equal to the unemployment
rate. Making a comparision between a group, any group, which
has income and a group which has no income isn't terribly useful.
John
Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:46:09 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>BTW, according to Merrill Lynch (Pierce Pfenner & Psmith), the
>>wealthiest 1% would include _all_ Americans with a wealth of
>>$1 million or more, so that's not just the Bill Gateses.
>>
>
> This makes no sense. There are a lot of people that have a million
> bucks which would account for far more than 1% of the population.
Merrill Lynch did a survey on "high net worth" individuals (it is,
of course, their business to find such people & sell them services).
They found there to be ~2.2 million millionaires in the US. That's
considerably less than 1% of the population. I don't know if
2.2 million is a "lot of people" by your standards...
The Merrill Lynch survey is here:
http://www.cgey.com/finance/pubs/WWR2003.pdf
Now, if you go by the Census Bureau numbers, which include the value
of real estate (self-assessed value, at that) you come up with about
8 million millionaires, or rather less than 4% of the population
(note too, that the Census Bureau would be counting 1999 wealth, in
other words before the stock market declines of 2000-2002).
Of course, the number of people who claim to have a million bucks,
especially in singles bars, is probably quite a bit larger.
John
(who hopes to have a million bucks, someday)
Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I'm not really spiteful. It's annoying when the federal government
> makes a big issue of how EVERYONE is getting a tax break, but then: 1)
> you find out that the refunds are not proportional (weighted toward
> the affluent)
This is another one that's hard to figure out, because it depends on
who's numbers you look at, and how they choose to slant it (sort of
like counting millionaires :-)
Prior to the most recent tax cut, federal income taxes (in terms of
actual tax paid, not the marginal rate) were, for the middle 20%
of the population, at their lowest since 1957. This was not true
for the highest income 20%, in other words the top 20% was paying
proportionally more tax than the middle 20%. So it would not be
totally unreasonable if the top 20% were to be brought back to the
proportion previously in effect (I don't know if this will, in fact,
happen; it probably depends on the proportion of ordinary income
versus capital gains the top 20% incur).
One set of numbers supporting the above is here(*):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/overview/..%5Ctables%5
Coverview%5CDistribution%5CPDF%5CEffective_Tax_Rate.pdf
(sorry about the wrap). Note that the middle quintile's individual
rate for 2001 of 4.8% is the lowest for any year, while the top 20%'s
rate of 15.8% for 2001 was higher than that for 1983 (14.1%).
Note that in comparisions like the one described above, the bottom
20% tend not to be included. As far as I can tell, this is because
the bottom 20% of the population pay essentially no federal income
tax, which makes the statistics much more boring than those for
the middle & uppermost 20%.
(refering again to the above site, the lowest 20% had an effective
tax rate of -5.3% in 2001)
(you can see where the income quintiles break here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01.html
you'd be surprised at how low the boundry between the fourth
quintile & the top 20% is...)
John
(* those numbers come from the congressional budget office. I
had another set from the IRS, but I can't find that link)
gabriel <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> John McCoy wrote:
>
>> Merrill Lynch did a survey on "high net worth" individuals (it is,
>> of course, their business to find such people & sell them services).
>> They found there to be ~2.2 million millionaires in the US. That's
>> considerably less than 1% of the population. I don't know if
>> 2.2 million is a "lot of people" by your standards...
>
> I would suspect that number... First, how do they know everyone's net
> worth?
Well, they have a strong incentive to figure it out, since, as I
alluded to, those people (the wealthy) are the people they intend
to sell to.
> Second, everyone owning a house around the L.A. area (for
> example) is already halfway or so toward becoming a millionaire just
> because of the real estate prices...
If you had looked at the URL I quoted, or read upthread, you'd
have seen that that number refered only to "liquid assets", that
is, the 2.2 million people are those with over $1 million in cash,
stocks, bonds, etc.
In the part of my post you snipped, I quoted a stat from the Census
bureau indicating that about 4 times as many people are millionaires,
when you include real estate.
> But having $1M to your name is not that tough to
> achieve nowadays...
That's true - you can take any random group of 100 people and
figure there's a millionaire amoung them :-)
John
I would like to throw a little different slant on this and that is the
fact that corporate America is doing two things that are undermining
the middle and eve lower classes and the government isn't doing
anything about it: (1) out-sourcing jobs like engineering, IT, help
desk, accounting, etc. and (2) abusing to the hilt the H-1B and L-1
visas saying that there is a shortage of American workers for the
jobs.
Now, a previous poster said something like Wal-Mart is providing a
wage and if you don't like it, don't take it. By utilizing the above
scenario, companies are forcing wages DOWN and if you say you don't
want it, they will find somebody to give it to by giving it to a
foreigner who would gladly accept even LESS than what was previously
offered.
If you don't think this is true, look again. I work in the IT field
and I See it happening everyday. In fact, it is worse than you can
imagine. They hire Indian outsourcing firms to come in and replace
the programmers but first those same programmers must train their
replacements--talk about humiliation. And I witnessed this first-hand
because 38 others and myself went through it.
This is nothing other than discrimination; at least age discrimination
if not some other kind. I do not think it would be lawful in this
country to replace everybody in the company with other Americans
because it would be considered discrimination but for some reason this
is permitted.
I could rant on but I think you get the point.
As for the notion that shopping at Wal-Mart is un-American, I actually
feel that is true. A few years back, they touted themselves for
selling American. Now, anything that is not Chinese or on the same
level is what is sold because they mandate that distributors sell to
them for 2-3% less this year than last. Here is an article published
in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that I totally agree with:
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04018/262404.stm
I don't agree with the federal government sticking its nose into thing
too much else you end up with a socialistic society but I do think it
should do something to help make the American worker more attractive
to the American company.
And we need to rid ourselves of the Wal-Mart mentality that the only
thing that matters is low prices because we can't have it both ways:
low prices and decent wages.
(Rant off.)
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Acceptable to whom? Lenin?
>
> > "It is not acceptable > That's not America.
> > ...
>
> SNIP SOCIALIST CLAPTRAP
>
Ahhh! A conservative intellectual shows his knowledge with a reasoned
rebuttal of the issues.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Can't get you to think, either.
>
> YOU are "the rich" to the rest of the world.
>
Even though we're just a little above the poverty rate for a family of 2,
you're absolutely right. And all of my friends and acquaintances can
testify that I've told them so many times.
> NOW how committed are you to wealth redistribution?
>
As long as they do it to the people who can afford the loss without
blinking before they get to me, I'll go along with it.
How about you? And what's your income level?
BTW, I read somewhere that the resources of the world were sufficient to
maintain all of its present population at the income/wealth level of a
Greek farmer. Long way from rich, but not poverty-stricken either.
Of course, the catch is that "present population" - we've got to control
our growth rate.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "wealthy" families you speak of would share it with people and do so
> gladly... as long as the people CHOOSE to provide someone of value ...
^^^^^^^^
Wow, what a Freudian slip!
Dennis Vogel
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> NOW how committed are you to wealth redistribution?
> >>
> >As long as they do it to the people who can afford the loss without
> >blinking before they get to me, I'll go along with it.
> >
> And when they do get to you, what then?
>
> "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because
> I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
> because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
> speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and
> by that time no one was left to speak up." [Martin Niemoller]
>
>
Were you just looking for an excuse to post your favorite quote? I
thought I made it clear that I'd go along with it.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >Were you just looking for an excuse to post your favorite quote? I
> >thought I made it clear that I'd go along with it.
> >
> You kinda missed the point there... the point being that you are, by your own
> admission, quite willing to countenance evil (in the form of taking wealth
> from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not), as long as
> _you_personally_ are not harmed in the process.
>
> I find that attitude despicable.
>
OK, one more try. I'd be perfectly willing to adjust my income downwards
(i.e. be harmed) to help out poor countries if others who have a lot more
than I would do so first.
Originally you bitched because you thought I wanted to soak the rich for
my own benefit. I tried to respond that such was not the case.
I don't find you despicable, just a perfect example of G.B.Shaw's axiom
"Intelligence is an experiment that failed". One more stupid response
and into the bozo bin you go.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I don't agree with the federal government sticking its nose into thing
> too much else you end up with a socialistic society but I do think it
> should do something to help make the American worker more attractive
> to the American company.
>
Philosophically I agree with keeping the government out, but in the real
world it doesn't work. Without rules, and someone to enforce them, those
with good intelligence and bad ethics will wind up with everything.
Now how to make sure the government makes and enforces the right rules,
that's a problem :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
John McCoy wrote:
> Merrill Lynch did a survey on "high net worth" individuals (it is,
> of course, their business to find such people & sell them services).
> They found there to be ~2.2 million millionaires in the US. That's
> considerably less than 1% of the population. I don't know if
> 2.2 million is a "lot of people" by your standards...
I would suspect that number... First, how do they know everyone's net
worth? Second, everyone owning a house around the L.A. area (for example)
is already halfway or so toward becoming a millionaire just because of the
real estate prices... I know, many (most) have a mortgage, etc... But
having $1M to your name is not that tough to achieve nowadays...
Why, I'm well on my way just with tools alone! (had to keep on topic,
sorry)
--
gabriel
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:04:46 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
>Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits.
Not to mention recently getting caught buying 50k life insurance
policy on non-essential folks, like greeters, without the listed
person's knowledge.
It's illegal, and really creepy to boot!
Barry
John Carlson wrote:
> dependent on importing finished goods from elsewhere. Assuming, of
> course, that we burger-flippers can afford them at all.
Nobody will be able to afford to buy the burgers either, so we'll all just
be unemployed and living on welfare, paid for by... Hrm....
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:57:58 -0500, RB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>If the current trend continues I foresee the destruction of this country
>as it is reduced to the level of the third world nations were are
>importing.
>
I fear you're right.
When I was in grade school (about a million years ago), we studied
world geography and learned that countries in what is now called the
Third World (then called undeveloped countries, I think) served the
role of supplying raw materials to the more advanced countries (the US
and the European countries) because they lacked the skills and the
infrastructure to produce sophisticated products themselves. Those
countries then imported finished goods from us and others.
In another generation, we're going to be in that position ourselves.
Who is going to make the investment in time and money to become a
machinist, an engineer, or a programmer if we're sending all of our
manufacturing, engineering a programming work overseas? Why bother
learning anything but how to flip burgers if that's all the jobs that
are left? Skilled people will be unemployed, manufacturing plants as
well as engineering offices will be shut down.
Today, we choose not to employ Americans to fill jobs that we can send
overseas more cheaply. Soon, the choice will be gone. There simply
won't be any Americans left with these skills. Like those undeveloped
countries of my grade-school days, we will lack the skills and the
infrastructure to produce sophisticated products ourselves and will be
dependent on importing finished goods from elsewhere. Assuming, of
course, that we burger-flippers can afford them at all.
-- jc
Published e-mail address is strictly for spam collection.
If e-mailing me, please use jc631 at optonline dot net
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> NOW how committed are you to wealth redistribution?
>> >>
>> >As long as they do it to the people who can afford the loss without
>> >blinking before they get to me, I'll go along with it.
>> >
>> And when they do get to you, what then?
>>
>> "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because
>> I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
>> because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
>> speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics,
>> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and
>> by that time no one was left to speak up." [Martin Niemoller]
>>
>>
>Were you just looking for an excuse to post your favorite quote? I
>thought I made it clear that I'd go along with it.
>
You kinda missed the point there... the point being that you are, by your own
admission, quite willing to countenance evil (in the form of taking wealth
from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not), as long as
_you_personally_ are not harmed in the process.
I find that attitude despicable.
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> >Were you just looking for an excuse to post your favorite quote? I
>> >thought I made it clear that I'd go along with it.
>> >
>> You kinda missed the point there... the point being that you are, by your own
>
>> admission, quite willing to countenance evil (in the form of taking wealth
>> from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not), as long as
>> _you_personally_ are not harmed in the process.
>>
>> I find that attitude despicable.
>>
>OK, one more try. I'd be perfectly willing to adjust my income downwards
>(i.e. be harmed) to help out poor countries if others who have a lot more
>than I would do so first.
That was far from clear in your original post; all that _was_ clear was your
willingness to apply the adjustment to those with more assets than yourself.
In any event, it's clear now, and I apologize for impugning your motives.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
You'd be better off if you directed your ire at the 56% of your income that
goes toward taxes, rather than be spiteful of those that have more than you.
The first part you can fix, the second part you can't.
*Think*
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For those folks constantly touting how the rich get more of a refund
> cause they make more money, let's see if this ratio makes sense to ya.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> "It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
> owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
>
> That's not America.
> ...
> It is not acceptable that the 13,000 wealthiest families in this
> country earn more income than the bottom twenty million families.
>
> It is not acceptable that the greed of corporate America has resulted
> in the CEOs of large corporations earning over 500 times what their
> average worker makes.
> ...
> Today, the largest employer in America is not General Motors. It is
> Wal-Mart, which pays people subsistence wages and minimal benefits. It
> is now being sued by workers in twenty-eight states because the
> company is not even paying the overtime it should be paying.
> ...
> Now how many of you know that today the American worker is working
> longer hours by far than the people in any other industrialized
> country? Today, 40 percent of American workers are working fifty hours
> a week or more. That's the collapse of the middle class, and we have
> got to turn that around.
>
> The scandal of our time is that with all the explosion of technology
> and productivity the average American is not working fewer hours and
> making more money. We are not down to a thirty-hour week. The middle
> class is not expanding, and poverty has not been eliminated. On the
> contrary, it has increased.
>
> Because of the greed of corporate America, real wages in the private
> sector are 8 percent less than they were thirty years ago. And where
> has all of that accumulated wealth gone? It has gone to the people on
> top, who have seen a huge increase in the percentage of wealth and
> income they receive.
> ..."
>
> The rest of the article is at:
> Reprinted from The Progressive:
> http://www.progressive.org/
> feb04/sand0204.html
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:46:09 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Renata <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
--snip--
>
>> "It is not acceptable that the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
>> owns more wealth than the bottom 95 percent.
>
--snip--
>
>BTW, according to Merrill Lynch (Pierce Pfenner & Psmith), the
>wealthiest 1% would include _all_ Americans with a wealth of
>$1 million or more, so that's not just the Bill Gateses.
>
This makes no sense. There are a lot of people that have a million
bucks which would account for far more than 1% of the population.
Renata
--snip--
>John
In article <[email protected]>, John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>Merrill Lynch did a survey on "high net worth" individuals (it is,
>of course, their business to find such people & sell them services).
>They found there to be ~2.2 million millionaires in the US. That's
>considerably less than 1% of the population.
The U.S. population is approximately 285 million; thus, 2.2 million people is
about 0.77% of the population. Less than 1%, yes, but not all that much less.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?