Author Topic: Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?  (Read 1725 times)

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2003, 09:59:29 PM »
Oh, and BTW, the 2 largest economic indicators in the country are................mansions and BMW's



Well, housing and the automotive industry, but you get the idea.

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2003, 10:03:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
really, I thought the statement was that the rich have more spending power, and I agree that they do, however giving them more money will not likely increase their spending.

this part is particularly flawed

 

if you make 200k you spend 150 (that I'll agree with), but if you make 20k you spend 20k.

you seem to be lossed. we where discusing the spending power of rich verses poor, while you seem to be discussing strugling(35k) verses broke(20k). Bill gates is an example of a rich guy, and we where discussing rich guys and poor guys, it seems very obvious to me.

sorry you got confused.


Even if they do not spend the other 50k, they do invest it, which drives another sector of the U.S. Economy which is primarily service driven today.

But no matter how you slice it, even give the advantage of spending a higher % of their income, $150K pumped back into the economy is still more than 7 times that of the $20,000 the average person is spending.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I've busted my arnold to make a living, buy a home, and raise a family. I do my 50 hour weeks. My wife does 50 hours. We sacrifice to make ends meet. I respect the wealthy who earned thier way, envy the ones who inherit, and deplore those who simply want to live of the teat.

I know no one WANTS to be poor, but there are different levels to which people are willing to sacrifice to be successful. If given the drive, every person in America has the oppotunity to be relatively successful.

Offline Twist

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2003, 11:20:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Don't get me wrong. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I've busted my arnold to make a living, buy a home, and raise a family. I do my 50 hour weeks. My wife does 50 hours. We sacrifice to make ends meet. I respect the wealthy who earned thier way, envy the ones who inherit, and deplore those who simply want to live of the teat.

I know no one WANTS to be poor, but there are different levels to which people are willing to sacrifice to be successful. If given the drive, every person in America has the opportunity to be relatively successful.


Well stated sir
Razer

Hellcat FG

"They porked the Hellcat? Why did they do that?"

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2003, 12:19:28 AM »
Quote
First of all, that second quote is not mine, but nice try.


I realise my try failed :rolleyes: .  what I was trying for was to explain to you the topic that I was posting on in the first post. (the part that confused you. you know, the part when I was quoting a post that compared 200k incomes and 20k incomes, and you somehow thought we where talking about people making in the 25-37k range,  much lower range than the rich we where talking about and somewhat higher than the poor)

in the last post I even tried explaining the subject (because simply quoting it didn't help you much in the first post), and following that up with a smaller part of the original quote (again in an effort to help you get it).

ah well, like you said "nice try", maybe you can understand this post.

Offline Twist

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2003, 01:05:55 AM »
Wow, you sound like my boss when he tries to explain something, are you a manager somewhere? :D
Razer

Hellcat FG

"They porked the Hellcat? Why did they do that?"

Offline Lazerus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2003, 01:46:30 AM »
And Bill Gates makes $200k a year:rofl


Quote
mansions and BMW's don't drive the economy


Housing and the automotive industry are two of the largest indicators used when looking at the economy.

Quote
the problem with your 'rich driving the economy' argument is that most rich people have some cash left over at the end of the year. this can go into savings


Yes it can, it is their money. But investing money also drives the economy.

Quote
or they can invest it in a politician to see that the laws work the way they would prefer.


This is just laughable.

Quote
while poor and working class


A person that makes $200k doesn't work??:confused:

Quote
while poor and working class people rarely have any money left. a very large percentage of these peoples would lose their homes and be financialy wiped out, if they where to lose their income for even a couple weeks. when these people get a little more money they spend it.


Sounds like poor planning to me. This is niether my fault or my responsibility. Feel free to give them as much of your money as you want, and I will do the same if I choose to, but don't steal the fruits of my (yes I'm working class too) hard work and redistribute it.

Quote
really, I thought the statement was that the rich have more spending power, and I agree that they do, however giving them more money will not likely increase their spending.


I agree. It will likely increase their investing, which will do much more for the economy than a TV purchase.

The post is about redistribution of wealth, and it is a fact that a person that makes 20k pays a lower percentage of his income than a person that produces(earns) more, be it 35k or 200k. The current system punishes productivity. It is not a matter of being able to make a campaign contribution to the politician of your choice, it is the bribing of the voter by telling him that you will take money from the rich, the 'non-working' class apparently, and give it to away to people that haven't done what it takes to be successfull. What does it matter if Bill Gates gets the same percentage of his money back as any other citizen?

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2003, 02:49:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How excactly do you give large tax cuts to people who dont pay very much income tax anyway?  You left wing guys do realize that the upper income bracket people provide the vast majority of all income tax revenues..


Thats because the less than 1% have all the money. Who do you think toils so they accumulate all that wealth?
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline Twist

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2003, 03:11:45 AM »
I snagged this off the web, some of you may well recognize the source: :D

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
 
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
 
October 23, 2002

The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.  
 
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.  
 
 
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
 
 

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.


And another:

Democrats Get More Money From "Rich"
 
December 18, 2002
 

Another myth about "the rich" has been shattered – namely the conventional wisdom that they are all Republicans – thanks to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A December 18, 2002 Washington Times editorial reports that donors giving "small and medium amounts" in 2002 overwhelmingly supported the GOP, while "rich or deep-pocketed givers" hugely backed the Democrats!  
 
 
 Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million. Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million. The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.

"Yeah, but all those millionaires are Republicans." No, that's not a fact, my friends. The fact is that in the 2002 election cycle, those who gave a million dollars or more poured $36 million into the Democrat coffers, and a paltry $3 million into the pockets of the GOP. Again: millionaire donations went Democrat by a 12:1 margin! The two parties took in about the same amount overall – GOP: $384 million; Democrats: $350 million. Just look at the Hollywood left, and you see where the big money goes.

In addition, the GOP attracted 40% more individual donors! (George W. Bush set an all-time fund-raising record by collecting the most money from one-thousand-dollar donors in the history of presidential politics.) Far more people giving small amounts exist as contributors to the Republican Party - while Democrats skunked the GOP among the super-rich. That's no surprise, since nine of the twelve richest members of the United States Senate are Democrats.

We're going to put this up on our website homepage permanently, right alongside the story that the top 50% of wage earners, those who make more than $26,000 a year, pay over 96% of all income taxes. This myth that the Republicans are the party of the rich is breathing its last gasps, so we're giving you these figures to help put it out of its misery for good. This is not a political commercial you have to disprove. These are actual results of campaign contributions in just the 2002 cycle, which is why this class-envy garbage isn't getting the traction it used to.


And one more article, this one from the Washington Times:


Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1%  

Dateline: December 18, 2002
Headline: The richest 1 percent
Byline: The Washington Times

So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.

But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.

In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.

But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.


 

There seems to be more of a connection between wealth and liberals than I previously thought, good topic muck.

Ok, all done. Fire away!!
Razer

Hellcat FG

"They porked the Hellcat? Why did they do that?"

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Im an Independent
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2003, 03:24:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Twist
I snagged this off the web, some of you may well recognize the source: :D

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
 
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
 
{QUOTE]


Yes its fuzzy math again:} Of course the rich pay a bigger %. They make the most money. If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income.

In a seemingly never-ending campaign to 'give the rich a break,' the top marginal income tax rate has been reduced from its all-time high of 91% to the current 33%. This reflects the failure of our society to properly educate the people about citizenship, responsibility, and duty. To the continuous detriment of social progress, Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually. We need a restoration of fiscal responsibility, and a recognition of the essential fact that those who benefit most from society have the largest obligation to give back. Until we return to this (once common) understanding, Republicans will continue to erode the fabric of our society by offering the rich a free ride and encouraging the politics of greed.
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2003, 03:38:49 AM »
"If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income."

You were talking about fuzzy math?

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2003, 03:47:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income."

You were talking about fuzzy math?



What dont you understand about the math?
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2003, 04:22:53 AM »
So in your mind  20% of 10 is more in % terms than 20% of 100 is as as a % of 100?

I think that logic is kinda poor....

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Re: Im an Independent
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2003, 06:08:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Silat
[B To the continuous detriment of social progress, Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually.  [/B]


No shirt!

This idea that your money is YOUR MONEY has got to be reversed!

Wherever would anyone get THAT idea?

 (hmmmmmmm)

Hey Silat! Your money ISN'T your money! It's mine and I'd appreciate it if you could return all of it to ME.

Thanks ever so!
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Twist

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2003, 07:37:29 AM »
:rofl  Toad!
Razer

Hellcat FG

"They porked the Hellcat? Why did they do that?"

Offline muckmaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Wealth and Liberalism..a connection?
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2003, 07:47:47 AM »
Excellent Post, Twist.

Very compelling, and worth the time to read it.

If everyone could post facts instead of emotions, we could learn alot from each other.

Of course, an open mind would help too.