Rich people and their tax bitching

The wealthy delude themselves into thinking they personally create wealth

from JoeUser Forums

    What is it with rich people and their greed? Obviously it takes some sort of love of money to make someone work so hard at accumulating material wealth. But they lose sight of the bigger picture: Life. You really see that when they bitch about taxes. Oh, the poor rich guy who makes $300,000. He's going to lose half of it to taxes. Oh boo-hoo. That's only $150,000 left. How can he live on that?

    Tax moaners, especially on the right, give lip service to the founding fathers. Back then, there were no income taxes. And that is about as deep as the right will go in looking at how things were back then. But a lot has changed since then. The change-over from an agrarian society to an industrial and now information society has changed the face of our nation. On the family farm, two, even three generations of Americans lived in the same household. If someone got sick, the other family members took care of him or her. When they grew old or were injured, the other members of the family made up for the loss and took care of that individual. And if times were tough, well, you wouldn't starve because each farm was largely self-sufficient.

    Not too many Americans live on a family farm. In fact, not too many Americans share their home with 2 other generations of their family. In an industrial society where 95% of the population lives in an urban environment, those workers don't have someone at home who can necessarily take care of them if they get sick or injured or grow old. But companies still need those workers.

    The well kept secret of the right is the Achilles heel of their tax bitching argument, they need that bottom 90% of society to make them rich in the first place. Bill Gates isn't writing Windows, thousands of his minions are. Steve Forbes doesn't write, manufacture, and distribute his uppity magazine, his thousands of drones do. And those drones, to be effective, need a great deal of infrastructure underneath them to be as productive as they are. Without social security, without Medicare, without those other programs the right complains about, millions of Americans would not necessarily be sick and dying. Instead, companies would be burdened with greater requirements for retirement, healthcare, and so forth. Either that or more Americans would be sick and dying on the streets. In the former case, costs would be higher because individual companies lack the clout of the federal government, in the latter case the American work force, the bulk of it made up of only somewhat killed labor, would be less effective at best or looking for a new government at worst.

    The next time you see some rich guy complain about his taxes, remind him that while he may not personally be benefiting directly from what those taxes do, his minions are and it isn't he that is creating his wealth, it's his minions that are. Rich people too often delude themselves into thinking that they are the wealth creators. They aren't. It's the people doing the actual labor who are creating that wealth. The rich guy is merely the one directing it. Crucial no doubt but well compensated for that cruciality. They need to be reminded who is America and that our government, of the people, by the people has evolved based on the changing dynamics of American society.

 

politics
16,904 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know you claim to be representing "sanity from the left" but I don't see it.

So, if you are rich it is because you love money. What if it is because you love having some control over your life and, let's face it, if you don't have money, you don't have a lot of options. And when the government takes 50% (I know, boo-hoo) it takes a lot of money to have much control over your life.

If you have money you can pay others to do things that keep you from spending time with your family. You can afford to take care of your family instead of depending on the government. You can afford education. You can afford to enjoy life.

Tell me one person, honestly, that doesn't mind having half (no matter how big or small the number) of their money taken from them. You say that person that had $300k still ends up with $150k. How about I take $150k off your hands. Don't you think that would make a differnce in your life? You say boo-hoo but look at it from another angle. Don't you think that person might be a little resentful when they worked so hard to earn that money then see the woman at the grocery store with three kids, manicured nails, all of them wearing brand new clothes, paying for chips and pop with food stamps?

Sure, that is just an example but you are generalizing about "rich people". There are a lot of wealthy people out there that struggled to build their own companies. Sacrificed in the beginning to reap rewards later on. They bare the burden of responsibility for their employees whereas those "minions" can do their job at work and then go home. I business owner never leaves their work at the office. It is always hovering over them. What they decide to do with their career affects many more than just them. They should have some benefits for that....big ones.

Big government has had a lot of influence on how we care for our families these days. Sometimes people don't take care of their elderly family because the courts say they can't. Who is in favor of big government....the right? Noooo...the left.

The right has not lost sight of the founding fathers. They still speak louder to the "for the people by the people." The right wants people to keep their money and take care of their own. They want the small businesses to keep emerging and growing. Those taxes don't just affect "rich people". They affect the small business owner also. I know a lot of family owned businesses that just couldn't make a living given the amount of taxes they have to pay now. What kind of life does that leave for them?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
We also must not forget that if it wasn't for the rich people, the poor people who work in the empires of the wealthy would not have the jobs they have, and would be in a worse situation than they presently are.
Although there are cases of rich people being rich simply by luck, many of those rich people have become rich by working their asses off. I don't think it's greedy for them to want what they earned with their own sweat and tears to remain theirs. How many of you would happily buy me a PowerBook because I kept whining about it and refused to do my own work for it (not that all poor people are lazy, but I think the poor people in California, a state in which there exists a plethora of services for the less fortunate, prove that they aren't endangered).
Personally, I'm all for services that help people get off their feet. That makes sure that poor people have no excuse.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The next time you hear a rich guy complain about taxes, think of the fact that the vast majority of it will by siphoned off by bureaucrats and their 'interest groups', who are also sickeningly wealthy. Think about how, say, Senator Kennedy will spend those federal tax dollars; how much of it will go to his congressional district in the form of 'government contracts' for the friends of our beloved civil servant. Think about how much of that $150,000 will be left once they even get around to deciding HOW to spend it.

Then think about the luxury goods that wealthy person might otherwise have bought, all of which are made by those 'drones' you care so much about. Think about all the capital that investment gives the companies that hire those drones. Think about the percentage of good that the all the subsequent local taxes, sales taxes, property tax, etc., would have done for the poor in the wealthy person's state or local area. Instead, he sends it to some other part of the country, blindly, with no hope that it will benefit anyone at all.

If you look at the numbers, you simply can't deny that even if the wealthy person in question went out and blew that $150,000 on a bender, more benefit would be had by the lower and middle class than if he had donated it to the government. Even if $149,000 of federal taxes went directly back to the public, it is still $1,000 less than would have if it been held privately. If it is in the bank, it is benefiting our society through loans that put a roof over some "drone's" head. If it is in stocks or bonds, it is benefiting our society; if it is spent on a fur coat for his secretary, it is still benefiting our society.

If you give it to the federal government, a large percentage is simply gonna disappear, and end up with the same kind of people. The only difference is that they didn't work for it, they simply stole it in the name of the greater good.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poor Jill; she doesn't know the difference between surplus income and bare minimum.
Take 150K from 300K is quite different from taking 2K from 15K.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
ezp: So who defines suprlus income and bare minium? You?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Poor Jill; are you kidding? Jill does know the difference. It is you that can's see it. I think your blinded because you don't want to see it. Although, I will agree with you that the difference of someone at bare minimum loosing 2k is more devasting than someone in the other position. But the 300k a year should not be punished because they are hard workers and have earned a higher income.

I can remember my father telling me that even though he was vomiting he still had to go to work. As a child, I did not understand. But he was the owner of a small business and the only way it operated was if he was there. Because of his diligence his business became successful. Today he is well off, but he is humble and when one meets him one would never know that he has money. He also employs several labors who are thankful for the opportunity to work in his company.

If half of his earnings were taken each year, I know that he would close his business. This would leave many labors without a job. He pays well and infact I don't believe that many of these workers would make the money he pays them else where.

Remember it takes business owners to employ those who want to be labors because perhaps they don't want the aches and pains that go along with owning a business.

I for one vowed never to marry anyone who owned or wanted to own a business. I saw how it took my father away from our family. He was there, only in body most of the time. Owning a business costs more than one would think and the monetary gain is the pay off for the sacrifices made by the owners and their familes.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see none of you have addressed the basic problem:

Rich people don't generate wealth. The people actually doing the labor generate that wealth. Why should some Harvard graduate who gets in a cush job in sales at Citibank make $300k per year while the minions in the mail room make 1/10th? Market forces? Fine. Whatever. But the system has a nice counter balance - taxes. The infrastructure that allows for guys to make that $300k a year comes at a price in an urban society -- someone needs to take care of the regular folks who aren't earnining the big bucks.

Mr. $300k needs those minions to make his big bucks. Those minions are actually the ones generating the wealth on a day to day basis and the government takes taxes from the $300k guy to help take care of those minions.

Money that goes to the government isn't flushed down the tubes, it goes to pay for things. It goes to other people in one way or the other in the form of services or entitlements. Services and entitlements that helps Mr. $300k have his $10 an hour drones that do the actual grunt work. Mr. $300k is compensated just fine with his big salary and even after taxes still has plenty of money to spend on his Porsche or mistress or what have you. And his minions are able to have some basic health benefits when they get older and be taken care of to a basic degree when they retire.

The system works fine as it is. People who bitch about taxes should get out of their summer homes more often and see how the rest of the country really works. A country that works as well as it does because the government put together a great infrastructure. Or do Americans really believe that they are some master race whose rich people are somehow smarter than the people in Guatamala and Somalia where the rich aren't taxed hardly at all. The difference isn't the people, the difference is the government. A government that taxes higher to provide more infrastructure and services to its people that makes them more effective minions that makes people like Bill Gates possible.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
dd: I don't think entrepreneurs are representative of the top 10%. Most wealthy people are people who hired in at relatively large corporations. They don't work significantly harder than anyone else.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Draginol:
----------------
ezp: So who defines suprlus income and bare minium? You?
----------------

you can sorta figure out a general guideline. basic food, water, shelter, clothes tend to be non-optional items. hence, his example of "150K from 300K is quite different from taking 2K from 15K". most people can survive on 150k, at 13k, things might get iffy.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The infrastructure that allows for guys to make that $300k a year comes at a price in an urban society"

Most of which are state and local infrastructure, not federal. Take a peek at the federal budget and see how much goes for "infrastructure". They spend much more time denying their responsibility for "infrastructure" than actually contributing to it.

My perspective isn't "urban", nor are most of the people you claim to champion. I am from rural Kentucky, and I have seen how "Services and entitlements" have destroyed my culture, and how several generations of liberal "good intentions" have sent those who create wealth to other states and other countries, leaving our workers reliant on "Services and entitlements". Thanks heaps from the land of welfare and oxycontin.

I worked for some time in a factory in rural east Tennessee that made yachts in the $250,000+ range. It employed 100 or more local people, and was a large source of income for the area. Those people went home put their kids through college, enjoyed their employee health benefits, and paid property tax, school tax, etc. as well, strengthening the real infrastructure. This doesn't count all the vendors that made the upholstery, parts and engines for the boats. Amazing how beneficial 'Luxury' is to the common man.

As I said, if our wealthy businessperson blew all his cash on luxury goods, MUCH more money would go to "infrastructure" in local sales and property taxes than if he sent it to the federal government. The leftist delusion is that an immense federal government, absorbing far more than it passes on to the "poor", is somehow more beneficial for the economy than the people who actually keep money moving from hand to hand. Money moving freely is what makes a healthy economy, not money being diverted and doled out at the whim of bureaucrats who siphon off as much as possible.

It boggles the mind that people can be deluded enough to say something like "Yeah, take that guy's money away and send it to Washington where it will be put to good use." Don't you guys on the left read your own propaganda?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S. You can villify the "Bill Gates" types all you want, but oddly enough the proletariat don't seem to congeal into fortune 500 companies on their own. If the $10 per hour "drones" are the real creators of wealth, why are they so often unemployed? When I see something to the effect of "newly formed worker's collective seeks to upper management positions" I might give your model more credence. Until then, I'll assume that business forms from the top-down, and "drones" work at the behest of management.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have no problems with paying 50% tax. Even 60% tax would be acceptable. So long as EVERYONE is paying the same and receiving the same benefits.

If I earned $300k and had to pay $180k in taxes, then I'd expect someone who earned $15k to pay $9k in taxes. They may get $30k in benefits back, but so should I. If they get free healthcare, then so should I. If they get social security then so should I. If they get govenment pensions, then so should I. I may decide to opt for private medical or private pension but that's what freedom of choice is all about.

The problem is not the amount of tax we pay, but the fact that we perceive that others are beings treated differently. It's an unjust society which feels that any segment of society, whether rich or poor, should be treated differently. I'd rather pay more tax and know that everyone is treated the same, both in the level of tax they are charged and in the benefits they receive.

Paul.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Solitaire : >> Everyone is treated the same>>
when the Lennon chants of "Imagine" stop reverberating, and the bong smoke clears away, this statement is just a communist manifesto.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Calor is right that the government is there to provide services. So these rich people have to pay more than everyone else for the same services. Why stop there? Why shouldn't rich people have to pay more for all services? You want cable service? Well, if you're rich, you need to pay more. Electric, phone, medical,.....more, more, more!

It is that confusion between the "government" being an entity that knows how to take care of us better than we do instead of being what it is, a service provider.

I will never be convinced that my money will be put to better use by the federal government. If I didn't feel like I was being robbed each tax season, I would give more. I feel badly for charities trying to raise money because let's face it, we "gave at the office" so to speak. I'm already paying for these "services and entitlements". I am taking care of my own. You want more from me? Leave more of my money in my hands and I will put more of it back into my community.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just want to be one of those rich that bitch about their taxes. Right now, I'm not rich enough to bitch about it. Well, I whine, but really can't bitch right now. However, I do feel that if I work hard enough, I can be one who can truly bitch about my taxes. After I work my ass off to make the best life possible for my family, it just seems right that the government should take more of my money so that I have to work harder to have the same outcome. Otherwise, I could just sit on my lazy ass and reap the rewards from the others who work their asses off since that would be easier.

BTW, I always find it funny how people make it sound like it's bad to be like Bill Gates. I wish everyone was like Bill Gates. (If you are clueless of what I mean, maybe you should check out how much money he has donated to different causes. And, no, not all that money would have been paid out in taxes otherwise.) Damn Bill Gates and all that money that he makes! Who cares that he gives billions away to charity, right? Or, what about the jobs that he has created? Damn rich people.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think a major reason why "drones" make so much less than the "puppet masters" is that the drones are expendable, and can probably be replaced by robots, whereas the puppet masters aren't. Anybody can work a register at McDonald's, but how many people could orchestrate the business competently?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
--------------------
Reply By: Messy Buu Posted: Thursday, November 20, 2003

I think a major reason why "drones" make so much less than the "puppet masters" is that the drones are expendable, and can probably be replaced by robots, whereas the puppet masters aren't. Anybody can work a register at McDonald's, but how many people could orchestrate the business competently?
--------------------

everyone can agree there is some "movie star effect" in corporations: you can switch the caterers in a movie without much happening to movie revenue, but switching out julia roberts and stephen spielberg for some no name actress and a recent film school graduate will have a major negative impact. but wages haven't really increased that much even though americans are more and more productive, while at the same time ceo salaries increases are magnitudes of order higher relative to past incomes. are modern ceos really that more effective than in the past? plus, examples where a ceo heads does a bad job, does layoffs, the stock still drops like a rock, and then gets fired with a $x million sendoff doesn't help send a positive message. "drones" can't help but feel, "hey, -I- could run the company into the ground just as easily! where's my millions?"
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
True, there are bad CEOs out there, but there are just as many bad drones out there. It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons where Homer tries to show the teamsters that he's even lazier than they.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anthony,
as someone who is definitely in the top 5% tax band I think labeling me a communist is very funny! Do you ever make logical arguments or do you always resort to name calling for your arguments? I like my money. I like the fact I can earn my money. I don't like paying taxes, but heh I understand why I have to pay them. If my tax system was implemented I'd probably end up paying a bit more, but at least I'd know everyone was paying fairly. As I tried to explain, for me the fairness of the system is more important. There are potential holes in my sort of tax system though. Use your brain and go find them. Tell me why my system would not work instead of trying to insult me. You may find that you actually like debating instead of insulting.

Paul.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
How is it fair for the top 5% to pay most of the taxes?

I don't like hijacking of words like "fair". There's nothing "fair" about one person paying 33% of their taxes to the federal government and another paying 0% when both receive the same federal services (in fact, the guy paying 33% is possibly getting less).
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Solitair:

Every statement of yours begins with “get your facts strait” or “I wish you would check your facts before you post,” its beginning to burn my biscuit. Maybe you don’t understand how you got to where you are, or just inherited it? What happens if you have to set up a huge data base with thousands of clients, would you ask the secretary to do it? A secretary should not have any problem adding new clients to a pre existing data base, guess what, that makes you the boss, and the secretary subordinate. You drive on the same damn road, see it with the same light all the same municipalities and services as people on welfare only you are expected to pay for everything. A modern day Mark Anthony falling on his sword, or a Damocles’ to frightened to bear the responsibility’s of being in charge, you need to be punished for your ambition and desire to make something of yourself, you prefer a system of unfair taxation. You applaud a bunch of hooligan malcontent ne’er do wells pulling down a paper Mache statue of President Bush, and then decry sane and rational policies such as a war against terrorism.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem with rich people is that they think their wealth is purely because of themselves.

I wonder why there aren't very many successful people in the Congo. Perhaps just maybe the government involved matters.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is fair point, wealth doesn't come by itself. A working force is required in order to make it grow. Sustaining economic growth would probably require an environment that provide basics to its population. Health, eduction, and social protection in general are extremely important to be sure that people work properly. As personnal wealth comes necessarly from a combination of personal work, work of other people and infrastructure. You protect your investissement on the long term by providing this facilities. The cheapest way is still do it through taxation because the state would provide this fairly and without wasting money into stupid competition. (ie. the USA is the first spender by far in the world for the health, but manage to let millions without any protection, where other country like canada or european countries spend less and provide good quality coverage for everybody)

It's quiet easy to complain about money that you pay taxation, for a lot of people it's just not easy to have enough money to afford that.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
they should get rid of all there money.Give it to cherity. Do something productive with it.Don't be so fuckin greedy.