Sorry Rupert, did not read it all the way thru.

I did see some cases in which inheritance would disallow a family business to continue. That would not be fair. I just dont believe that taxing the heck out of rich people for the purpose of redistributing wealth works. It just puts them into a defensive shell of saving and really causes a scrooge effect. I think it is counter productive.

I really dont mind being taxed. I just want it to be easy. I personally would gladly pay 30% of my income if all I had to do was pay 30% of my income. But it is never that easy.

i guess the question i have as far as taking from the rich ala robin hood. who decides how much is enough? i have more than some, is it too much? others have more than i do. who decides? does bill gates have a crapload? well, yeah. and he also is very charitable. so should someone take what he is already giving, so they can give according to who needs it--who decides who needs it?
thing is, if there is a flat tax-i pay 10% (for instance) and gates pays his 10%...now obviously, he has more, so he should give more according to some--but isn't 10% of a billion a hell of a lot of money??
basketball players make a ton of money--too much? well, if they didn't get paid so much, you think the guy selling beer in the stands would make more? hell no, the owner would pocket more!
there is no easy answer as to what to do.

Exactly. I agree with you 100%.

Not to make light of such a serious post, but it costs a SHIAT TON to do the brakes on those suckers! :eek:

Bill Gates would not have to pay much in taxes even if they did raise his tax rate to 95%. Most of his money is in stock. You don't have to pay any tax on that until you sell the stock. So even if his stock appreciates by $5 billion a year, he wouldn't have to pay any taxes on that until he sells the stock. He may never sell it. When he dies, he may actually leave the stock to charity. In that way, the charity would receive more money. Let's say he planned on leaving the money to charity. If he had $40 billion in stock and he sold the stock, he would have to pay $20 billion in taxes and the other $20 billion would go to charity. If he did not sell the stock, but gave the stock to the charity, then the charity would get the whole $40 billion.

As I said before, Warren Buffet is leaving all of his money to charity. I think that is around $50 billion. I bet that money will help a lot more people than if the government would have taken it all.

All this commentary simply dances around the issue...my point (my only point) is that all people are connected and that which harms one harms us all, I said at the outset that equal distribution of wealth will probably never happen...goes against the greedy nature of man....but it should! In my perfect world...Gates wouldn't have all that stock so that's a moot point. Someone asked who determines how much is too much? The obvious (and only) answer is...each one of us. This crazy idea that life is about who gets the most is so counterproductive...you can live in a solid gold mansion on a hill...but if one day the peasants riot and burn it down with you inside, well.. are you better off than if you had a comfortable dwelling and there were no rich folks and peasants, just people sharing what certainly is more than enough to go around? As long as people delude themselves into believing that they DESERVE more than the next guy, we will never have peace...or real freedom. The rich work hard? Some certainly have...but ever hear Dylan's song, Hollis Brown? There are folks who have nothing but have worked hard all their lives, 50 years in the fields from sunup to sundown only to lose everything to sickness, natural disaster, or some greedy bastard stealing it. Fair? What is fair? Again, to quote a Dylan song..."steal a little and they call you thief, steal a lot and they make you king"!

You said in another post that communism is not bad. Communism is terrible. Even if you had a communist nation that went exactly by the book, it would be terrible. If everyone was going to make the same amount of money and nobody could live in a house bigger than 1,500 sq. feet, there would be no incentive to work hard. What do you think drives people? This country would be totally ruined. It is the capitalist environment that produces a genius like Steve Jobs. There wouldn't be people like Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet if we had communism here. Why would these guys work their butts off 16 hours a day if they could make the same amount of money being a waiter. People like Buffet and Jobs create tens of thousands of jobs. Our country would be in big trouble if we didn't have people like them, and I don't think we would have people like them if we had communism here. The productivity of the country would go straight downhill if we had communism because nobody would have any incentive to work hard.

I think there would be way more poverty here if we had communism, even if it was communism in its most pristine state with no corruption. Communism doesn't sound that bad in theory but when you really think about it, you realize how terrible it would be.

Another argument that ignores my point...why would people work hard if not to acquire wealth? That's the genius of capitalism, it flowers from the darker aspects of the human mind where self-serving greed abounds and blocks out the light of community and brotherhood (how's that for overstated and flowery prose?)...in all seriousness though, it is accurate albeit a bit self-indulgent. Again, back to basics...we are taught from birth on that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions...wealth and power. I believe that a successful life is otherwise measured therefore I view wealth and power as tools to be shared. Communism is a word...a term coined by a bunch of old men, it's meaningless. A society where everyone has an equal share may someday actually evolve...I'm not holding my breath. But anyway, to answer the question...people may someday work hard to build a better, safer , kinder world for everyone...realizing that "everyone" includes them!

Pete what planet are you on? If anything the difference between rich and poor gets wider year by year. It would take a revolution, and a violent one at that, to redistribute the kind of wealth gap there is now....

Actually, while a violent revolution would possibly succeed in temporarily shifting wealth around, only a change in people's ideology could sustain it. As long as people buy the two big lies of civilization: (1) some folks are better/more deserving than others and (2) possessions and power are the purpose of life, there will never be an equal distribution of anything EXCEPT misery!

Realistically, some people can't get out of their own way and will be poor no matter what.

But its what a society values. If a movie star gets 25 million per movie and a librarian makes 25k, we obvioulsy believe the movie star has more value to society.

The issue has much more to do with the fact that the people at the top take more than ever before, they were always rich, but the numbers now vs. the middle class are staggering. But I can't see how anything changes.

I don't believe that Randy, people aren't poor because they are inferior, there are a million reasons behind every person's outcome. I do agree about the gap and again...only a change in ideology will change anything!

I don't think that the quality of life would improve for people in a society that was set up for everyone to have an equal share. I think the quality of life would decrease for practically everyone. The productivity for such a society would decrease so much that I think the quality of life would probably decrease for everyone.

I strongly disagree with your contention that "we are taught from birth that the purpose of life is to succeed by accumulating the most possessions....wealth and power". Were you taught that? I certainly wasn't. I don't know anyone who was taught that. Maybe a few people were taught that. Donald Trump seems like he may have been taught that. LOL.

Anyway, I think that if you did a poll in this country, I think you would find the opposite. I think that most people would say that money is important, but I think very few would say that it is the most important thing to them.

Inferior is a strong word, I sure didn't use it....But the fact that IQ is a relative predictor of future success shouldn't be simply discarded. If you have an IQ of 80 and aren't an athlete, you won't be rich. Done deal. If its 150, you may not be rich either, but you'll have a shot.

By the way, I dont think being rich is the end all of how to rate success as a human being. But since so many do, we might as well go with it in this thread.

Again, you are linking productivity to personal gain while denying that is what we are taught...yes, I was and so is everyone...perhaps more subtle than I make it sound but totally pervasive!

Well, if you use wealth as the measure you are skewing the results from my point of view but lets discuss that...an "idiot sevant" can have an IQ of 60 and end up wealthy. Mine is over 150 and I'm poor as a church mouse so there are always exceptions. My argument is that we judge a person's value by their possessions and apply labels based on same. If we viewed everyone as equal, then there would be no reason to rank them and "poor" would be a meaningless term. I believe in free will but realize we are molded by our experiences (environment) so nobody is destined to "always be" anything. Again...this is my opinion, my view...and it is a minority view!

EXACTLY the reason I don't have one!:rolleyes:

One of the great things about this country is that even people who don't make a lot of money here, still have a pretty good quality of life. Most people I know that are even in the lowest paying jobs have some if not all of the following things: an apartment, a car, a television, a VCR, a telephone, a cell phone, a computer, etc.

If you are at the bottom of the econmic level in most countries, you are not going to have those things. If you are poor in Afghanistan, you probably live in a mud hut with no electricity.

The bottom line is that our system may not be perfect. There are plenty of inequities. But I think our system is better than any other system and I think the quality of life would decrease for everyone if you tried to have a society where everyone had an equal share. In a soceity like that, people would not have computers, cars, and cell phones and stuff like that.

Somer: You're about my age and our circumstances are close but I would heartily disagree that we were taught that from birth! My earliest memories are of my duty to my fellow man and treatment of such. I worked my butt off during H.S. for cash,and usually had a 2nd job to add income while I raised my family. I'm not envious of Gates,or Walton,Pickens,Buffet,Paul Allen or any of the many people that busted their butts to excel in their fields. The money to these Folks was always secondary,I believe, and I vigorously defend their right to keep much of what they've earned. For some reason you view them as malevolent or avaristic. The rich are not responsible for this societys' ills...and the burden to fix what's broken should be shared by all men and women of the "community" of our society. As our Constitution states, all men are created equal..but it's true that all don't have the same opportunity to succeed. That's where the framework of our society steps in and gets people educated and trained. The purpose of this is to enable people to take care of themselves and to follow whatever their dreams may be. Some dreams are harder to accomplish than others...and there are far too many people who blame others for their failings /lack of success. I could go on..but you get my drift, and the only idiot savant I know who made any money was the Rainman

why would people work hard if not to acquire wealth?

Why would people want to lay around doing nothing? I dont work hard to make money. I work hard because I like working hard. I dont like sitting around doing nothing. I will work hard at anything, just as long as I dont have to sit around and be lazy. I have to be doing something more than what others might consider total hedonism (sipping a margarita on the beach watching pretty girls). I got to get up and get in the surf and start splashing around, build a sand castle something... how can people just sit still and do nothing.

So I personally dont get the lazy thing. That people work to make money. Lots of retired people work very hard and dont make a dime.

Zeig: How much IS moonshine in Arkansas?:)

Pgardn: It's quite simple really....this is the Age of Entitlement! Everything is owed to someone and and its their right to have thus and such. The fact of the matter is that it's incumbent on the society,not the govt, to take care of those less fortunate. Some of this burden has been borne by the Red Cross,Salvation Army,Goodwill,and various charitable organizations and food banks. If we as a society dont "burn out" our teachers and leaders, we could make a sizeable dent in the conditions of many folks....and then there's family!

P,
You have a strong work ethic, as a great deal of people here do, but, many people do not. If you want witness go into a mcdonalds in the inner city, they are being paid and don't care. Apathy in the workplace is going to happen. If you take out the monetary element from working, most of them would slow to a stop. Some people would rather do as little as possible and just enough to get paid. my parents always taught me, it doesn't matter what you do, but whatever it is, give everything.

Interestingly enough Sommer makes his argument that money does not equal personal value but wants to redistribute the money anyway. This is kind of a silly argument isn't it?
The sad truth is that equality does not, has not, nor will ever exist anywhere. We are only familiar with our own society but racism, discrimination, ethnic cleansing, poverty, starvation, etc are a worldwide issue and always have been and always will. Human nature dictates. Humans are weak and humans are strong. Humans are smart and humans are dumb. Humans are not made equally. The problems is not that the rich are prospering, it is that the poor are failing. Lashing out at one group wont help another. It is a simplistic argument that is so foolish I cant believe that someone with a 150 IQ would attempt to make it. Taxing individuals to extreme means demeans accomplishment and achievement. And for those who are born rich, why discriminate against them without reason? Because of where they were born? How is that any different than discriminating against a persons skin color? To discriminate against any person for an event totally out of their control is crazy.
Also I would think that a person with a 150 IQ would realize the folly of giving our government billions of dollars and expecting any REAL help for the poor.

This is of course why I never have and never will post my score on the net...people can't help themselves but to attempt to belittle someone with whom they disagree! IQ scores are a very very subjective measure of intelligence and I only responded to another poster...you raised some valid questions, too bad you felt the need to keep harping on some man-made measure of what we call intellect. Since it seems somehow important to you, please note that I didn't designate a specific number but merely indicated a score over the number previously mentioned....
Now, regarding your first point....there is no discrepancy in me stating that wealth is not the true measure of a life while stating that everyone should experience a measure of economic equality...it isn't silly to desire a world free of unnecessary suffering and poverty, and having a world where all folks share the resources in no way values or devalues them on that basis...that is beyond silly, it's a stupid and deliberate misrepresentation.
Point #2...I totally reject the defeatest attitute that because things are a certain way they will always be that way! The old "word of Christ" BS that the poor will always be with us is taken out of context (as DTS and others have pointed out). If I am correct in my belief that all men (and women) are connected, that they are all brothers (and sisters), then your view is merely perception...and perceptions do change over time!
Point #3...discriminating against the rich? Lets see...we can have a world where everyone shares and lives and works together for the good of all or we can have a world where a lucky few have everything while the vast majority suffer...now again, who is discriminating against who???

You posted your IQ score, you opened the door , not me.
I dont see where taking from the rich will relieve the suffering of the oppressed. The reasons behind the "bad things in the world" are not all related to money. You seem to suffer from reverse discrimination or perhaps just pure and simple jealousy. You want to create by tearing down instead of building up. My "defeatest attitude" stems from the realization that all men are NOT equal despite your determiniation that we are all 'connected'. I am sure that my skills and intellegence levels in certain matters are far greater than yours as yours in certain matters are greater than mine. That does not make us equals despite any connection that we may have. Just as the strong survive in the wild, natural selection dictates that some will overcome while some will fail. The strong should not have to pay a penalty for being strong.

Think of the world if we gave all people equal opportunity at the moment of our birth. Do you not think that some would lead while others would follow? Would not some become great successes while others become common criminals? You seem to equate wealth with a poor sense of morality. As though the rich are somehow taking advantage of the poor by being rich?

Perfect world models are silly unless you are stoned or tripping on acid. If we all lived in perfect harmony and cured all diseases the world would run out of food and fresh water in 6 months. Ambition is not a crime, nor is being wealthy and spending your money in the manner that you please. The rich cant inject ambition into the poor. Many rich people started out life as poor as dirt and worked and worked and got a lucky break or two and found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If not for that dream, whats to motivate the poor? Why work hard to achieve when Sommerfrost is going to steal from the rich so that we have "equality"?

:D
That's a sort of game. set. match. thing. There is really no combatting this example. If you leveled the playing field, it would just become unequal immediately again. Well said.

I struggle with this idea -- as I would like for our government to tax the wildly wealthy more (not 90% though), but then again the government may not be the best source of success in combatting poverty given their incredible track record thus far. So no matter how you approach it, you end up at the same problem. We need more money and more resources to combat poverty and the wild inequality we have -- but what do we do? We take the money from the rich and let the government waste it on ineffective ways to motivate the poor and poverty stricken? It's a catch-22, because you lose both ways. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying we haven't figured out how to do it yet. How do we really help those stuck in poverty and unable to get out while at the same time not just handing money over to those in poverty due to their laziness and lack of motivation? You can't have a motivation test on paper to determine who gets the actual help and who gets a hearty "too bad for you."

And it's far easier when i'm not wildly rich, because I'm pretty sure that if I somehow got there, I'd be pissy about people wanting more of my money too because I would say I had earned it fair and square.....

Unlss you specify specific groups or demographics it is impossible to come up with any blanket solution or plan to deal with the poor and suffering. Certainly taxing the rich to death will not solve anything except satisfy those who envy the wealthy. I always thought it strange that the first group that it attacked when dealing with the poor is the rich. I'm sure that I personally am not considered rich by most on this board, however if I was to relocate to a third world country with the same income level I would be considered mega wealthy. It is all relative.
Most people who attack the wealthy are simply envious. It is easy to take the supposed high groind when you dont have anything to lose.
My standard of living allows me to be able to live in a great house in an upscale neighborhood. I drive a luxury SUV. I own racehorses. Should I sell these things, move into public housing and send the govt my money? Why take from me for others that have no connection to me except for the fact that we are "brothers" according to Sommerfrost? It makes no sense. What I'm not who we are talking about? Bill Gates then? Should he not deserve to do with his money what he pleases? His CREATIONS have advanced the world far more than the 30 billion that he is worth would.
We are not robots. We are people. We love. We hate. We are imperfect being living in an imperfect world. Accept the rich as you do the poor. Dont disciminate against sucessful people because they are sucessful. Dont try to set another persons morality level. If I said that I hate the poor because they are worthless people who drag down society, what would you think of me? So why is ok to say the same thing of the rich?

Well CS, I don't know about your concept of "opening the door"....I really don't care about it, but you sure seem fixated on it. You equate success with wealth...I don't, and that is something I doubt we will reach common ground on! Jealous of the wealthy...why? Anyway, I don't care about the accumulation of wealth but I do care when folks' greed harms others. Is a person evil because they are rich? Of course not, nor are they "inferior" because they are poor. Everyone has talents, and everyone has weaknesses...how does that reflect on their intrinsic "value"?? Again, you are using a measure of a person's worth that I totally reject...so there is no real chance that we will agree here! All I'm saying is that you can't measure my philosophy using your yardstick...do you understand that? Let me try one last time here...I see all of creation as being connected, all people as being connected, we are all part of that which we call mankind and we are all part of the universes which in turn are part of the creator, that makes us all equal...it can be no other way! Now, you may reject this philosophy, you may even make fun of it, that's your decision...but it's pointless for us to argue whether my view is true or not...it's true to me! I believe that the world's resources should be shared equally by everyone and that no one has a "right" to take more than their share at the expense of others!

CS, could not have said it any better thank you.

I'm still not grasping your point about some peoples' greed hurting others! Are you talking about the US as a capitalistic society, or do you target the oil and energy companies! Being wealthy is not a crime,nor is it wrong! In this society, the idea is to carry your own weight...most do,some don't. We have flawed systems in place for healthcare and jobless and homeless,but it's wrong to blame the rich for societys' ills....most likely it's the people who are respnsible for societys' ills.

Timm,
I used Bill Gates as an example simply because, last I heard, he was the richest person in the world, I prefaced my remarks by saying that as far as I know, he's a decent guy. Some folks here tend to take things far too personally...I don't care if a person has a "luxury SUV" or that he feels the need to inform us of said ownership, the problem isn't people, it's society's mores and beliefs...we are rooted as a society in the belief that the purpose of life, as George Carlin would say, is getting more and more stuff. Do I blame "rich folks"? No, I blame the value system and set of beliefs that creates rich folks. I believe in a world where the purpose of hard work is helping others and sharing the benefits...utopian? Of course, that's how all belief systems are structured...around goals, dreams and views of what constitutes "perfection". Christians believe in a "heaven" occupied by god and angels, I believe that the creator is here...within each of us...or more accurately, that we are part of that creator as are all the universes. The problem with wealth and power is that it creates a desire for more of the same...and people suffer as a result....today, there are two worlds, one occupied by the rich and powerful and one occupied by the rest of us. Those of us in the so-called middle class don't suffer so terribly due to this but alas, the majority of the world does!

Well Somer: You got the 1st half right....the problem is that we probably will never see the end of poverty...we as humans can only do what we can do for those we CAN help! The debate will continue as to how to deal with taxes.

dude, i think i could sit and have a beer with you. i don't say that about too many people.

why don't you take your money and invest it in a company that you can own and operate, thereby contributing to the local economy, instead of handing it over to people that know what they are doing, so that you don't have to do a single thing and still make money, and have the right to complain how much money those people are making that you are just jumping on for a free ride?

you're the one that believes in karma. pain and suffering is part of the package.

anyway, getting back to a national sales tax........i live in the state of washington....no state income tax...........state gets it's income from consumer taxes, basically sales taxes. lots of exemptions. no tax on most food items ( candy is taxed, so is soda, some other stuff, you know, things considered non-essential) essentials used to be taxed, but when prices started going up in the late '70s, exemptions started popping up. now there are quite a few. washington is hardly flush with money, but we're not to the point of instituting a state income tax either. not even close. property values have gone up so much that real estate taxes have filled a huge void. basically, the renter that doesn't buy tons of frivolous stuff doesn't get heavily taxed in this state.

That's an eloquent response...I guess using that logic you could defend slavery and genocide.

One could say the same thing about a lot of the hereditary wealthy, who are living the ultimate free ride. A person I know who works for many of them refers to them as the "Lucky Sperm Club." :)