-
discherl said...
That is exactly what I am saying. I have an MBA from a top 10 school and a degree in economics. I know that sounds mean, but yes, as nice as I can say it, you really have no idea what you are talking about. I honestly wish we could have a cordial conversation over a beer and I could educate you. The market does not redistribute wealth - the market creates wealth. Taxes redistribute the wealth that individuals earned in the market. We all 'vote' with our pocket book every day. We spend money on goods and services that benefit us the most. When someone comes up with a great product/service (think iphone, the internet, a fuel efficient car, twitter, or a million other inventions), LOTs of people VOTE for that product/service, which creates wealth for the individual(s) that brought it into the world.
Yes, I am arguing it is a good thing, because it the foundation of the free market, which has created more wealth and pulled more people out of poverty than any other system known to mankind.
Here is a concept that you might not like, but is as true as the sun will come up tomorrow. The value of people's work is not the same. The VALUE of Bill Gate's collective work is far, far greater than a Mechanics. A mechanic may fix a few thousand cars in his life, Bill Gates made BILLIONS of people's lives better. And because Billions of people have recognized his value by 'voting' for his products by buying them, he is rich. The mechanic is not. This is the free market.
-
codexp2 said...
I agree with you 100 percent. The rapid rise in life expectancy has created numerous problems with both Social Security and Medicare. I would have to look at the statistics, but going forward I expect the minimum age requirement to be raised by at least 5 years. I'm sure you're aware of this, but the majority of healthcare cost are incurred during the last 2 years of life. This accounts for a disproportionate amount of cost associated with Medicare.
I am adamantly against means testing for Social Security. It's basically a way to penalize success. Every year I pay Social Security tax to the maximum cutoff. The government has no legal ground to redistribute that money because I can fund my own retirement.
In the next 24 months I have the opportunity to witness an interesting social experiment. We're taking a company public. A few of the employees that have been with me from the beginning are likely to be millionaires. They don't know it yet, and I'd much rather under promise and over deliver, but their reactions should be interesting. I think a few of them are going to change their stance from: "tax the hell out of the wealthy" to "this sucks".
-
codexp2 said...
Go to any other country in the world and tell them you have: a decent car, house, large screen tv, cable, cell phone, and eat three meals a day. Now, tell them you can't wait to break away from poverty. There have been numerous studies in this country that reveal the average poverty stricken family in the United States has all of those things.
The market has a way of paying you what you're worth. I know everyone feels like they're worth 100x more than they are, but that's not often the case. I have a Business associate that's a billionaire. Every time we meet at one of his 25+ million dollar homes scattered across the globe, I say to myself "nobody should be worth this much f-in money, it's not fair". I then try to figure out why I don't have that much money. I didn't graduate high school at 13, I didn't finish college before I could drive, and I haven't been key in building multiple fortune 500 companies. If I could have done those things, I certainly would have. All I can do is work harder and maximize the skills I do have.
-
BucksinWA said...
I agree, mostly. I guess like most of us I don't think the market pays me what it should because of unfair market influences (i.e. government-enforced indentured servitude and price-fixing), but yes, I agree that I should not be a billionaire.
For you business folks, I am curious about something. I know that how you run your company has a lot to do with how successful it is, but at the same time, I have had a theory lately about business that really is at the heart and soul of what works and what doesn't. You can have economies of scale, cross-train employees, hire for fit, etc., etc., but doesn't it really come down to the product?
I live in the land of Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, etc. Take Starbucks- an idea that was absolutely brilliant in its simplicity. Most people want a cup of coffee in the morning- take advantage of it. Or Microsoft- having the vision to know that this is going to transform the world as we know it and here is how we are going to shape the future. I have great admiration for innovators. Why does Apple have so much cash? Because their products are awesome.
In other words, if you make the best product or provide the best service, you will likely be successful, though if you're big enough I'm sure you can be inefficient enough to destroy the business (a la GM). Is this off base?
A brief, funny story about my ignorance (I have several). I mentioned to someone they could just go home and "google" something. I got a curious look and a good-natured response, "You mean Bing it?" Word to the wise: if you work for Microsoft you bing things, you don't google them.
This post was edited by codexp2 on 4/20/2012 at 7:49 PM
-
codexp2 said...
Do you know how few people actually live off of capital gains? You act like everyone in the 1% is living off of capital gains. Next time you're on a plane look around, the law of averages says you're on a flight with 3 people in the 1%. Do you think you're flying with 3 billionaires? No, there's probably a few doctors, lawyers, or businessman making a couple hundred thousand dollars sitting next to you. That's the 1 percent, we need to lose the perception that we have hundreds of thousands of billionaires robbing us blind. There's only 400 in the entire country. Over 99 percent of the 1 percent are working and paying taxes on ordinary income, including myself. The people you're referring to are the top 0.1 percent of the 1 percent. Yes, the rule will impact those people, but it's going to kill the middle class millionaires and small business owners. It doesn't affect you so scream how unfair it is. I paid a million dollars in taxes this year not including payroll taxes. If you want to include payroll taxes I had a multi-million dollar tax liability. I'm the one who should be crying about fairness.
Buckeyewilly34
- 5 stars Rating: 89
1361 votes total - (954)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Buckeyewilly34 said...
There are 6 million millionaires in American (and growing). You don't have to be a billionaire to live strictly off your capital gains. Your Republican presidential candidate is "one of those people" and openly admits it.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by codexp2 on 4/20/2012 at 9:45 PM
-
gpracer73 said...
Tim
fair enough, like I said, I am not against raising taxes at all, although I still hold to my belief that raising taxes without fixing the tax code is not going to do much of anything, there has been some great posts on this thread that demonstrate this point by pointing out what the rich will do to avoid paying more taxes if they are rasied, so to me it is a little like spinning your wheels.
I just dont get the argument some make including our president on how raising the taxes on the rich will help the middle class, it really isnt true to just make that statement unless you quntify it with something like you said with the pell grants. I think a good hunk of his message is political and playing to his base since his base doesnt question him or push him for details, no different than if he was a Republican making somewhat un true statements, that base wont question either.
I am still not convinced either side is serious about fixing this mess, both sides have talked about and proposed some very good ideas, but as soon as they come out, the other side rips them apart and makes it political. example is a couple speeches Obama made about fixing the tax code ( of course no detail in the speech ) but a conversation none the less, but the republicans made it political and it disapeared. or the budget plan put out by the Dem and Repub senator a few weeks ago, there were some fantastic ideas in that, but it didnt even get to a debate because the dems and some Repubs made it political.
But do agree it would be silly to cut Pell grants, unless you do something to fix the cost of going to college or switch to a German type model where you push trade type schools for those that really dont fit with college, there are a heck of a lot of other things that should be cut before Pell Grants. It is going to take some serious cuts, tax code revsions and in some cases increased taxes to fix this mess, I just wish we had leaders from either party that would be willing to do it
Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.
-
TimMcM said...
I did see an Obama speech in which he listed some of the things that could be bought for the $4.7B a year the Buffett Rule would generate. Most of the time he just says it is a fairness thing.
Everything has become so partisan that I too fear the politicians will never get anything done. If one side is for it, the other side is against it. Somehow this political stalemate is going to have to broken but I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
minsterbuckeye
- 4 stars Rating: 62
5710 votes total - (4005)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
bleedscarlet ●
- 5 stars Rating: 83
717 votes total - (1130)
- 25 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | Refresh
The BUFFETT rule doesn't pass.......