[SDEngineer]

[quote=kev374][quote=asianautica] Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?[/quote]

Amen to that! what we don’t need is socialism. America has become great because of the philosophy that the harder you work the more rewards you get to keep. Sadly these socialists are trying to take from those who work 2x as hard and give to those that put in only minimal amount of effort.

We need FAIR taxation across the board. Sure, exempt the lowest income that is needed to subsist from income taxes but AFTER that it should be flat tax. Everybody pays their share as a percentage equally.
[/quote]

It is a very popular, however, almost entirely incorrect belief among conservatives that the rich work harder for what they have than the poor. This seems to be largely because conservatives like to think that our current capitalistic system is both fair and impartial, and rewards work.

In fact, purely capitalistic systems do not reward work. They reward CAPITAL. Indeed, the drive of a capitalistic system is to REDUCE the amount of costs incurred by work, to maximize the amount of reward to capital (e.g. cut expenses by doing such things as offshoring salaries to less expensive countries, to increase the “bottom line”, and thus dividends available to the stockholders, who’s only work in the company is in putting CAPITAL into it).

This, of course, leads to serious inequities, where the top 1% don’t actually need to work at all to continue to make enormous amounts of money (and many don’t – and those that do, frequently work “bankers hours”…like George W. Bush has pretty much his entire life). Some actually did work their way up to it…many others though, inherited the wealth, and have done little or no productive work at all in the economy, yet receive an enormous benefit and continuing income from simply having capital to invest, that they never worked at all for.

Over the long term, a pure capitalist system tends to concentrate the vast majority of capital into the hands of a very few (something that happened in the late 1800’s, and is currently happening again today, as we witness with every year the gap between the rich and the poor widening – CEO’s, for example, now make 300x the average wage – a tenfold increase in the disparity between the have’s and the have-not’s in less than a generation).

A progressive tax is only part of the solution needed to keep the excesses of capitalism in check, but it is certainly needed. Capitalism is NOT inherently fair, and to balance it, frequently there need to be checks on it which are equally unfair in the opposite direction.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=DWCAP]

I never saw anywhere in the article where they said he cheated. Sure, he married someone else 1 month after they were divorced, possibly for financial reasons as well as looks, but that isnt cheating. If the author could have substanciated ANY cheating, he would have.

[/quote]

I’m not getting into the rest of this post, but this particular section is a pretty amazing suspension of disbelief as far as I’m concerned.

A man divorces a wife of 20+ years, and gets married to someone else less than one month afterwards. What, exactly are the odds that he WASN’T cheating on her with the woman that he eventually married – and most likely for a very extensive period of time? Whether they can prove it or not in a court of law is immaterial – the fact of the matter is that the odds are so ENORMOUSLY on the side of him cheating, and doing so for an extended period of time, that it’s a sucker bet I’d lay my entire net worth on, without a single qualm.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=DWCAP]

I never saw anywhere in the article where they said he cheated. Sure, he married someone else 1 month after they were divorced, possibly for financial reasons as well as looks, but that isnt cheating. If the author could have substanciated ANY cheating, he would have.

[/quote]

I’m not getting into the rest of this post, but this particular section is a pretty amazing suspension of disbelief as far as I’m concerned.

A man divorces a wife of 20+ years, and gets married to someone else less than one month afterwards. What, exactly are the odds that he WASN’T cheating on her with the woman that he eventually married – and most likely for a very extensive period of time? Whether they can prove it or not in a court of law is immaterial – the fact of the matter is that the odds are so ENORMOUSLY on the side of him cheating, and doing so for an extended period of time, that it’s a sucker bet I’d lay my entire net worth on, without a single qualm.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=DWCAP]

I never saw anywhere in the article where they said he cheated. Sure, he married someone else 1 month after they were divorced, possibly for financial reasons as well as looks, but that isnt cheating. If the author could have substanciated ANY cheating, he would have.

[/quote]

I’m not getting into the rest of this post, but this particular section is a pretty amazing suspension of disbelief as far as I’m concerned.

A man divorces a wife of 20+ years, and gets married to someone else less than one month afterwards. What, exactly are the odds that he WASN’T cheating on her with the woman that he eventually married – and most likely for a very extensive period of time? Whether they can prove it or not in a court of law is immaterial – the fact of the matter is that the odds are so ENORMOUSLY on the side of him cheating, and doing so for an extended period of time, that it’s a sucker bet I’d lay my entire net worth on, without a single qualm.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=DWCAP]

I never saw anywhere in the article where they said he cheated. Sure, he married someone else 1 month after they were divorced, possibly for financial reasons as well as looks, but that isnt cheating. If the author could have substanciated ANY cheating, he would have.

[/quote]

I’m not getting into the rest of this post, but this particular section is a pretty amazing suspension of disbelief as far as I’m concerned.

A man divorces a wife of 20+ years, and gets married to someone else less than one month afterwards. What, exactly are the odds that he WASN’T cheating on her with the woman that he eventually married – and most likely for a very extensive period of time? Whether they can prove it or not in a court of law is immaterial – the fact of the matter is that the odds are so ENORMOUSLY on the side of him cheating, and doing so for an extended period of time, that it’s a sucker bet I’d lay my entire net worth on, without a single qualm.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=DWCAP]

I never saw anywhere in the article where they said he cheated. Sure, he married someone else 1 month after they were divorced, possibly for financial reasons as well as looks, but that isnt cheating. If the author could have substanciated ANY cheating, he would have.

[/quote]

I’m not getting into the rest of this post, but this particular section is a pretty amazing suspension of disbelief as far as I’m concerned.

A man divorces a wife of 20+ years, and gets married to someone else less than one month afterwards. What, exactly are the odds that he WASN’T cheating on her with the woman that he eventually married – and most likely for a very extensive period of time? Whether they can prove it or not in a court of law is immaterial – the fact of the matter is that the odds are so ENORMOUSLY on the side of him cheating, and doing so for an extended period of time, that it’s a sucker bet I’d lay my entire net worth on, without a single qualm.

[SDEngineer]

Welcome to a progressive tax system (and one of the lowest of all the first world nations).

What is their reward for working so hard? Well, yes, their marginal tax rates go up – but so do yours and mine. Their reward is that they make more money of course (and probably have increased chances for promotion, etc). Yes, the government takes a slightly larger share of their “new” earnings, but they are still making more than they were before.

Heck, we ALL go through this. You know what? The money still spends even when the government takes a slightly larger share of it, and it’s still worth working for. Does the government take too much? Maybe – there are certainly a LOT of things the current administration is spending money on that I don’t care for (e.g. the war, the enormously bloated military budget, the 400bn per year we throw away as finance charges to the supersized debt, etc). However, I DON’T have a direct say in those, and while I may vote for people who are for reducing the parts of government I don’t care for, I accept that, in our system of government, there are equally those who want to reduce parts I don’t want to see reduced, and that LIKE the war spending, and the bloated military budget, etc, and the fact of the matter is that the budget will always be a compromise.

Given the way the system works, I’d much rather pay for what we owe – and currently, that means we NEED a tax increase. And, frankly, the lower middle class and below can’t afford that tax increase. So, unfair as it is, the tax WILL be paid by those who CAN afford it. Frankly, though Obama is not proposing taxing my particular bracket, I KNOW I can far more easily afford to pick up a slightly larger share of the tax burden than a household making, say, 50-60K/yr. I strongly suspect those making twice what I do can probably afford it even more.

When it comes down to it, we ARE a society. The REASON people can make these extraordinary incomes is BECAUSE of our shared society, which they should realize they have a larger investment in than someone who is poor or lower middle class.

[SDEngineer]

Welcome to a progressive tax system (and one of the lowest of all the first world nations).

What is their reward for working so hard? Well, yes, their marginal tax rates go up – but so do yours and mine. Their reward is that they make more money of course (and probably have increased chances for promotion, etc). Yes, the government takes a slightly larger share of their “new” earnings, but they are still making more than they were before.

Heck, we ALL go through this. You know what? The money still spends even when the government takes a slightly larger share of it, and it’s still worth working for. Does the government take too much? Maybe – there are certainly a LOT of things the current administration is spending money on that I don’t care for (e.g. the war, the enormously bloated military budget, the 400bn per year we throw away as finance charges to the supersized debt, etc). However, I DON’T have a direct say in those, and while I may vote for people who are for reducing the parts of government I don’t care for, I accept that, in our system of government, there are equally those who want to reduce parts I don’t want to see reduced, and that LIKE the war spending, and the bloated military budget, etc, and the fact of the matter is that the budget will always be a compromise.

Given the way the system works, I’d much rather pay for what we owe – and currently, that means we NEED a tax increase. And, frankly, the lower middle class and below can’t afford that tax increase. So, unfair as it is, the tax WILL be paid by those who CAN afford it. Frankly, though Obama is not proposing taxing my particular bracket, I KNOW I can far more easily afford to pick up a slightly larger share of the tax burden than a household making, say, 50-60K/yr. I strongly suspect those making twice what I do can probably afford it even more.

When it comes down to it, we ARE a society. The REASON people can make these extraordinary incomes is BECAUSE of our shared society, which they should realize they have a larger investment in than someone who is poor or lower middle class.

[SDEngineer]

Welcome to a progressive tax system (and one of the lowest of all the first world nations).

What is their reward for working so hard? Well, yes, their marginal tax rates go up – but so do yours and mine. Their reward is that they make more money of course (and probably have increased chances for promotion, etc). Yes, the government takes a slightly larger share of their “new” earnings, but they are still making more than they were before.

Heck, we ALL go through this. You know what? The money still spends even when the government takes a slightly larger share of it, and it’s still worth working for. Does the government take too much? Maybe – there are certainly a LOT of things the current administration is spending money on that I don’t care for (e.g. the war, the enormously bloated military budget, the 400bn per year we throw away as finance charges to the supersized debt, etc). However, I DON’T have a direct say in those, and while I may vote for people who are for reducing the parts of government I don’t care for, I accept that, in our system of government, there are equally those who want to reduce parts I don’t want to see reduced, and that LIKE the war spending, and the bloated military budget, etc, and the fact of the matter is that the budget will always be a compromise.

Given the way the system works, I’d much rather pay for what we owe – and currently, that means we NEED a tax increase. And, frankly, the lower middle class and below can’t afford that tax increase. So, unfair as it is, the tax WILL be paid by those who CAN afford it. Frankly, though Obama is not proposing taxing my particular bracket, I KNOW I can far more easily afford to pick up a slightly larger share of the tax burden than a household making, say, 50-60K/yr. I strongly suspect those making twice what I do can probably afford it even more.

When it comes down to it, we ARE a society. The REASON people can make these extraordinary incomes is BECAUSE of our shared society, which they should realize they have a larger investment in than someone who is poor or lower middle class.

[SDEngineer]

Welcome to a progressive tax system (and one of the lowest of all the first world nations).

What is their reward for working so hard? Well, yes, their marginal tax rates go up – but so do yours and mine. Their reward is that they make more money of course (and probably have increased chances for promotion, etc). Yes, the government takes a slightly larger share of their “new” earnings, but they are still making more than they were before.

Heck, we ALL go through this. You know what? The money still spends even when the government takes a slightly larger share of it, and it’s still worth working for. Does the government take too much? Maybe – there are certainly a LOT of things the current administration is spending money on that I don’t care for (e.g. the war, the enormously bloated military budget, the 400bn per year we throw away as finance charges to the supersized debt, etc). However, I DON’T have a direct say in those, and while I may vote for people who are for reducing the parts of government I don’t care for, I accept that, in our system of government, there are equally those who want to reduce parts I don’t want to see reduced, and that LIKE the war spending, and the bloated military budget, etc, and the fact of the matter is that the budget will always be a compromise.

Given the way the system works, I’d much rather pay for what we owe – and currently, that means we NEED a tax increase. And, frankly, the lower middle class and below can’t afford that tax increase. So, unfair as it is, the tax WILL be paid by those who CAN afford it. Frankly, though Obama is not proposing taxing my particular bracket, I KNOW I can far more easily afford to pick up a slightly larger share of the tax burden than a household making, say, 50-60K/yr. I strongly suspect those making twice what I do can probably afford it even more.

When it comes down to it, we ARE a society. The REASON people can make these extraordinary incomes is BECAUSE of our shared society, which they should realize they have a larger investment in than someone who is poor or lower middle class.

[SDEngineer]

Welcome to a progressive tax system (and one of the lowest of all the first world nations).

What is their reward for working so hard? Well, yes, their marginal tax rates go up – but so do yours and mine. Their reward is that they make more money of course (and probably have increased chances for promotion, etc). Yes, the government takes a slightly larger share of their “new” earnings, but they are still making more than they were before.

Heck, we ALL go through this. You know what? The money still spends even when the government takes a slightly larger share of it, and it’s still worth working for. Does the government take too much? Maybe – there are certainly a LOT of things the current administration is spending money on that I don’t care for (e.g. the war, the enormously bloated military budget, the 400bn per year we throw away as finance charges to the supersized debt, etc). However, I DON’T have a direct say in those, and while I may vote for people who are for reducing the parts of government I don’t care for, I accept that, in our system of government, there are equally those who want to reduce parts I don’t want to see reduced, and that LIKE the war spending, and the bloated military budget, etc, and the fact of the matter is that the budget will always be a compromise.

Given the way the system works, I’d much rather pay for what we owe – and currently, that means we NEED a tax increase. And, frankly, the lower middle class and below can’t afford that tax increase. So, unfair as it is, the tax WILL be paid by those who CAN afford it. Frankly, though Obama is not proposing taxing my particular bracket, I KNOW I can far more easily afford to pick up a slightly larger share of the tax burden than a household making, say, 50-60K/yr. I strongly suspect those making twice what I do can probably afford it even more.

When it comes down to it, we ARE a society. The REASON people can make these extraordinary incomes is BECAUSE of our shared society, which they should realize they have a larger investment in than someone who is poor or lower middle class.

[SDEngineer]

Social mobility is higher in the United States than almost every other country.
———————————————————

This is no longer correct, though it was a generation ago.

We are now one of the lowest rated for economic/social mobility among the industrialized nations. Virtually every European nation is rated higher (with the exception of the UK, which is rated roughly the same).

[SDEngineer]

Social mobility is higher in the United States than almost every other country.
———————————————————

This is no longer correct, though it was a generation ago.

We are now one of the lowest rated for economic/social mobility among the industrialized nations. Virtually every European nation is rated higher (with the exception of the UK, which is rated roughly the same).

[SDEngineer]

Social mobility is higher in the United States than almost every other country.
———————————————————

This is no longer correct, though it was a generation ago.

We are now one of the lowest rated for economic/social mobility among the industrialized nations. Virtually every European nation is rated higher (with the exception of the UK, which is rated roughly the same).

[SDEngineer]

Social mobility is higher in the United States than almost every other country.
———————————————————

This is no longer correct, though it was a generation ago.

We are now one of the lowest rated for economic/social mobility among the industrialized nations. Virtually every European nation is rated higher (with the exception of the UK, which is rated roughly the same).

[Author]

Posts