Some Wealthy People Who Care

[Ahso!]

"Patriotic millionaires" call for their tax cuts to expire - Taxes - Salon.com

[Accountable]

As far as I can tell, nothing prevents anyone from sending extra money to the IRS. If someone feels they're not being taxed enough, they have every right to cut that extra check.

[Accountable]

I found this:

Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:

* Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.

* An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.

* Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.

Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.

The fiscal year to date information includes total gifts received for the months of October through September. For the years 1996 and 1997, monthly data is not available.


Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

* You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov

* You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G

Bureau of the Public Debt

P. O. Box 2188

Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344351 wrote: As far as I can tell, nothing prevents anyone from sending extra money to the IRS. If someone feels they're not being taxed enough, they have every right to cut that extra check.


That's like saying "organized crime is in charge of the government, but they are free to turn themselves in if they want to."

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1344354 wrote: That's like saying "organized crime is in charge of the government, but they are free to turn themselves in if they want to."
Organized crime is in charge of the government, and they can turn themselves in if they want to.

Where your comparison falls apart is that there's no similarity whatsoever to my statement. These "wealthy people who care" are saying that they'll still keep their money if allowed to, but they ask the government to take it ... and not only to take their own, but to take that of others who may or may not agree with them.

How is it caring when you say "I have extra that you can have, but you can only have it if you take some from everybody .. otherwise I'm keeping mine"?

[Ahso!]

It only works when all who are eligible sacrifice equally over a sustained period of time.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344420 wrote: How is it caring when you say "I have extra that you can have, but you can only have it if you take some from everybody .. otherwise I'm keeping mine"?


It's not the dollar amount, but the distribution of the overall load. Warren Buffet noted that he paid less taxes (percentage wise) than his secretary. He also notes that if you allow an unchecked consolidation of wealth, society and innovation suffer. Because economic status -- allocation of resources -- becomes a function of belonging to a "golden sperm club" rather than being awarded on merit. Meaning, it's in his own rational self-interests to want a higher tax rate (applied uniformly) because he'd rather have less money in a healthier society than more money in a dysfunctional banana republic.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1344431 wrote: It's not the dollar amount, but the distribution of the overall load. Warren Buffet noted that he paid less taxes (percentage wise) than his secretary. He also notes that if you allow an unchecked consolidation of wealth, society and innovation suffer. Because economic status -- allocation of resources -- becomes a function of belonging to a "golden sperm club" rather than being awarded on merit. Meaning, it's in his own rational self-interests to want a higher tax rate (applied uniformly) because he'd rather have less money in a healthier society than more money in a dysfunctional banana republic.
And after professing that he'd rather have less money in a healthier society, how much money did he donate toward a healthier society? :yh_eyebro

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1344445 wrote: And after professing that he'd rather have less money in a healthier society, how much money did he donate toward a healthier society? :yh_eyebroYou mean as you suggested earlier? Probably none and that would be the wiser choice as it would have no impact.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1344446 wrote: You mean as you suggested earlier? Probably none and that would be the wiser choice as it would have no impact.Really?? Are you implying that an American citizen keeping his own money to spend as he sees fit is more beneficial than him giving his money to the government?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1344449 wrote: Really?? Are you implying that an American citizen keeping his own money to spend as he sees fit is more beneficial than him giving his money to the government?No, I'm saying both choices as you present them have proven to have no positive impact.

[Accountable]

People keeping their own money, making their own decisions, realizing their own successes or failures based on their own behaviors; has a more positive impact than a bloated micromanaging government taking citizens' money for its own ends. This is true on a large scale or individually.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344454 wrote: People keeping their own money, making their own decisions, realizing their own successes or failures based on their own behaviors; has a more positive impact than a bloated micromanaging government taking citizens' money for its own ends. This is true on a large scale or individually.


Yeah, I'm not so much opposed to individualism or rewarding hard work. It's the consolidation of power which is passed from one generation to the next that Buffet is addressing. The economic effects of this will result in the opposite of what you want. People will realize their successes based on their parent's successes, more than their own. You say "their own money" but that also includes their parents money, inherited companies, and social connections, etc. The end of that route is an aristocracy.

[Accountable]

That's crap, and it's rare. As I recall, most American millionaires are self-made. Old money will continue to be old money forever, because they've manipulated the law as to be untouchable. That's the travesty, that the rich are not treated as everyone else, rather than that they're not given extra burden.

Again, maybe I'll give Buffet a smidge of credibility when I see him voluntarily give his money to the government rather than charity, send his dividends to the government rather than reinvesting them, and leave his billions to the government rather than his own family. Okay I admit it, that won't do anything for me but convince me that he's nuts.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344484 wrote: That's crap, and it's rare. As I recall, most American millionaires are self-made. Old money will continue to be old money forever, because they've manipulated the law as to be untouchable. That's the travesty, that the rich are not treated as everyone else, rather than that they're not given extra burden.




Yeah I've heard about "the stats" too, but not sure who cooked them up. They don't agree with what I can directly observe in every business I've known about or worked for. Nepotism is a fairly large factor in getting a job, or who takes over the business or parts of the business. How one reports income is a little fuzzy too. You can report a dollar a year and funnel all expenses through a business.

[Accountable]

But don't you agree with me that the rich ("rich" being as malleable a term as "warm" today) should be treated as everyone else?

[flopstock]

Accountable;1344445 wrote: And after professing that he'd rather have less money in a healthier society, how much money did he donate toward a healthier society? :yh_eyebro


https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... Bthe%2BPub

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344588 wrote: But don't you agree with me that the rich ("rich" being as malleable a term as "warm" today) should be treated as everyone else?


Yes, though according to Buffet, he gets treated a bit better by the government than his secretary does.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1344591 wrote: Yes, though according to Buffet, he gets treated a bit better by the government than his secretary does.He's not forced to accept the treatment. He won't go to jail if he doesn't take deductions, but I'm glad we agree.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344454 wrote: People keeping their own money, making their own decisions, realizing their own successes or failures based on their own behaviors; has a more positive impact than a bloated micromanaging government taking citizens' money for its own ends. This is true on a large scale or individually.


Every once in awhile you might want to check to see if your libertarian religion has any connection with what's happening in the real world! Here's a fact that most Americans (even the underclass) are totally oblivious of: Report Shows Stagnant Upward Mobility in U.S.

The report coincides with other studies showing that upward mobility in the U.S. is in decline, and it's more difficult to advance your economic status in America today, than it is in Western Europe -- (inter-generational upward mobility is higher in France than it is in the U.S.) That Pew study highlights a key reason: education. When the state university system was created in America, low cost higher education was available for most Americans. After 40 years of steady rot and decline, higher education (which is much more important now than 40 years ago) is out of reach for most. Add this to the grave error of not expanding Medicare to the under 65's, and fighting drug abuse with incarceration, rather than treatment, and whether Americans realize it or not, their country is no longer the nation in those old Hollywood movies where everything is possible.

The primary reasons for government departments becoming bloated and inefficient, comes from the policy of "Starving the Beast" that Reagan brought into the mainstream 30 years ago. Along with budget cuts, right wing politicians who have no respect for the function of government (except for police and military) started packing the upper echalons of civil service management with cronies and hacks as political payoffs. Then when the department has to take action (such as FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, or the MMS that was supposed to be overseeing offshore drilling) what do you know, but government is corrupt and unable to do its job!

Now, when it comes to 'feeding the beast,' some of these enlightened rich people like Warren Buffet or George Soros, are also likely acting out of self-interest -- they may know enough about history to understand that when societies allow income gaps to grow to ridiculous levels - like today - that civil order could break down in an economic crisis, and the mob may be coming for their heads! The facist-leaning billionaires have already signaled that they would prefer to keep an unequal society, and maintain order with a ruthless paramilitary police system. Fortunately, there are still a few billionaires who would prefer to let go of some of their gold, rather than have to hire 24/7 bodyguards for themselves and their children.....as is the case in most 3rd World regimes.

[Accountable]

Hi RC! Good to see you again! Believe it or not, upward mobility and a strong economy are not the most important things! There is also the ability to live your life the way you see fit! Within your capability and without imposing your will on others, that is!

I even support your choice of overusing exclamation points!

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344631 wrote: Hi RC! Good to see you again! Believe it or not, upward mobility and a strong economy are not the most important things!
Sounds good in theory, but without the promise of upward mobility, a lot of people who have been financially ruined recently could start turning to extremists.......nevermind, it's already getting started with these tea parties and militias sprouting up.

There is also the ability to live your life the way you see fit! Within your capability and without imposing your will on others, that is!


Yeah, but we are not all living in the woods on our own, in complete isolation from others. We are social creatures and establish our expectations relative to what others earn. In the following survey conducted 10 years ago, 56% of respondents would prefer a lower income, is it was higher than the average; as opposed to a higher income that was below what their peers were earning:

A survey (*) conducted by Sara J. Solnick and David Hemenway asked students and faculty at the Harvard School of Public Health whether they would prefer to earn $50,000 a year while everyone else earned $25,000 or if they’d prefer to earn $100,000 a year and everyone else $200,000. The majority chose the first option. What economic truth underlies this intriguing story?...................................

First, money can be used to make comparisons (rather than buy happiness), which creates a circle of unhappiness........................As Layard states, “one of the biggest sources of unhappiness is to compare oneself with others. As we tend to notice the possessions of more affluent people, our permanent dissatisfaction brings us endemic frustration that is difficult to overcome.



Read more: Forbes India - Happiness Economics

I even support your choice of overusing exclamation points!


I prefer exclamation points to these asinine emoticons!

[gmc]

Out of curiosity would any of you say america is a just and fair society?

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1344674 wrote: Yeah, but we are not all living in the woods on our own, in complete isolation from others. We are social creatures and establish our expectations relative to what others earn. I agree that we establish our expectations relative to what other people of similar job and skill livel earn, but I don't believe the statement works when widening the focus to all others. We see what others earn and see what is possible. Yes, some few of us see what others earn and become jealous, but I think the lion's share of us use the lives of those making somewhat more than us as motivation to "better" ourselves (as each individual defines the term).

I personally see the truly (monetarily) rich as someone who has sacrificed more than I'm willing to sacrifice. I'm happy in my life and don't waste time wondering if they are spending their millions in the ways I think they should.

recovering conservative wrote: In the following survey conducted 10 years ago, 56% of respondents would prefer a lower income, is it was higher than the average; as opposed to a higher income that was below what their peers were earning:

A survey (*) conducted by Sara J. Solnick and David Hemenway asked students and faculty at the Harvard School of Public Health whether they would prefer to earn $50,000 a year while everyone else earned $25,000 or if they’d prefer to earn $100,000 a year and everyone else $200,000. The majority chose the first option. What economic truth underlies this intriguing story?...................................

First, money can be used to make comparisons (rather than buy happiness), which creates a circle of unhappiness........................As Layard states, “one of the biggest sources of unhappiness is to compare oneself with others. As we tend to notice the possessions of more affluent people, our permanent dissatisfaction brings us endemic frustration that is difficult to overcome.



Read more: Forbes India - Happiness EconomicsIt would be helpful if you indicated direct quotes somehow, such as by blocking them off as I have here or indenting the entire quote. Otherwise it's sometimes difficult to know which is your original thought and which is someone else's.

I see Layard's conclusion as a caution not to compare oneself to others too much or risk permanent dissatisfaction, where you (it seems to me) would rather take away the legitimate earnings of anyone more affluent so that no one has anyone to compare.

Curious: You said you run marathons, right? What goes through your head when you hear about the guy that wins the marathon? Do you think less of him for giving a virtually unobtainable time for you to compare yourself against? I would imagine you say something like "Good for him!" It probably never occurred to you to seriously accuse him of cheating, or become angry that he doesn't open a running school to teach others to become world-class athletes or some such, and it shouldn't.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344680 wrote: I personally see the truly (monetarily) rich as someone who has sacrificed more than I'm willing to sacrifice. I'm happy in my life and don't waste time wondering if they are spending their millions in the ways I think they should.


It's rare that one person can make a lot of money by themselves (outside of high-risk gambling). More than likely there has been a shared sacrifice, but not shared rewards.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1344684 wrote: It's rare that one person can make a lot of money by themselves (outside of high-risk gambling). More than likely there has been a shared sacrifice, but not shared rewards.Are you implying something or simply making a statement?

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1344687 wrote: Are you implying something or simply making a statement?


It usually takes a large group of people to accomplish anything that leads to the creation of wealth. If the group takes an equal share in the rewards, we don't see a smaller group of people hoarding it all for themselves.

On a more concrete level, for example, Microsoft ripped off the developer of DOS, then resold it to IBM and made a lot of money. The guy that did *the actual work* got paid peanuts. Repeat these steps with Windows (concept stolen from Xerox), etc. Had they paid the developers more, or charged customers less, they wouldn't have been able to hoard so much money. I don't see an economic transaction as defining ownership, I see all the work that goes into something, along with the contributions of the consumer. You might say it's Microsoft's money (that they earned), but I'd say they are selling overpriced crap, and are ripping off both their developers and consumers.

ETA: Even Bill Gates supports increasing taxes on his own tax bracket. Don't you think Gates and Buffet know a thing or two about money, and what is best for their own long term finances?

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344680 wrote: I agree that we establish our expectations relative to what other people of similar job and skill livel earn, but I don't believe the statement works when widening the focus to all others. We see what others earn and see what is possible. Yes, some few of us see what others earn and become jealous, but I think the lion's share of us use the lives of those making somewhat more than us as motivation to "better" ourselves (as each individual defines the term).
That article I linked, coincides with similar findings that tell us we compare ourselves with the people we identify as our "peers." These are usually the people we interact with on a daily basis; and the shocking conclusion is not that we want to be at about the same level as our peers, it's that this motivation is stronger than actual real earnings. People don't mind earning less, as long as it's more than what everyone around them is getting-- and this point is lost in all of the libertarian and conservative arguments downplaying income stratification, which use historic information on poverty or the lives of poor in other countries, to make an argument that poverty in the West is A-okay.

What most working people are "motivated" to do, when they see themselves slipping behind economically, is usually to work more overtime, or take a 2nd job if that's not an option. Over the last 40 years, the average working class family has doubled the number of work hours to try to stay up with expectations. This has mostly come from the great increase in work hours put in by working mothers -- something that was a social oddity back when I was young, and now is an expectation......even by religious-right conservatives.

Personally, I don't see any of this "motivation" as an improvement in personal well-being or beneficial for society at large. It has fueled the consumer-driven economy, which has bigger homes and lots more toys than years ago, but personal satisfaction levels have steadily dropped through the last few decades. The results aren't a ringing endorsement for unbridled capitalism, and if that means there should have been a thoughtful plan by the government to maintain progressive taxation and put curbs on advertising etc.; then that was an opportunity missed, since economic policy should be guided by what produces the best overall results, not what adheres to a set of ideological principles.

I personally see the truly (monetarily) rich as someone who has sacrificed more than I'm willing to sacrifice. I'm happy in my life and don't waste time wondering if they are spending their millions in the ways I think they should.
I'm surprised you would even try to make that case in light of what's happened over the last two years! AIG, Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, and other Wall St. firms that benefited from the TARP bailout, have said that they have to pay their bonuses to their "top people" because they may be lured away by other firms! What would they have paid their "talent" that did not bankrupt investors or lose billions for their own companies, requiring the bailouts in the first place? At some point the whole system of finance looks like a mafia racket to the outsider, and whatever has fueled the ascent of ceo and upper management corporate salaries over the last 30 years, has little or nothing to do with money-making ability. On that thought, many of these great ceo's have made money for their stockholders by busting up the companies and selling off assets; and then outsourcing manufacturing production to China or elsewhere. Ceo compensation is so closely linked to stock value today, that it's a damn good argument for going back to the old rules of compensation before the 1980's.

It would be helpful if you indicated direct quotes somehow, such as by blocking them off as I have here or indenting the entire quote. Otherwise it's sometimes difficult to know which is your original thought and which is someone else's.
The quotes are in italics; sometimes I bold them; I guess in this case I was in too big of a hurry to get it done. It should be apparent where I interjected my comments after the quotes though.

I see Layard's conclusion as a caution not to compare oneself to others too much or risk permanent dissatisfaction, where you (it seems to me) would rather take away the legitimate earnings of anyone more affluent so that no one has anyone to compare.
There you go again using those loaded words like "legitimate." I believe we have obligations to society, and beyond our own needs, so legitimate earnings is what is left after legitimate taxes and fees have been applied. No doubt there are legitimate reasons for preventing governments from using tax increases rather than looking for greater efficiency, but over the last 20 or 30 years, the pendulum has swung too far in this direction of cutting taxes and slashing government services.

When it comes to taking away 'legitimate earnings,' the more affluent can afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor, who have to spend most of their money on food and shelter.

Curious: You said you run marathons, right? What goes through your head when you hear about the guy that wins the marathon? Do you think less of him for giving a virtually unobtainable time for you to compare yourself against? I would imagine you say something like "Good for him!" It probably never occurred to you to seriously accuse him of cheating, or become angry that he doesn't open a running school to teach others to become world-class athletes or some such, and it shouldn't.
In a way, this is a useful analogy for this issue. The winners and the elite level marathoners are physically beyond what more than 99% of the population is capable of; so trying to compete with them would be like trying to compete with a ceo over who can have the best house, car etc.

But, there is competition that goes on even in the middle of the pack. Many marathoners never competed at any running events in their youth, and don't feel any motivation to try to compete with anyone. They are just there to plod along, and cross the finish line, even if it takes them 5 or 6 hours to do it!

For myself, I ran track in high school, and never thought of running long distance until years later. If I enter a 5K or 10K race; I am going to notice who's in front of me, and eventually plan to overtake them before the finish line. If someone comes up behind me and passes, I cannot just let them go; even if I intended to just coast in to the finish line, I can't help myself from picking up the pace and looking for a chance to overtake them in the last quarter-mile or so.

So, even if I enter a race (which I am just starting to get back to after having to take a few years off), it's likely to turn into a competition as soon as I've identified a group that I feel that I should be able to keep pace with.....just like keeping up with the Jones's in suburbia, when it comes to money. Right now, I don't have a choice about living off in the country with no neighbours around me to compare with; but, I can control my competitive instincts and just enjoy going out for a run, by going out on my own along a path where I'm not likely to encounter too many runners and joggers.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1344696 wrote: ETA: Even Bill Gates supports increasing taxes on his own tax bracket. Don't you think Gates and Buffet know a thing or two about money, and what is best for their own long term finances?They give lip service, nothing more. Let's see a big production of them giving a billion or so to the gov't, and naming names of who follows suit and who doesn't. Then I might believe their sincerity.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1344711 wrote: That article I linked, coincides with similar findings that tell us we compare ourselves with the people we identify as our "peers." These are usually the people we interact with on a daily basis; and the shocking conclusion is not that we want to be at about the same level as our peers, it's that this motivation is stronger than actual real earnings. People don't mind earning less, as long as it's more than what everyone around them is getting-- and this point is lost in all of the libertarian and conservative arguments downplaying income stratification, which use historic information on poverty or the lives of poor in other countries, to make an argument that poverty in the West is A-okay.

What most working people are "motivated" to do, when they see themselves slipping behind economically, is usually to work more overtime, or take a 2nd job if that's not an option. Over the last 40 years, the average working class family has doubled the number of work hours to try to stay up with expectations. This has mostly come from the great increase in work hours put in by working mothers -- something that was a social oddity back when I was young, and now is an expectation......even by religious-right conservatives.

Personally, I don't see any of this "motivation" as an improvement in personal well-being or beneficial for society at large. It has fueled the consumer-driven economy, which has bigger homes and lots more toys than years ago, but personal satisfaction levels have steadily dropped through the last few decades. The results aren't a ringing endorsement for unbridled capitalism, and if that means there should have been a thoughtful plan by the government to maintain progressive taxation and put curbs on advertising etc.; then that was an opportunity missed, since economic policy should be guided by what produces the best overall results, not what adheres to a set of ideological principles.This kinda cancels out your previous rants about the income gap between the uber rich and the middle-class. I agree with your assessment but not your conclusions. People make their decisions and should pay the consequences for them. That's the way it should be. It isn't the government's role - the American government, that is - to decide for the citizenry how much one should earn and how much one can afford. The purpose of taxation is not (supposed to be) to level out income, but to pay for necessary services. While economic policy should be guided by what produces the best overall results, government policy must be bridled & limited by the Constitution, which is based on a set of ideological principles.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1344711 wrote: I'm surprised you would even try to make that case in light of what's happened over the last two years! AIG, Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, and other Wall St. firms that benefited from the TARP bailout, have said that they have to pay their bonuses to their "top people" because they may be lured away by other firms! What would they have paid their "talent" that did not bankrupt investors or lose billions for their own companies, requiring the bailouts in the first place? At some point the whole system of finance looks like a mafia racket to the outsider, and whatever has fueled the ascent of ceo and upper management corporate salaries over the last 30 years, has little or nothing to do with money-making ability. On that thought, many of these great ceo's have made money for their stockholders by busting up the companies and selling off assets; and then outsourcing manufacturing production to China or elsewhere. Ceo compensation is so closely linked to stock value today, that it's a damn good argument for going back to the old rules of compensation before the 1980's.I was speaking more about their personal excesses. You're right that this legal bribery - outright purchase - of government officials has to stop. Tarp should never have happened; neither should the regulations paving the way leading up to the bailouts. I really don't care about corporate salaries.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1344711 wrote: There you go again using those loaded words like "legitimate." I believe we have obligations to society, and beyond our own needs, so legitimate earnings is what is left after legitimate taxes and fees have been applied. No doubt there are legitimate reasons for preventing governments from using tax increases rather than looking for greater efficiency, but over the last 20 or 30 years, the pendulum has swung too far in this direction of cutting taxes and slashing government services.

When it comes to taking away 'legitimate earnings,' the more affluent can afford to pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor, who have to spend most of their money on food and shelter.You're 180 degrees ass backward about legitimate earnings. All earnings made legally are legitimate. The gov't deserves no more than what is absolutely necessary for the services it renders, which should likewise be no more than is absolutely necessary and run on a tight budget.

The pendulum hasn't swung nearly far enough as far as slashing government services. What services have been slashed at the federal level? I can't think of one, though I can think of several unnecessary ones that've passed in the last couple of years.

The simple fact that someone has more is not adequate justification for taking more. That seems to be the one and only reason given for raising tax rates nowadays.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1344711 wrote: In a way, this is a useful analogy for this issue. The winners and the elite level marathoners are physically beyond what more than 99% of the population is capable of; so trying to compete with them would be like trying to compete with a ceo over who can have the best house, car etc.

But, there is competition that goes on even in the middle of the pack. Many marathoners never competed at any running events in their youth, and don't feel any motivation to try to compete with anyone. They are just there to plod along, and cross the finish line, even if it takes them 5 or 6 hours to do it!

For myself, I ran track in high school, and never thought of running long distance until years later. If I enter a 5K or 10K race; I am going to notice who's in front of me, and eventually plan to overtake them before the finish line. If someone comes up behind me and passes, I cannot just let them go; even if I intended to just coast in to the finish line, I can't help myself from picking up the pace and looking for a chance to overtake them in the last quarter-mile or so.

So, even if I enter a race (which I am just starting to get back to after having to take a few years off), it's likely to turn into a competition as soon as I've identified a group that I feel that I should be able to keep pace with.....just like keeping up with the Jones's in suburbia, when it comes to money. Right now, I don't have a choice about living off in the country with no neighbours around me to compare with; but, I can control my competitive instincts and just enjoy going out for a run, by going out on my own along a path where I'm not likely to encounter too many runners and joggers.So how come you have this view about running but not about earning?

[flopstock]

The only reason these folks have done this is the press. And what has it cost them? Nothing.

[yaaarrrgg]

flopstock;1344752 wrote: The only reason these folks have done this is the press. And what has it cost them? Nothing.


I'm not sure they are so cynical. Many have already pledged to give at least half their fortunes away:

Rockefeller, Perelman Join Buffett's Charity Pledge - Bloomberg

Even the conservative T.Boone Pickens says:



“I’m not a big fan of inherited wealth. It generally does more harm than good.”

[Accountable]

Yeh, but they didn't pledge it to the federal gov't, did they? I wonder why?

[flopstock]

Accountable;1344758 wrote: Yeh, but they didn't pledge it to the federal gov't, did they? I wonder why?


Suppose they'll claim a deduction for it?

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344724 wrote: This kinda cancels out your previous rants about the income gap between the uber rich and the middle-class.
No, it doesn't! At least not during times of economic stagnation or decline, when people further down the rungs of the economic ladder start taking more notice of those at the top, and asking 'how their wealth is increasing during hard times, when everyone else is losing their jobs and losing their homes.' The elites can go in one of two directions when faced with possible civil unrest: they can advocate a return towards progressive taxation that was the policy through most of the 20th century -- which is what Warren Buffet and other moderate billionaires are advocating; or they can take the fascist route, and steer the mob towards focusing their anger and resentment against straw men and scapegoats -- usually weak and disenfranchised groups that are looked at with suspicion by the white majority. You don't seem to like these few moderate billionaires much, but I consider the unabashed corporate pigs like the Kochs and the other oil billionaires to be the ones who are bringing ruin -- because they, and the various right wing organizations they fund, are leading America down the road towards fascism, rather than give up any of their money or power!

Back in September, Timothy Noah of Slate Magazine did a 10-part series on inequality in the U.S. called The United States of Inequality

It begins with a look back at the beginning of the 20th century, when America was faced with a similar situation as today:

his was the era in which the accumulated wealth of America's richest families—the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, the Carnegies—helped prompt creation of the modern income tax, lest disparities in wealth turn the United States into a European-style aristocracy. The socialist movement was at its historic peak, a wave of anarchist bombings was terrorizing the nation's industrialists, and President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, Alexander Palmer, would soon stage brutal raids on radicals of every stripe. In American history, there has never been a time when class warfare seemed more imminent.

That was when the richest 1 percent accounted for 18 percent of the nation's income. Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income. What caused this to happen? Over the next two weeks, I'll try to answer that question by looking at all potential explanations—race, gender, the computer revolution, immigration, trade, government policies, the decline of labor, compensation policies on Wall Street and in executive suites, and education. Then I'll explain why people who say we don't need to worry about income inequality (there aren't many of them) are wrong.



I agree with your assessment but not your conclusions. People make their decisions and should pay the consequences for them. That's the way it should be. It isn't the government's role - the American government, that is - to decide for the citizenry how much one should earn and how much one can afford. The purpose of taxation is not (supposed to be) to level out income, but to pay for necessary services. While economic policy should be guided by what produces the best overall results, government policy must be bridled & limited by the Constitution, which is based on a set of ideological principles.
What you are presenting here are libertarian articles of faith. Until relatively recently, I was pretty much in agreement with them myself. But, when it comes to systems of ethics, I am a consequentialist -- so, I don't see any rule-based system, whether it is religious or politically inspired, to have any value if it doesn't lead to better results.

Levelling outcomes may not be a good rule to begin with, but if the gaps in income and living standards are leading to a society where some live lives of comfort, while others are plagued with sickness and poverty, then lofty rules about equal opportunity are worthless! Constitutions are just like bibles and other religious rule books, they have to be interpreted; and I've heard more than a few constitutional experts and historians claim that the Founding Fathers were trying to craft a document to keep their fragile confederation of former colonies alive, and not trying to create some kind of divine template that would govern future decision-makers forever.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344725 wrote: I was speaking more about their personal excesses. You're right that this legal bribery - outright purchase - of government officials has to stop. Tarp should never have happened; neither should the regulations paving the way leading up to the bailouts. I really don't care about corporate salaries.


But it goes further than governments bailing out investment banks; many Wall Street experts put the blame for the financial bubble market on a system of compensation being allowed, which gave undeservedly great rewards for risk-taking, without an equal level of penalties to curb risk: Give CEO Pay the Pink Slip -- In These Times

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344726 wrote: You're 180 degrees ass backward about legitimate earnings. All earnings made legally are legitimate.
And, it's not legal until after your taxes are paid!

The gov't deserves no more than what is absolutely necessary for the services it renders, which should likewise be no more than is absolutely necessary and run on a tight budget.
Again, another article of faith! What if expanding government, such as eliminating all this crap about the health care debate and just expanding Medicare to cover all citizens became government policy. Health care is not "absolutely necessary" in everyone's mind apparently, but a big part of the problem that the U.S. has now with high medical and prescription drug costs falls right at the doorstep of conservatives who stood shoulder to shoulder with the health insurance industry, prescription drug manufacturers, and privately run hospital corporations, in recent decades to deny health care for all.

As bad as things are up here in Canada with our aging population, the average cost of health care is about 50% of what the average American has to pay. Medicare doesn't have to cover everything; even here, extra coverage for prescription drugs, vision and other medical devices, and dentistry - have to be either be paid out of pocket if a person doesn't have an extended benefits plan at work. But, it's better than having someone with TB spreading it through the population because they can't afford to go the doctor, or diabetics dying early deaths because they can't afford treatment etc.....it all depends on what kind of society you want to live in.

[Accountable]

I keep forgetting you're Canadian. We don't have the same government, purpose of government, or societal outlook. I wish you well with your country & culture. I only wish you were as open-minded toward mine.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344862 wrote: I keep forgetting you're Canadian. We don't have the same government, purpose of government, or societal outlook. I wish you well with your country & culture. I only wish you were as open-minded toward mine.


That's it! That's all you got? Since you are such a confirmed libertarian, I was expecting that you would have something to explain why I should see no connection between growing inequality and the shift away from progressive taxation. Or why principles like interpreting the Constitution as forbidding the addition of government services, should be applied rigidly, as in the health care debate.

I am not anti-American -- which seems to be the only response you are left with here. I would have mentioned the growing wealth gap and manufacturing decline here in Canada; or the doubling of the number of millionaires and billionaires in Canada over the last ten years, at a time when middle class incomes have shrunk -- but you were the one who said previously that you only are interested in what's going on in your own country! The principles are the same, and the results have been the same wherever supply-side economic principles have been applied by governments around the world!

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1344939 wrote: That's it! That's all you got? Since you are such a confirmed libertarian, I was expecting that you would have something to explain why I should see no connection between growing inequality and the shift away from progressive taxation. Or why principles like interpreting the Constitution as forbidding the addition of government services, should be applied rigidly, as in the health care debate.Since I am libertarian (the adjective, not the noun) I believe in people having the freedom to live as they choose. You live as you choose and your life does not impact mine.

recovering conservative;1344939 wrote: I am not anti-American -- which seems to be the only response you are left with here.I never meant to imply you were anti-American, only that you're intolerant of people who wish to live differently than you do.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1344951 wrote: Since I am libertarian (the adjective, not the noun) I believe in people having the freedom to live as they choose. You live as you choose and your life does not impact mine.
In today's world, no man is an island. All of our lives impact each other, even if ever so slightly. And I no longer agree with libertarian thinking, because I think the results have to be taken into consideration when evaluating social and government policies.

I never meant to imply you were anti-American, only that you're intolerant of people who wish to live differently than you do.
If it's a struggle between personal freedoms and the common good, the welfare of the society needs to take priority. People can live as differently as they want until it has negative impacts on society. In this debate, everyone would like to pay as little in taxes as possible; but if the wealthy are gaining, while everyone else is stagnating or falling behind, then they need to cough up more money to ease the increasing income gap.

[Accountable]

Full Episodes - This Week - ABC News

Christiane is interviewing Gates, Buffet, and Turner today. Click the link tomorrow & it should be available to view.