Let me hear from you repubs. What are your reasons for voting for McSame..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with getting rich--it's a great thing to want to build wealth and the drive to create is what our country is about. More people need to be motivated and realize that waiting for a government handout is bad for anyone and will not get you anything in life. I think in the end, the argument is pointless because some people are so socialized in their thinking that they just don't see that attacking people for success is just a losing mentality.

I'm not rich, but I went to college worked my ass off and am 10 years into my career at a senior level. I organize fundraisers for underprivileged people all around the world in my spare time. I don't ever recall asking for a hand out, but am still happy to give one. It would be nice if all the CEOs of health insurance companies that share your "what's wrong with getting rich" mentality, could see that their capitalist dreams are what's keeping millions of Americans from being insured and getting healthcare. Do you think that all us middle class people are a bunch of lazy asses that sit around waiting for you to pick up our tabs? Nurses, teachers, writers, police officers, even the trash guys all provide services to you for well under $100k a year. If we can't afford healthcare or the rising costs of everything while our salaries stay the same because some "what's wrong with getting rich" person at the top wants to exploit all the little people under him/her, then we are unmotivated and waiting for handouts because we didn't choose to become a money-grubbing CEO? How many wealthy people depend on the services of the poor or middle class yet don't want to compensate them fairly for it? My boss is one of them. He can triple our workload and then cut our dental benefits...but what's wrong with that...he is getting richer.

WELL said. I was beginning to think the affluent believed the middle class was waiting for handouts.

they do...I am not affluent so of course I have a different mentality than this what's wrong with getting rich person. Nothing is wrong with getting rich if you aren't exploiting people and being fair about your business practice and if you can recognize that you didn't get to the top alone, but too often that is the case. I do think it is unfair that some steroided baseball star and his owner can earn over a million dollars a year, while a speech therapist for this disabled will never make a fraction of that. And if that speech therapist can't afford to buy healthcare for his/her family...well he/she should've taken a different career path and is just shit of luck. (I am being sarcastic). I don't understand why some affluent act like they don't need the middle class. Someone has to clean your office building so you don't have to work in filth. Someone has to keep your neighborhood safe. Someone has to save your house if it catches on fire. Someone has to make and serve you your Starbucks latte. Someone has to sell you gasoline for you to get to work. Someone has to schedule your appointment at the dentist, the salon and the botox clinic. Someone has to fix your Mercedes.

[Anonymous]

I am curious-does the middle class actually believe that by overtaxing the wealthy-you in the middle class will benefit? Explain how other than the punitive "it's just not right that you have money" theory.

[Anonymous]

PP, you have GOT to be joking. Assuming you are the same poster who has been whining about having to pay taxes throughout this thread, I find it very difficult to believe you own a business if you can't conceptually get that taxes are not punitive in nature.

I have rarely come across such a money-focused elitist that so openly promotes the "us vs. them" class conflict.

[Anonymous]

the punitive "it's just not right that you have money" theory.

I don't think anyone is arguing that is a reason to raise taxes. Right now, we have a huge deficeit that is only going to get worse because Bush's tax cuts - aimed predominately at the richest 1%, have not fully taken effect. Middle and lower class America are hurting pretty bad right now, and that too is only going to get worse. So, the most logical way to begin to repair the budget is to reverse some of those tax cuts.

[Anonymous]

I don't have time to argue with people today but..some things to think about. Tax hikes will not directly benefit the middle class--the governement consumes wealth and it never ever transfers wealth--as much as people like to think that gee if I could get some of that hard earned cash from those rich folk, my life would be better. The tax cuts that everyone is up in arms with actually benefitted everyone--the wealthiest received the smallest cut but this has been attacked by the left as only helping the rich. No--if it seems like the rich got more money than you, they only did because they earned more but, believe me, percentagewise it was less. New data has recently came out showing that the tax cuts actually helped everyone. Somehow there is still a sort of punitive anger from people who make less money that the rich are selfish and mean. It always strikes me as interesting when you see someone in the lower middle class winning the lottery and then just pissing it away--most wealthy friends I know live pretty frugally. By the way, myself included-one of our cars has almost 100K miles and I still shop at Costco. How anyone spends their money is their own busines but the bottom line is that the smart people live under their means. Also for us, we rented until we could have the "bigger" house on one income and only this year bought a big screen tv since the rates went down. As for the deficit-you have to look at things in relative terms--the economy has grown at such an incredible rate that the deficit is actually small comparately--I think something like 2% of the GDP which is great. As for people who are hurting-don't blame the rich. Things to blame--regarding food--maybe get mad at those ethanol proponents since most every food staple has a relathionship with corn. Ethanol fever has hurt this country in so many ways. It absolutely cannot replace oil in any shape or form, best we can hope for is for it to be some kind of additive. A lot of people think of Brazil and go wild but the percentage of drivers in Brazil is small, the landscape for growing sugar is there and sugar is easier to convert. You might also take a whack at the Democrats who pushed through another farm subsidy bill--bad idea unless of course you were going to help organic famers which I don't believe it did--I am not one for subsidizing anything but could see some benfits to helping those folks out since I am told it is extremely difficult to get certification etc. Housing market is complicated but remember that 95% of the country are paying their mortgages on time and the great majority of errers are due to people knowingly getting over their head. How? If you are not ready creditwise and have to go subprime, you shouldn't be buying a house (buying a home is a luxury and not a right no matter what anyone says), if you are borrowing so much that both people in the houshold have to be working and a sudden job loss would put you out then you are over your head (nothing against working families as I am one but go smaller so you don't live so close to the fire), if you are buying a house that you can't afford in hopes of flipping and can't afford to cover mortgage if you can't sell, you are over your head. If you are one of those many many losers who bought a house and lied on your application and had no intention of ever paying --you are a criminal. I also saw a lot of greed on the behalf of homeoners and many many of them were the middle class who kept on hiking their housing price. I am all for free market but my gut told me that this just couldn't last and of course it didn't. Should we be bailing everyone out-no I don't think so because markets work and fix themselves with time but the government is bowing to pr pressure. As for your salary-that I can't help but can offer advice in this respect. We all have a choice to get into the careers we go to. The example was made a few posts back about a speech therapist. I don't work in this field and have no idea what a typical therapist makes but I would advise anyone before going into a field to look at the salaries and see if the salary is something you can live on and if it has growth potential. If it doesn't pay what you feel comfortable with you have options--you could move to an area that has a lower cost of living to make it happen, you could choose to go out less if this is your dream job and you still want it, you could look into a way to make being a speech therapist a business--perhaps getting together with a few other therapists and making a practice together, maybe find another ancillary revenue stream to supplement--writing a book on speech therapy, writing articles on diction, developing products that aid in speech--do you see where I am getting at--make it a business that works for you instead of just getting mad at a salary from a hospital or a school. If a school also take into account things like--will I have a job for life and is that important enough not dealing with the stress and risk of starting a business? Do I not want to work a 60-80 hour work week like almost all buisness owners or top level executives as well as fields like law and medicine. Do I like the idea of being able to retire young with a pension (which if I live a long time could add up to millions) so that is enough for me not to want to start another business. The final thing you can think about is taking money and making it work for you via passive businesses to invest--real estate could be one (Buy the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad"). In the end, this isn't a you stink because you aren't wealthy-it's just a don't expect the wealthy to have to pay more exponentially because money is money and everyone wants and deserves to keep a majority of what they make. I hope you reflect on "majority" because taxes are a necessary evil--but 60% for the top 1% is completely out of line. Yes I am in that 1% but I am taking the time to go over this because I did not start out wealthy but I did start out with a family of small business owners that imparted in me the knowledge to "make it for myself"--I have never seen the benefits of sitting around and waiting for the governemnt to save me-that would be like waiting for a dollar when I could make a million. The other sad truth is not everyone is the same-we all have unique talents and skills and not everyone is going to get to the top of the mountain but I sincerely believe more people could if they really looked at their career as a buisness even if working for a company is one aspect. The left is moving toward having everyone be the same and the same just doesn't work. Look at all the countries in Europe that moved away from socialism and communism because it just doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

--Paul Simon

[Anonymous]

One more thought--Social security--we need to raise the age of benefits to at least 70--when this program was started, we just weren't living as long. In fact the first person (a woman and I can't remember her name) got her benefits, she was only working a short period of time and lived to be in her 90s!!! I absolsutely do not think the wealthy should be shouldering this burden since this was a benefit created to help everyone and each of us has donated equally our money over the years to receive ss--the idea that I should pay more per 100k of income is just deplorable. I would also be okay with having to work more than 10 years to benefit--maybe push it up to 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have time to argue with people today but..some things to think about. Tax hikes will not directly benefit the middle class--the governement consumes wealth and it never ever transfers wealth--as much as people like to think that gee if I could get some of that hard earned cash from those rich folk, my life would be better. The tax cuts that everyone is up in arms with actually benefitted everyone--the wealthiest received the smallest cut but this has been attacked by the left as only helping the rich. No--if it seems like the rich got more money than you, they only did because they earned more but, believe me, percentagewise it was less. New data has recently came out showing that the tax cuts actually helped everyone. Somehow there is still a sort of punitive anger from people who make less money that the rich are selfish and mean. It always strikes me as interesting when you see someone in the lower middle class winning the lottery and then just pissing it away--most wealthy friends I know live pretty frugally. By the way, myself included-one of our cars has almost 100K miles and I still shop at Costco. How anyone spends their money is their own busines but the bottom line is that the smart people live under their means. Also for us, we rented until we could have the "bigger" house on one income and only this year bought a big screen tv since the rates went down. As for the deficit-you have to look at things in relative terms--the economy has grown at such an incredible rate that the deficit is actually small comparately--I think something like 2% of the GDP which is great. As for people who are hurting-don't blame the rich. Things to blame--regarding food--maybe get mad at those ethanol proponents since most every food staple has a relathionship with corn. Ethanol fever has hurt this country in so many ways. It absolutely cannot replace oil in any shape or form, best we can hope for is for it to be some kind of additive. A lot of people think of Brazil and go wild but the percentage of drivers in Brazil is small, the landscape for growing sugar is there and sugar is easier to convert. You might also take a whack at the Democrats who pushed through another farm subsidy bill--bad idea unless of course you were going to help organic famers which I don't believe it did--I am not one for subsidizing anything but could see some benfits to helping those folks out since I am told it is extremely difficult to get certification etc. Housing market is complicated but remember that 95% of the country are paying their mortgages on time and the great majority of errers are due to people knowingly getting over their head. How? If you are not ready creditwise and have to go subprime, you shouldn't be buying a house (buying a home is a luxury and not a right no matter what anyone says), if you are borrowing so much that both people in the houshold have to be working and a sudden job loss would put you out then you are over your head (nothing against working families as I am one but go smaller so you don't live so close to the fire), if you are buying a house that you can't afford in hopes of flipping and can't afford to cover mortgage if you can't sell, you are over your head. If you are one of those many many losers who bought a house and lied on your application and had no intention of ever paying --you are a criminal. I also saw a lot of greed on the behalf of homeoners and many many of them were the middle class who kept on hiking their housing price. I am all for free market but my gut told me that this just couldn't last and of course it didn't. Should we be bailing everyone out-no I don't think so because markets work and fix themselves with time but the government is bowing to pr pressure. As for your salary-that I can't help but can offer advice in this respect. We all have a choice to get into the careers we go to. The example was made a few posts back about a speech therapist. I don't work in this field and have no idea what a typical therapist makes but I would advise anyone before going into a field to look at the salaries and see if the salary is something you can live on and if it has growth potential. If it doesn't pay what you feel comfortable with you have options--you could move to an area that has a lower cost of living to make it happen, you could choose to go out less if this is your dream job and you still want it, you could look into a way to make being a speech therapist a business--perhaps getting together with a few other therapists and making a practice together, maybe find another ancillary revenue stream to supplement--writing a book on speech therapy, writing articles on diction, developing products that aid in speech--do you see where I am getting at--make it a business that works for you instead of just getting mad at a salary from a hospital or a school. If a school also take into account things like--will I have a job for life and is that important enough not dealing with the stress and risk of starting a business? Do I not want to work a 60-80 hour work week like almost all buisness owners or top level executives as well as fields like law and medicine. Do I like the idea of being able to retire young with a pension (which if I live a long time could add up to millions) so that is enough for me not to want to start another business. The final thing you can think about is taking money and making it work for you via passive businesses to invest--real estate could be one (Buy the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad"). In the end, this isn't a you stink because you aren't wealthy-it's just a don't expect the wealthy to have to pay more exponentially because money is money and everyone wants and deserves to keep a majority of what they make. I hope you reflect on "majority" because taxes are a necessary evil--but 60% for the top 1% is completely out of line. Yes I am in that 1% but I am taking the time to go over this because I did not start out wealthy but I did start out with a family of small business owners that imparted in me the knowledge to "make it for myself"--I have never seen the benefits of sitting around and waiting for the governemnt to save me-that would be like waiting for a dollar when I could make a million. The other sad truth is not everyone is the same-we all have unique talents and skills and not everyone is going to get to the top of the mountain but I sincerely believe more people could if they really looked at their career as a buisness even if working for a company is one aspect. The left is moving toward having everyone be the same and the same just doesn't work. Look at all the countries in Europe that moved away from socialism and communism because it just doesn't work.

It seems to me that you had plenty of time to argue today.

And to congratulate yourself.

I'm wondering, since you're such a rich girl, why you do not seem to know how to break your writing into paragraphs? Or are we common folk just not worth the effort??

[Anonymous]

That tirade would have been much easier to digest with paragraphs. Regardless, though, most people, like the pp, seem to be making sweeping and erroneous assumptions about entire classes of people. Stop assuming that the rich, poor or middle class behave a certain way and instead, make a real argument based onsomething other than judgmental assumptions of others.

And fwiw, this is the average tax cut, by precentage of taxable income, that various income levels recieved:

50K/yr - 1.34%
100K/yr - 2%
500K/yr - 3.12%
1MM/yr - 3.77%

Those are from 2003 - most of the tax cuts for the wealthiest portion of or country had not taken effect yet. And again, that is taxable income. I doubt many making 50K/yr are able to throw $15K/yr into a (most likely matching) 401K plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One more thought--Social security--we need to raise the age of benefits to at least 70--when this program was started, we just weren't living as long. In fact the first person (a woman and I can't remember her name) got her benefits, she was only working a short period of time and lived to be in her 90s!!! I absolsutely do not think the wealthy should be shouldering this burden since this was a benefit created to help everyone and each of us has donated equally our money over the years to receive ss--the idea that I should pay more per 100k of income is just deplorable. I would also be okay with having to work more than 10 years to benefit--maybe push it up to 15.

I think the first woman to collect SS benefits worked 2 years and then collected for 24 years. What a great deal!

Everybody fund's their own SS check, not just the wealthy. Depending on what age you retire, you get back more or less what you put in. Don't you get the quarterly SS reports? The SSA calculates/estimates your check at retirement @65 or 67, based on your salary history.

Since I'm GenX, I keep hearing there will be nothing left. So it's not about affluent vs. middle class.

[Anonymous]

Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security, which means that most of the people on this board would be paying alot more money to SSA each year.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security, which means that most of the people on this board would be paying alot more money to SSA each year.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement. The current cap is $102,000, so someone has to be making more than that for it even to be an issue. That's as an individual, not a married couple. Then, we don't know how high the cap would be raised because Obama has not said. He supports a "donut hole" which is a range above the current cap, but below the new cap, that isn't taxed. So. let's say the donut hole is from $102,000 to 150,000, you would only get hit for whatever you make between $150,000 up to the new cap. Therefore, I think its unlikely that "most" of the people on DCUM will be paying even a penny more, let alone "a lot more".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I absolsutely do not think the wealthy should be shouldering this burden since this was a benefit created to help everyone and each of us has donated equally our money over the years to receive ss--the idea that I should pay more per 100k of income is just deplorable.

All of us workers pay for this. Since there is a cap above which you do not pay Social Security taxes, the rich (those who work anyway) actually pay taxes on a smaller portion of their income than the rest of us. Sorry, rich people are not the ones funding my retirement!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security, which means that most of the people on this board would be paying alot more money to SSA each year.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement. The current cap is $102,000, so someone has to be making more than that for it even to be an issue. That's as an individual, not a married couple. Then, we don't know how high the cap would be raised because Obama has not said. He supports a "donut hole" which is a range above the current cap, but below the new cap, that isn't taxed. So. let's say the donut hole is from $102,000 to 150,000, you would only get hit for whatever you make between $150,000 up to the new cap. Therefore, I think its unlikely that "most" of the people on DCUM will be paying even a penny more, let alone "a lot more".

Oh please. I think many individuals on this Board make more than $150,000.

[Anonymous]

No one said the rich were funding your retirement as of yet--but Obama is trying to change that which was the point. Also, agree that there are a lot of people on DCUM making over 150K since this is DC but I am thinking that not so many go on this board since there seem to be a lot of people on this board who are thrilled to see the rich have higher taxes while theirs are cut. I of course would like everyone to get tax cuts because it stimulates the economy--and despite the hating on Bush-no stimulus check came my way since I earned too much.