Without RICH there is no POOR - ever stop to think about tha

Mr. Cavuto is not only a very good TV personality on FOX, but he is also a very well rounded individual. Some of us believe he outshines the Rathers, Brokars and Jennings, tenfold. Oracle
=================================================ByNeil Cavuto
January 31, 2004
They call it class warfare. For the life of me, I don't know why.
There's nothing classy about pitting one group of people against another. There's nothing classy about telling the rich in this country that their gains are somehow ill-gotten.There's nothing classy about saying the rich get back more money but never saying boo about the simple fact they pay more money -- a lot more money.And there's nothing classy about lying. Because truth be told, this isn't about us and what we're paying. It's about the government and what it's keeping.Some people really like the government, trust the government and want to give more money to the government. I am not in that camp. I am in the camp that says I'd much sooner trust you with your money than any bureaucrat with your money.But it's more fundamental than that. The reason why I find myself throwing things at the television every time I hear Democratic candidates speak is that they all but say they hate rich people. Rich people are greedy. Rich people are selfish. Rich people don't deserve a break.Well, give me a break! Look, I've known rich people who were fools and poorer people who were fools. Trust me on this one, charlatans know no pedigree, and decency knows no salary range. You can make a lot of money and have zero scruples or make no money and have no scruples.But I'll tell you this: Most rich people I've known are good, hard-working, start-from-scratch people. Contrary to the impression that they've somehow come into this world with silver spoons in their mouths, government statistics show the vast majority of John Kerry's targeted $200,000-and-over crowd is self-made. If they have a silver spoon, they bought it with their own money and their own sweat.You know, not once in my life has a poor person hired me. Rich guys, or at least richer guys, did. Trust me, they weren't all saints, but all the ones I've known were willing to give this Italian-Irish kid from working-class roots a chance . . . whether it be scooping ice cream in a shop or churning out perfume in a factory.Poor people get their breaks from rich people. The government can hand out a check. But the rich guy makes an investment. There's a fundamental difference here that marks the very essence of capitalism. The best way out of the gutter isn't a payment from a bureaucrat but an opportunity from a businessman.The class of our system of government is that it doesn't distinguish between classes at all. All can share in the American dream if they toil long enough and sacrifice enough. Some have neither the appetite nor work ethic to bother with this, but that doesn't mean we abuse those who do.Only in America can we turn on those who made this country great and tear them down precisely because they are. Look, I'm not saying we have to all shout a big thank you, but they're due a hell of a lot more than a screw you!There's nothing classy in that argument, just as there's nothing classy in saying that the rich don't already more than foot the bill. The top 1 percent of wage-earners in this country account for more than a third of the taxes collected in this country. The top 5 percent pay more than half. If that's getting off lightly, what's considered getting hosed?You make more in this country. You pay more in this country. It was that way before the president's tax cuts. It's been that way since the president's tax cuts. It's amazing to me that bureaucrats who suck off the system are bashing the guys who give 'em the milk!That's the real class story.Pity there's not a politician with the class to report it.©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Who is really launching class warfare?? When Cavuto spouts crap lies like this one:"There's nothing classy about telling the rich in this country that their gains are somehow ill-gotten."Who is getting what group riled up?We on the left never say that their gains are ill gotten. That is complete crap.What we say is this: is it fair for the poor to pay more in total amounts to the government as a percentage of income than the wealthiest (when taking into account withholdings, social security etc)...We on the left LOVE the rich - because we ALL WANT TO BE RICH. The problem is that achieving the American dream is being focused on fewer and fewer as average people work more for less.And the concentration of wealth heads steadily to those at the top.Eventually, if the trend continues, class warfare is likely.Until then, listening the the Rich whine about the left is simply pathetic.chris.

quote: We on the left never say that their gains are ill gotten. That is complete crap

Reference:
www.asmainegoes.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=020902

quote:Bush had a silver spoon crammed up his ass from birth .. and would have gone to jail were it not for daddy..

quote:
~Jr. had a lot of advantages you and I never would be given...~And here's what makes it all worse:
While other kids were dying in Vietnam, this silver spoon snot was leap frogged for domestic duty and didn't bother to show up....
Chris.

Would you like those words "for here or to go", Chris? Do you prefer to eat them with a plastic or a silver spoon?Seems you can't even keep track of the "crap" you spew yourself!!Pot calling the kettle black?Who's casting stones now? You are a liberal Democrat, are you not?Swallow your self-righteousness, please....[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: LMD ]

My congratulations LMD. What you did in your response to LL was nothing short of brilliant.Oracle ;)[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: Oracle ]

To LMD. :D :D :D Al

Chris, look up the Earned Income Tax Credit and tell me that the poor pay a higher percentage. The EITC is a direct transfer of taxes from those who pay to those who don't. It is not unusual for some individuals to receive a refund 4 or 5 times greater that the amount that was actually witheld from their checks. Yes Chris they get BACK more than they PAID. It more than makes up for the other witholdings such as FICA and SS, which as you are WELL aware are not taxes, but contributions to retirement. You tax the rich pukes, make me sick. For the record I am no where near the $200,000 income range, but say as LOUDLY as I can, let them keep as much as possible. It belongs to them, not you bleeding heart, elitist, superior (in you own mind) bastards, who believe only you know how to best spend other peoples money.There, I've gotten it off my chest. Al

You guys are full of crap.Show me where I say Bush had ill gotten gains??I think Gore was born with a silver spoon in the unmentionables too, which is why I disliked him...So what the heck do the comments above have to do wtih class warfare...For the record, I do think that Bush made some money by ill methods - when he sold out his stock in Harken before it collapsed - and used the money to buy the baseball team...But I don't begrudge Bush his station in life... I can, however, point out that some people worked hard to get where the are, as opposed to others who largely inherited it... I think the one is deserving of more PRAISE than the other, but the other did not necessarily gain station through ILL GOTTEN GAINS...Which was the phrase I pointed out in the Cavuto article,which you have chosen to ignore..Chris..
I'll take my words to go thank you. I stand by them.

You guys can say what you want about Chris, but you've got to admit he's never had a bad word to say about himself. :D

"Poverty had no causes, wealth has causes"!!The late great Lord Peter Bauer!!!

Some of you may not quite understand what I am about to point out about Chris, otherwise known as LL here on AMG. You see, Chris' family name is unusual and it is french in origin. Unfortunately depending on your personal outlook, our friend Chris' last four letters of his family name in french mean "God".And that explains quite a lot, to those of you who may have been completely unawares of LL's true status. He sometimes thinks he must live up to his name.In case you didn't know, that's why whenever he types his replies about almost anything and everything, he feels very confident about his opinions and overall statements.After all, he is of a divine stature, he's an attorney for God's sake!!Oracle :D

If the rich man doesn't spend his money, the poor man doesn't work..

Oracle, you've out done yourself in idiocy with your last post on this thread. Ad hominimem (sp) arguments, such as this, only serve to point out your short comings in logic and rationality.charlie

Charlize I stand by every single word.Whether it is serious or even perhaps not so serious.Oracle

Oracle, your nitwittiness never ceases to amaze me. I know how much you hate to be confused by the facts, but here is an interesting table from that bastion of left-wing bleeding hearts, the U.S. Census Bureau. It is a chart depicting the shift in income from the lower four-fifths of households to the highest fifth, and in particular to the top five percent. (The chart only goes to 2001 -- before the "save the rich" tax cuts. Want to guess how the chart would look now?)http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie3.html Class war? That war's over, folks. The rich have won. To the victor go the spoils -- and boy have they gone. . .[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: Born yesterday ]

Here's another one. Note that there are two tables, the second being adjusted for inflation.http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01.html So, the top of the second fifth (i.e., the middle middle-class) went from $27,274 in 1967 to $33,314 in 2001 -- a whopping $7,040 in 34 years. In the same time, the top of the fourth fifth went from $53,181 to $83,500, an increase of $30,314. And the top five percent went from $85,334 to $150,499, for an increase of $65,165 -- nearly 10 times the increase for the middle middle-class. Now I understand why a genius like Oracle would pity those poor rich people. No wonder they deserve more tax cuts. And let's by all means do away with that mean old "death tax." I mean, it's only fair that people who actually work for a living subsidize those who make their fortunes the old-fashioned way -- by inheriting them.[ 01-31-2004: Message edited by: Born yesterday ]

Right, George. You bet. Sure thing.http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

Born Yesterday Wrote:

quote:And let's by all means do away with that mean old "death tax." I mean, it's only fair that people who actually work for a living subsidize those who make their fortunes the old-fashioned way -- by inheriting them.

So according to you, if my wife and I both work 80 hours a week for ten years to grow our own business, we should not have the option of leaving the business we built to our children. Is that what you are saying? Most of the "inherited" wealth has been tax-sheltered years ago. The estate tax hits most brutally on those who have worked the hardest to achieve. But you know this Born. Keep telling the lie long enough, and maybe it will become the truth. You, like Chris, ignore the EITC, and other means tested programs that the poor are eligible for. You gloss over the fact that almost fifty percent of wage earners, pay no income taxes at all. As poor as I grew up, I never assumed that it was someone else's fault. It made me want to go to college and to work hard. I did not then and do not now, believe that I am owed anything. If you don't like where you are, go out and do something about it. You know what Born? In the final analysis wealth does not belong to the government. I'll never live next door to Martha Stewart and I don't care. It is not a bad thing to be rich, and they do not have the obligation of making the lives of poor people better. Al

Al:Is your business worth more than $1million? If not your children would not have paid a dime..George:Here's why I think you misunderstood the tax return, you aren't lying...For a family earning in the low 20s a) they simply cannot in a million years afford to contribute large amounts to their retirement and b) retirement contributions were ALREADY tax free (above the line)... unless this family had the ability to pay social security, medicare, health insurance, AND sock away 25% of their gross income in a retirement account....Which of course is idiocy...$20k a year yields $1700 per month. $1700
Mortgage $700 (being nice assuming its low)
RE Taxes $100
Food $400 (family of four)
Car Gas $100 (again assuming low driving)
Withholding
Taxes $170
Health
Insurance $200 TOTAL EXPENSES: $1,670AND I didn't include recreation, vacation, sports for the kids, car tax, repairs and maintenance on the home and car, electricity, oil etc...George, please show me where this person is socking away gobs of cash for retirement?Chris.

And for the record Oh Oracle Whose Name Implies That Which He Accused Me Of...My name comes from L'Homme De Dieu (the man of god)... my first namesake was a crusader in the 1200s and was in a battle north of Haifa in Israel... His ability to kill the heathen earned him the assumption god was on his side...And we wonder why the Arabs are paranoid...p.s. I never assume I'm right, but I'll argue passionately until I find chinks in my logic.c

quote:Originally posted by George:
... Their employer pays nearly 100% of the cost of health insurance and has a generous matching program for the company's 401K ...

Again, the employee accepts a LOWER salary paid directly to him or her, in exchange for the "husbandry" of the employer.The history is fascinating ... WWII, Kaiser Shipyards, California ...Otherwise, I agree with you ... actually, I don't disagree at all, just trying to make a point :([ 02-01-2004: Message edited by: billPhillips ]

George:I read the web page you pointed out... your friend is a rare bird indeed - no mortgage etc..Do you have problems with this obviously long time employer of your friend offering such a paltry wage?Chris.

quote:... And without the Bush tax cuts, the total federal and state income taxes paid by the person would have been over $2100 instead of a little over $800.

George,
Thank you for posting this real-life example of how Bush's tax cuts have made a difference in many people's lives.

One thing you so-called "conservatives"* like to do is pretend that the only tax anyone pays is the income tax. (Okay, and the estate tax, also, when it suits your purposes.) The simple truth is that there are all kinds of taxes, and when you add them all up (sales tax, property tax,excise taxes, gas tax, meals tax, booze and tobacco taxes, the infamous "snack tax," etc., etc.), lower income people pay far more of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. That could have something to do with why the wealthy have more money left at the end of the day, no matter how much they consume. This should be self-evident, but here's some reading for you: (It's a .pdf file, meaning you need Adobe Reader. It's free and easy to find on the net.)
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pr.pdf
So, George, I'm not calling you a liar. Let's just say you know your way around a debate, and you know you don't need to volunteer facts that contradict your thesis. But you seem like a bright guy, so I can't believe you don't really know what's going on. . .
*BTW, I say "so-called conservatives" because in my humble opinion, real conservatives pay their own way, and don't expect their children to finance their prosperity.[ 02-01-2004: Message edited by: Born yesterday ]

OK. I went to IRS.gov as I was really interested in this.I assumed me makes $25,000 per year (that's $12/hour) and I assume he paid NOTHING to a tax deferred pension or retirement thereby making his entire income subject to taxes... I also made no reduction of the wages for withholdings (taxable income being less than gross income) so this is a WORST case scenario..Here is the breakdown:......Standard Ded......Total Tax
2001..$13,400...........$1,744
2002..$13,850...........$1,113
2003..$15,600...........$943SO I do see clearly that the taxes have been reduced almost in half as a result of a) increased standard deduction and b) lower tax rate...But I recon if he had filled the tax form out completely he would have owed almost no taxes in any of these years.. perhaps a slight decrease...But I certainly don't see where you get in excess of $2,000.I'm not being difficult, I really want to understand.Chris.

News flash: the rich are different than you and I - they have more money. That's what makes them rich. If they had less money than us, they wouldn't be the rich, you and I would be.Anyone who follows the political sport knows that the vast majority of bleeder liberals consider business and capitalism fundamentally profane and the root cause of every social problem. They further believe that this core element of our experiment in liberty encompasses the evils of private property ownership.All the arguments being given here against "the rich" are the backbone of socialism and its more virulent offspring. Someone in an earlier thread suggested we would have a violent uprising suggestive of communism coming into being.Why don't you socialists all just say you are for government run redistribution of all personal assets?Chris doesn't have to say the specific words "all wealth is ill gotten" to reveal what we know lurks inside his left-wing pinko-liberal commie "soul", anymore than I have to say the specific words "liberals are so far out-of-touch with rational thought it makes my head spin" for you all to know what lurks in my right-wing extremist hypocrit soul.Let's all just hope that ms. ellie starts off each day swallowing a band-aid along with the rest of his vitamins.Even if band-aids are made by some huge corporation that exists only by virtue of raping and plundering millions of employees over the years.Can someone replay the restaurant bill anecdote again? Seems like we need it.muPS: Kudo's to Snow-walker for "If the rich man doesn't spend his money, the poor man doesn't work."[ 02-01-2004: Message edited by: Melvin Udall ]

Government has no right whatsoever to confiscate any of a person's wealth simply because he/she has died and was prosperous. I support government actions with the intention of helping those in need, however the hounding of a bereaved family for the deceased's money is not the mark of a compassionate society. It is more important to me to protect the freedom of individuals to preserve their property from government thievery than to argue over the work ethic of trust fund babies. If we have resorted to this method of tax collection its past time to examine what we are spending the people's money on and how much.

In "1984," George Orwell discussed the concept of "doublethink," the acquired ability to sincerely hold two mutually incompatible beliefs at the same time. This thread has offered two examples of such thinking: First example:
1. Income redistribution is bad, and is class warfare.
2. It is fair and just that (as demonstrated in the link I posted previously) massive amounts of income have been and continue to be redistributed from the poor and middle class to the richest Americans. Second example:
1. This is America, a country founded on the principle that a person can start with nothing and if they work hard enough, accumulate vast wealth and power.
2. It is fair and just that we create a hereditary aristocracy in which people can accumulate vast fortunes (and through campaign contributions, vast political power) by doing absolutely no work, other than the "work" of inheriting a fortune and turning it over to the trust department of their bank. Keep it up, guys. And never forget: WAR IS PEACE.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.[ 02-01-2004: Message edited by: Born yesterday ]

http://pythie.cepremap.ens.fr/~piketty/Papers/Presse/TheNation050104.htm Yes, it's Krugman. But it's also based on research done by Business Week. (A bastion of bleeding-heart liberalism?)

Why isn't everyone out enjoying the beautiful day ... or does your 802.11b reach (much) farther than mine? :confused:

I have a question, and this seems like a good thread to bring it up.
Let's assume that I make 50,000 dollars a year. I pay 20% federal taxes on this 50,000 dollars. (These figures are purely arbitary, of course.) I come to the conclusion that my family needs more money, so I work massive amounts of overtime, or I start a business, or by some other means I work to make more money. The next year, I bring home 80,000 dollars--only to discover that instead of being taxed at twenty percent, I now am taxed at forty percent. In other words, by working harder and bringing in more money for my family, I now am being taxed at a higher rate for my work.
Frankly, the logic of this totally escapes me. We are basically punshing people for bettering themselves and making more money. Whoever thought up this tax system is stating that achievement is apparently meant to be punished. It's not like I'm not paying more taxes if the tax rate stayed at 20%--I would be. But, by raising the tax rate to 40%, I would be paying a higher percentage of taxes, making it almost counterproductive to worker harder in the first place.
I imagine that there are supporters of the progressive tax system out there; could you explain to me why exactly this is a good idea?