The falling fortunes of the 1%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's silly and ridiculous that the wealthy are so opposed to investing tax dollars into their country. The proportionally small amounts they are being asked to contribute to the commonwealth of our nation will enrich us all and not diminish their quality of life at all. Eventually as the wealth of the nation increases the wealth of our capitalist class will grow exponentially far outpacing the relative pitance they have paid in taxes.

Completely agree. Not to mention the stabilizing effect of having a solid middle class and good infrastructure. If the wealthy really don't want to pay their fair share (which yes, is higher than the rest of us due to their increased need for gov't services like SEC, Customs, Coast Guard, FAA, etc), then they can deal with the resulting destabilization and class wars.

I don't care how much money you make, if there's a violent uprising by downtrodden masses, well...even the rich are mortal. Doesn't make sense not to contribute to society when the alternative is going the way of the French aristocracy.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree, as well. Even a super-rich person could be held up at gunpoint or some how victimized by a random act.

There will be more crime if the U.S. middle class morphs into a huge lower class.

[Anonymous]

The article is about income, not fortunes. It doesn't say anything about their net worth and assets decreasing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article is about income, not fortunes. It doesn't say anything about their net worth and assets decreasing.

Barack Obama has been the best thing for rich people, for the simple fact that the stock market has gone on a tear since he was elected.

[Anonymous]

Barack Obama has been the best thing for rich people, for the simple fact that the stock market has gone on a tear since he was elected.

Damn right, at least around here anyway. Have any of you been out in fly-over country lately? It is pretty scary. There is 14% unemployment out where my parents live. Employment in the Washington area is something like 3.5%.

My boss lives in a 1+ million dollar McMansion and drives a BMW and I want the same. How will we continue to charge 200 dollars an hour for un-needed IT services to the federal government if Romney gets elected on a Tea Party ticket? I thought that the Tea Party was supposed to be finished.

I'll be voting Democratic for the rest of my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Barack Obama has been the best thing for rich people, for the simple fact that the stock market has gone on a tear since he was elected.

Damn right, at least around here anyway. Have any of you been out in fly-over country lately? It is pretty scary. There is 14% unemployment out where my parents live. Employment in the Washington area is something like 3.5%.

My boss lives in a 1+ million dollar McMansion and drives a BMW and I want the same. How will we continue to charge 200 dollars an hour for un-needed IT services to the federal government if Romney gets elected on a Tea Party ticket? I thought that the Tea Party was supposed to be finished.

I'll be voting Democratic for the rest of my life.

Which are the un-needed services? I bet we could defend our country on less than half of our current budget. In fact I know it's true because Reagan did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which are the un-needed services? I bet we could defend our country on less than half of our current budget. In fact I know it's true because Reagan did it.

According to the chart here: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/08/chart-of-the-week-defense-spending-throughout-u-s-history/, the percentage of GDP spent on defense is lower than under Reagan, which was already pretty low by post-WWII standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which are the un-needed services? I bet we could defend our country on less than half of our current budget. In fact I know it's true because Reagan did it.

According to the chart here: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/08/chart-of-the-week-defense-spending-throughout-u-s-history/, the percentage of GDP spent on defense is lower than under Reagan, which was already pretty low by post-WWII standards.

You can't trust any chart published by Heritage Foundation. By default. They're always designed to deceive.

[Anonymous]

That is heartbreaking. I weep for them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, the $400,000 in taxes that I am required to pay in taxes every year is not a "pittance".

That figure in and of itself is impressive. How that figure relates to your income is the question. $400,000 on $1 million is fair. $400,000 on $10 million is not.

While $400K may sound high, the figure is meaningless without knowing the income. Like the above P noted, I have no issue with someone paying $400K on $1 M income. If the applicable income is, say, $10M or even $2M, then $400K is NOT high enough. Sorry, the problem today is the pure selfishness of the 1%. The PP obviously fits into that category.