Yay spierce. I haven’t seen you in a while! I’ve been trying to find a good way to say how I feel. Basically, it’s that it used to be that the wealthy felt they had an ownership stake in this country’s basic well-being. That one of the great things about being wealthy in this country is that the less wealthy are also reasonably prosperous and have opportunities, and that with wealth comes the idea that one should be a caretaker for the country. These days, it feels like many of the wealthy are more cockroach-like… running around madly to eat up whatever good stuff they can find as fast as they can, and then move on somewhere else when they’re done. Basically Ayn Randians. Not all, of course; and probably the wealthy of the past were not as “noblesse oblige” oriented as we imagine (survivor bias in terms of our memories): but that doesn’t mean that these aren’t reasonable virtues to hold ourselves too. Yes, decadence and self-absorption is part of the natural process of a civilization ageing and collapsing, but that doesn’t mean we should be happy about it. Some of us our resigned to it, but not happy about it. But it would go a long way to restoring a semblance of a social contract. In 1895, J.P. Morgan (the person) bailed out the US. Yes, he made some profit in the long run, but it was also an act of civic duty and perceived as such. And it made banking respectable for nearly another two generations. And this idea that the poorer members of society are not contributing is just a slap in the face to a group of people who make contributions by deciding between food and rent. Yes, some of them have iPods, which may have been bought, or may have been stolen, or may be knock-offs from China, but it seems awfully short sighted to say that these people are undeserving of a burden-sharing arrangement simply because they are not sufficiently depressed or miserable enough for the Tiffany clientele’s taste. Even something that says, “Yes, we will let ourselves be taxed at a higher rate for 5 years as a contribution to getting out of this crisis” would be a reasonable thing. To say “we don’t want to be the bank account for everyone’s beautiful-life wish list” is something I can understand. And economically, I do know that temporary tax increases are not really all that effective. But right now, it seems that those who got wealthy during the boom are saying: “Crisis?? It’s your crisis, not my crisis. But thanks for making my CDOs and fixed income securities whole.” I do think that the wealthy have a legitimate point in not wanting to be the first place that other people go when they want to have a new toy or expensive government program. But the distribution of wealth has gotten so much more unequal, and the things that made those inequalities so extreme are highly connected to the things that caused the crisis. It’s like the wealthiest 5% went to a party, drank most of the beer and ate most of the food, slipped out the back door to let everyone else split the bill, and are now acting indignant to be asked to chip in for the bill (why would I go to another party if I have to pay something… you guys need me there, because I’m just so awesome that I make the party actually happen). And so I think that those who pretty much de-facto own this country should treat it as a home owner that takes pride in maintaining a healthy household, and not as a renter who runs down the place as much as possible and then moves somewhere else once it falls apart. Maybe that’s unrealistic realpolitik of life, and we may simply have to be resigned that the world is not going to work out that way, but it’s still a reasonable description of what civic virtue is, and we don’t have to honor or admire those who lack it.
Thanks bchadwick, I lurk sometimes, but have been otherwise busy. I agree 100%. It definitely used to be that the “wealthy” of the country invested their money in “doing” things. All of the wealthy people of the late 19th century weren’t investors in equities as much as they were in companies and people. Some, like Henry Ford, weren’t as pro-labor, but at least people had jobs/careers and were considered. Now, in the last 30 years, we’ve had bubble after bubble, crisis after crisis. S&L, .bombs, housing, commodities…etc. All because capital is running from one new financial asset to the next in an “all or none” rush for a quick buck. What’s even worse is that somebody like Buffett is derided for being a hypocrite, whilst people ignore the sheer fact that he rails against inherited wealth. His kids live well, but not as well as Paris Hilton, I highly doubt you’ll see a Buffett wastrel. Instead, our country is under assault by many people who are FOR inherited wealth, the ones that back the Tea Party stealthily or candidates through super pac shell companies. FDR was considered a traitor to his class, I guess Buffett is the same. Too bad that the populace has been hoodwinked into hating Buffett and his ideas when those same ideas are the ones that are in their favor.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These days, it feels like many of the wealthy are > more cockroach-like… running around madly to eat > up whatever good stuff they can find as fast as > they can, and then move on somewhere else when > they’re done. Basically Ayn Randians. Not all, > of course; and probably the wealthy of the past > were not as “noblesse oblige” oriented as we > imagine (survivor bias in terms of our memories): > but that doesn’t mean that these aren’t reasonable > virtues to hold ourselves too. I disagree… The wealthy didn’t rob anyone to get rich. Most of them made it. They are paying a far higher taxes than most Americans in any other income level alreay. How can you say they are like cockroach? If there is a cockroach, it is the government, who messed up the budget badly and has to find ways, such as raising taxes on the high income weathy to fill the deficit hole. Here is another cockroach - a couple weeks ago, I saw this younger couple with 3 kids with them using food stemps checking out before me at Safeway. When I walk to my car, I saw the same family climbing into their beat-up Crysler Town and Country with four oversize, clearly modified shiny chrome wheels. So the family rely on tax payer moeny for food, but somehow got some “nice” rims… Nice!
^^ Plus, why have 3 kids?.. Why not have only one for now and see if you can afford another one before taking action?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > These days, it feels like many of the wealthy > are > > more cockroach-like… running around madly to > eat > > up whatever good stuff they can find as fast as > > they can, and then move on somewhere else when > > they’re done. Basically Ayn Randians. Not > all, > > of course; and probably the wealthy of the past > > were not as “noblesse oblige” oriented as we > > imagine (survivor bias in terms of our > memories): > > but that doesn’t mean that these aren’t > reasonable > > virtues to hold ourselves too. > > I disagree… The wealthy didn’t rob anyone to get > rich. Most of them made it. They are paying a far > higher taxes than most Americans in any other > income level alreay. How can you say they are like > cockroach? > > If there is a cockroach, it is the government, who > messed up the budget badly and has to find ways, > such as raising taxes on the high income weathy to > fill the deficit hole. > > Here is another cockroach - a couple weeks ago, I > saw this younger couple with 3 kids with them > using food stemps checking out before me at > Safeway. When I walk to my car, I saw the same > family climbing into their beat-up Crysler Town > and Country with four oversize, clearly modified > shiny chrome wheels. > > So the family rely on tax payer moeny for food, > but somehow got some “nice” rims… > > Nice! Ohh come on now. The wealthy are the investing class now, they run from one popular investment to another and they do end up taking money out of the markets. They are relatively more protected and enjoy a very high standard of living. Their income taxes have DECREASED and they have taken advantage of the bloom of tax loopholes, both on the corporate and personal side. The data is irrefutable that there are far more wealthy individuals and they control MORE wealth than they did before all the while paying lower effective tax rates than the so-called “lower” tax brackets. They gamed the system to allow lower taxes on CG, all the while funding the government through their investments. To say the “government” is the roach is a bit silly. Have you had dinner in a 5-star french restaurant in the basement of a defense contractor? I have. Wow, UBS has Mortons, a chain steak house in Stamford. Hardly 5 star. Who do you really think benefits from that? Corporate welfare has cost this country far more than somebody gaming the food stamp system. In fact, it’s given them trillions of dollars in defense spending in the last decade. I am sure Eric Prince is a very charitable person. Wealth begets wealth which begets more wealth which begets more power, politicially and socially. You are seeing those effects in the elections now with Super-PACs. What’s truly sad is that we haven’t learned a damn thing from history. It used to be the Senate was the higher house elected by the House. This was supposed to reflect the elevated intelligence, stature and product of the political system. Those who deserved were elected by those who knew they deserved. That us, until William Clark. The guy raped and pillaged the MT environment to extract as much copper as quickly as possible. MT still feels the impact there. Then he went and bought himself some Representatives, which bought him a Senatorship. Wealth begets wealth begets wealth begets power. Now, apply that to the people behind the Tea Party and tell me WHY they want to get rid of the EPA? Big government indeed.
Cockroach is a nastier term than I really intended. It is how I think about the Russian Oligarchs. I’ve started thinking about it in the US context because our wealthy classes are getting to the point where they are starting to resemble the Russian oligarchy. There does seem to be a difference between people who made money by building businesses that make and sell stuff and those who made money in financial services. But if you look at the concentration of wealth, an enormous portion comes from people who were in construction, real estate, and finance. The bomb built through shoddy mortgage origination is responsible for so much of the quasi-wealth created in the 2000s, through stock appreciation, consumption and liquidity driven by home equity withdrawals, depressed interest rates. You can say, those guys shouldn’t have bought homes that they can’t afford. But when mortgage salesmen say “look, I can prove to you that you can afford this home on your McDonalds cashier’s income,” and the broker gets a 1% loan value origination fee and bears none of the default risk, the incentives are to lie. Or worse… hire mortgage brokers who are too dumb to realize that they are lying to create plausible deniability. Then when the whole thing falls apart, they turn around and say “oh, it’s those dumb people who borrowed more than they could afford. Look, they bought rims for a car with that home equity. That proves that I had nothing to do with it.” It’s like the tobacco companies hiring doctors to say “Don’t worry about smoking causing cancer, that only happens if you smoke a carton a day, and you’re only smoking 2 packs,” and then when people start dropping like flies, they say “well, it’s the smoker’s own fault, they knew there was a risk of cancer, we sold them what they came and asked us to.”
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^^ > > Plus, why have 3 kids?.. > > Why not have only one for now and see if you can > afford another one before taking action? I guess you’ve never been with a woman who’s obsessed with having kids, and will chop off your private parts if she doesn’t get another, and yet somehow has leverage over you. 
Little detail correction, speirce… The Senate was originally selected by state governments, not by the House of Representatives. I believe it was supposed to be selected by State legislatures, but it might have been permissible for governors to appoint them, depending on the individual State’s process. You’re right that the longer term for Senators was supposed to allow them to exercise more judgement in their voting, by insulating them a bit from having to get reelected every other year. Representatives were thought to be “Deputies for their districts,” assigned to do what their districts tasked them to, whereas Senators were intended to be “Trustees for the states,” allowed to exercise more discretion based on (what was presumed to be) more experience and wisdom.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ^^ > > > > Plus, why have 3 kids?.. > > > > Why not have only one for now and see if you > can > > afford another one before taking action? > > > I guess you’ve never been with a woman who’s > obsessed with having kids, and will chop off your > private parts if she doesn’t get another, and yet > somehow has leverage over you. > >
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Little detail correction, speirce… > > The Senate was originally selected by state > governments, not by the House of Representatives. > I believe it was supposed to be selected by State > legislatures, but it might have been permissible > for governors to appoint them, depending on the > individual State’s process. > > You’re right that the longer term for Senators was > supposed to allow them to exercise more judgement > in their voting, by insulating them a bit from > having to get reelected every other year. > Representatives were thought to be “Deputies for > their districts,” assigned to do what their > districts tasked them to, whereas Senators were > intended to be “Trustees for the states,” allowed > to exercise more discretion based on (what was > presumed to be) more experience and wisdom. You are correct, I believe I was recalling Jefferson’s thoughts on a “higher house”, in the end, the point is the same but thanks for the correction. Wealth bought power.
IT’S MAH MONEY AND YOU WANT TO TAKE IT AND USE IT FOR OTHER PEOPLE OR MY COUNTRY!?! THAT IS INCOME REDISTRIBUTION! YOU ARE SOCIALISTS!
magicskyfairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IT’S MAH MONEY AND YOU WANT TO TAKE IT AND USE IT > FOR OTHER PEOPLE OR MY COUNTRY!?! THAT IS INCOME > REDISTRIBUTION! YOU ARE SOCIALISTS! Now this is pure selfish on your part. Everyone who benefits from the government’s social goods such as defense, police, etc, should pay into it. What’s unfair and socialist is someone doesn’t pay any federal tax, while others pay as high as 40%.
^No way, I get my money, and it’s mine, that’s what we made this country for. You want to tax rich people at a higher rate? some reward for making all the jobs and keeping the economy going! Flat tax rate for everyone, and then some tax breaks for investing! Anything else is socialist! you want $? Get a job, make a business and do something to make yourself worth the money! Don’t just steal from the rich, that’s lazy and socialist!
cure cancer? why, i don’t have cancer. Feed the poor? no way, my fridge is full and that’s all i care about. Why is it full? cuz I WORKED (well actually my dad did, but I got a trust fund so it’s mine now and I just live off the income). Poor people can go get jobs and then feed themselves, lazy pricks. Welfare? Screw welfare, go get a job and stop complaining! I got ferraris to buy, and vacations to go on! that $hit keeps the economy going, and poor people just sit around like turds! So irritating the way they keep whining about everything!
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > magicskyfairy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > IT’S MAH MONEY AND YOU WANT TO TAKE IT AND USE > IT > > FOR OTHER PEOPLE OR MY COUNTRY!?! THAT IS > INCOME > > REDISTRIBUTION! YOU ARE SOCIALISTS! > > Now this is pure selfish on your part. > > Everyone who benefits from the government’s social > goods such as defense, police, etc, should pay > into it. > > What’s unfair and socialist is someone doesn’t pay > any federal tax, while others pay as high as 40%. First of all it’s 38% and that’s at the highest bracket, which doesn’t include the significantly lower rates paid until you get to that bracket. And, it’s on earned income which for higher earning individuals is a smaller percentage of overall earning. Also, Federal tax is wrong; you mean federal income tax which represents about half of the total income received by the gov’t. Plus…oh forget it, there’s no point, people are hopelessly buried in their own ideology.
LBriscoe, Please answer one question honestly. Are you a women?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LBriscoe, > > Please answer one question honestly. Are you a > women? No. My turn. Are you an idiot?
LBriscoe Wrote: > My turn. Are you an idiot? Yes, it’s your turn to be an idiot… Banters aside, it’s not fun to launch personal attacks on a public forum. It’s silly and childish. I only ask my earlier question because your writing style appeared to be more thoughtful than others, until this last post. I think we beat this dead horse enough and we all see that what Buffett did is kind of opposite of what he advocates.
“Please answer one question honestly” implies that I haven’t been honest. “Are you a woman” is a little creepy and was taken by me as an insult. If it wasn’t —My bad. I still disagree with you on everything, but I did get a kick out of your “Real Name” on the AF user profile.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > magicskyfairy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > IT’S MAH MONEY AND YOU WANT TO TAKE IT AND USE > IT > > FOR OTHER PEOPLE OR MY COUNTRY!?! THAT IS > INCOME > > REDISTRIBUTION! YOU ARE SOCIALISTS! > > Now this is pure selfish on your part. > > Everyone who benefits from the government’s social > goods such as defense, police, etc, should pay > into it. > > What’s unfair and socialist is someone doesn’t pay > any federal tax, while others pay as high as 40%. Those that pay far more have far more to protect and far more to lose. In fact, a large portion of the people you deride as paying nothing are the ones who really don’t have much to lose to begin with. They have fewer houses, so they depend less on fire departments. They travel far less, so they usually don’t use roads much. Police, probably, but that’s for the benefit of society at large. So what do you advocate? Trickle down econ. has failed, utterly. time to move back to what was better.