The Religious Right, oddly enough, wouldn't mind seeing welfare stamped out. Probably not all of them, but the vast majority of the crazy fuckers that seem hellbent on ruining my faith. They're much to concerned with what Jesus said about the War on Christmas, Public Prayer, abortion, and butt sex to worry about what Jesus said about taking care of the poor.

Except that Jesus didn't say anything about the War on Christmas, maintained that prayer is to be a private matter between you and God, and must have glossed over abortion and butt sex in the Sermon on the Mount.

10/10/2006 7:28:24 AM

Quote :

"I think rich people should donate money and time to people that need it it's the RIGHT thing to do"

Maybe you aren't familiar with this fact
[should != should be compelled]



And also, I don't think any of us are talking about welfare, we're talking about Wealth Redistribution Programs in general.

10/10/2006 7:46:28 AM

Like the one found in Acts?

10/10/2006 7:59:22 AM

^^ right... what I was saying is that they "ought to" without being forced or having it taken from them


same goes for everyone

I want to decide who gets my charity

10/10/2006 8:32:18 AM

Yeah, I realize that sounded like I meant if for you specifically, I meant that for all the defenders of Robin Hood out there.

(Not the newer legend where he steals from the corrupt to feed the hard-working peasants...the original one)

10/10/2006 8:43:15 AM

jesus, ayn rand is full of shit.

plus (and i'll admit there's no real way to know this): but i really doubt that many rich people would give a significant portion of their income to charities. and even if they did, there are causes that are just as necessary that aren't as attractive to be giving one's money to.

10/10/2006 8:46:07 AM

necessary based on who's judgment?

And I could care less if you dislike Ayn Rand, for people who think like I do, Robin Hood IS evil.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 8:59 AM. Reason : m]

10/10/2006 8:59:19 AM

Quote :

"And also, I don't think any of us are talking about welfare, we're talking about Wealth Redistribution Programs in general."

too bad every single republican views welfare as wealth redistribution.

10/10/2006 9:32:47 AM

i'm not a big fan of welfare, but this war is going to cost taxpayers way more than welfare.

Hell, i'd rather take that money that is funding this war and drop it out of an airplane over poor areas in the U.S.

10/10/2006 10:14:20 AM

new rims in the city! VOTE FOR BobbyDigital

10/10/2006 10:19:54 AM

My campaign slogan will be

DUBS FOR THA PEOPLES!

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 10:21 AM. Reason : asgh]

10/10/2006 10:20:56 AM

only if they spin sir

only if they spin

10/10/2006 10:22:36 AM

spinning rims from the politicianz...

10/10/2006 10:23:51 AM

IF YOU VOTE FOR ME I PROMISE THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PUT SPINNAZ ON YOUR RIDE

10/10/2006 10:31:39 AM

Quote :

"too bad every single republican views welfare as wealth redistribution."

Just so we're clear...welfare IS a wealth distribution program. But it wasn't being specifically attacked. We were attacking the idea of vast wealth redistribution programs in general. Welfare is chump change when it comes to entitlement spending.

But you really don't think welfare is a wealth redistribution program? Do you just not know English, or do you have a definition based on idealogy rather than words?

10/10/2006 11:27:40 AM

welfare isn't the real wealth redistribution vehicle. that dubious distinction belongs to the IRS.

i think there is certainly fat to be trimmed in the welfare system, but it's somewhat of a whipping boy.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 12:46 PM. Reason : i mean, yes, it is...but it's not the biggest problem]

10/10/2006 12:45:50 PM

I'm not saying Welfare needs to be trimmed or eradicated either, I'm just saying thinking it isn't a wealth distribution program warrants purchase of a dictionary.

10/10/2006 12:48:47 PM

Quote :

"Just so we're clear...welfare IS a wealth distribution program. But it wasn't being specifically attacked. We were attacking the idea of vast wealth redistribution programs in general. Welfare is chump change when it comes to entitlement spending. But you really don't think welfare is a wealth redistribution program? Do you just not know English, or do you have a definition based on idealogy rather than words?"

no one is proposing a massive weatlth distribution program. And welfare in and of itself is not a wealth redistribution program. welfare by its nature cannot be a redistribution program because the amount of money paid is absurdly low.


Also, social security and nationalized healthcare are not wealth redistribution programs.


p.s. welfare is not a wealth redistribution program, but a wealth distribution program

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2006 12:50:34 PM

ronald reagan would be dissapointed in many of you, here.

10/10/2006 12:58:32 PM

he'd probably disappointed with a 35 year old posting on a college message board, too.

10/10/2006 12:59:08 PM

After what Ronald did to our schools, I'm surprised any of us can spell disappointed...

10/10/2006 1:09:35 PM

Has progressive taxation ever made someone who was rich, not rich anymore?

10/10/2006 2:32:43 PM

i'm sure it hasn't

but it makes it harder to get rich, and there's no reason to rob rich people like that anyway.

10/10/2006 6:11:51 PM

What about robbing poor people?

If it makes it harder to get rich, then taxes surely also make it harder for the poor too.

10/10/2006 6:54:57 PM

well no shit, obviously we have to have taxes...i'm just saying that it's fucked up to nail rich people to the wall.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 7:19 PM. Reason : and the poor don't pay taxes anyway]

10/10/2006 7:14:54 PM

Quote :

"i'm just saying that it's fucked up to nail rich people to the wall."

wah

The rich just have it so hard in this country. Poor them. They go to better schools, live in better neighborhoods and are given the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't be worried about the best off in this country, rather the worst off.

10/10/2006 7:28:04 PM

you can worry about the worst off without fucking people who are doing well just because it's convenient.

10/10/2006 7:42:35 PM

Quote :

"you can worry about the worst off without fucking people who are doing well just because it's convenient."

how is it fucking them? and what is your standard for well?

10/10/2006 7:43:38 PM

Rich people aren't being nailed to the wall though.

Yeah, it's wrong to take all they have (aka wealth redistribution), but the current system is not as unfair as rich people make it out to be.

10/10/2006 7:45:33 PM

it's fucking them by taking a huge percentage of their income, and it's fucking them by taxing them over and over (it's taxed when you make it, taxed when you spend it, taxed when you invest it, taxed if you give it away, and taxed when you die. it's fucking ridiculous.)

no, nobody needs a vacation home or an $80,000 car, but that has nothing to do with anything.

it pisses me off because i'm doing smart things with my income--like investing 20-25% of what i make. i work 60-80 hours per week and go without buying a lot of things that I'd like to spend my money on, because I want to be filthy rich somewhere down the line. the fact that the government is going to take a huge cut of my money simply because I did the right things and accumulated a lot of it means that I have to work even more and save even more (instead of having it to spend) to get to where I want to be financially.

Rich people are rich because they do smart and disciplined things to make money, and much more importantly, to have that money make money for them. Redistribution of wealth is like having the batboy pitch hit for the cleanup batter--if he could hit worth a damn, he wouldn't be the batboy.


i'm not saying that there shouldn't be a safety net, and I'm all about temporary assistance when somebody loses out and needs some brief help to get back on his feet. I'm all about helping out those who are truly helpless (like kids).

i do think that we should do a much better job of teaching kids about money. the instruction they get right now is WOEFULLY inadequate.

however, getting wealthy takes work and discipline...it's a tougher road that a lot of people are simply unwilling to take. that's fine, but people like me shouldn't get hammered for reaching for the top.


^dude, i know someone who makes about $250,000 who pays SIX FIGURES in taxes and alimony. that's fucking robbery.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 8:01 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

10/10/2006 7:59:15 PM

How much of that is taxes, and not alimony?

Alimony sometimes can be pretty screwed up, you won't get any argument from me there.

I think we should all be paying less taxes in general, with a requisite drastic cut in gov. spending and size, but i can't understand rich people crying about how unfair taxes are to them.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2006 8:05:10 PM

i don't know the percentage. i think the vast majority of it is tax, though.

and yeah, alimony is totally fucked, too.

and we should all be paying less in taxes, but i hate the damned Robin Hood attitude.

10/10/2006 8:08:44 PM

Quote :

"it pisses me off because i'm doing smart things with my income--like investing 20-25% of what i make. i work 60-80 hours per week and go without buying a lot of things that I'd like to spend my money on, because I want to be filthy rich somewhere down the line. the fact that the government is going to take a huge cut of my money simply because I did the right things and accumulated a lot of it means that I have to work even more and save even more (instead of having it to spend) to get to where I want to be financially. "

This is the part that I don't understand.

The gov. isn't taking it "simply" because you're rich or making the "right moves". They're taking it because they can't take it from the poor. If you really work as hard as you claim to work, you sound like you'll be pretty well set.

The gov. could cut taxes on rich people, but they would also have to cut spending some, or deficit spend, which they aren't going to do (especially in a war). So they make the decision to keep taxing people. It sucks, but it's a gov. business decision, not some conspiracy by liberals/democrats or poor people to screw the rich-man. Good investments usually pay off regardless of taxes, and when it comes to stocks, long-term taxes aren't too bad.

And progressive taxes are inherently more fair in a capitalist society, the only question is how progressive can something get, until it actually DOES hurt achievement.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2006 8:14:52 PM

Quote :

"p.s. welfare is not a wealth redistribution program, but a wealth distribution program "

Right, so they invent wealth and then distribute it? Or do they get it from someone else?

I'm not saying welfare is bad, but if you're so retarded as to think it isn't a redistribution program, then you are beyond all hope of rationality.

Quote :

"And progressive taxes are inherently more fair in a capitalist society, the only question is how progressive can something get, until it actually DOES hurt achievement. "

At the margin, any progressiveness will hurt achievement. I think what you mean is, how much achievement does it curb and do you find the benefit of redistributing that wealth to outweigh the cost of that curb in achievement.



[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 8:54 PM. Reason : a]

10/10/2006 8:52:27 PM

^progressive taxation can help the poor to move up in the world financially (thus helping their achievement)

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2006 9:00:13 PM

Quote :

"it's fucking them by taking a huge percentage of their income, and it's fucking them by taxing them over and over (it's taxed when you make it, taxed when you spend it, taxed when you invest it, taxed if you give it away, and taxed when you die. it's fucking ridiculous.)"

Why should a dead person care if they are being taxed? It's not like they can take wealth with them. And when it goes to the family or the heir, it is income to that person therefore it can and should be taxed. Furthermore, when money is invested it is not taxed. It's only taxed when you sell your investments. In reality though, you of all people shouldn't be complaining about taxes considering that my taxes pay you your paycheck. Without taxes you wouldn't have a job.

Quote :

"Rich people are rich because they do smart and disciplined things to make money, and much more importantly, to have that money make money for them. Redistribution of wealth is like having the batboy pitch hit for the cleanup batter--if he could hit worth a damn, he wouldn't be the batboy."

This is competely untrue. The vast majority of people who are rich are rich because they were born into wealth. The fact of the matter is that the classes are distinctly defined with little to no movement between the two.

Quote :

" ^dude, i know someone who makes about $250,000 who pays SIX FIGURES in taxes and alimony. that's fucking robbery."

I'm willing to bet that the majority of that money is alimony.

Quote :

"Right, so they invent wealth and then distribute it? Or do they get it from someone else? I'm not saying welfare is bad, but if you're so retarded as to think it isn't a redistribution program, then you are beyond all hope of rationality. "

Your are correct. The government develops wealth either through its policies or grants etc. It's only fair that the government gets to take some of the wealth it develops and give it to the lower classes.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 9:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2006 9:14:29 PM

Quote :

"Rich people are rich because they do smart and disciplined things to make money, "

Yeah. Like Paris Hilton and those other genetic lottery winners.

10/10/2006 9:50:29 PM

^ Is Paris Hilton a fair representation of all affluent people?

10/10/2006 9:52:29 PM

People like Paris Hilton are an exception, not the rule.

To continue a debate on "rich people" though, you'd have to establish some type of threshold that someone has to cross to be "rich."

I would peg that threshold on the lower end about around $250,000 in NC, at least.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 9:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2006 9:53:32 PM

i would argue that it's somewhat independant of salary...you can get dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking rich without ever even making a 6-figure salary.

but strictly in terms of income, i would say that $250,000/year is not "rich". it's very upper middle class.

however, it's still enough to get Uncle Sam to disproportionately hammer your titties.

10/10/2006 10:22:54 PM

Most rich people are idiots like Paris Hilton and white rash lottery winners who get their entire fortune in pennies and the swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck.

[/pryderi]

10/10/2006 10:30:36 PM

Most rich people are nothing at all like Paris Hilton.

how in the hell do you think they got rich to begin with? not by being a fucking retard, and not by spending money hand over fist.

10/10/2006 10:35:46 PM

there are VERY few people who most would deem to be "rich" who got that way through inheritance or winning the lottery. The vast majority of rich people are that way for one reason....they bust thier balls and have done so thier whole lives.

10/10/2006 10:41:33 PM

Quote :

"how in the hell do you think they got rich to begin with? not by being a fucking retard, and not by spending money hand over fist."

The vast majority who are rich are rich because they inherited wealth. This isn't exactly disuputable information either.

10/10/2006 10:46:56 PM

busting balls is only half of it.

it's very, very tough to ever make a big enough salary to become rich.

yes, i'd say that most rich people have worked hard to get there, but you also have to be disciplined and smart with your money. the goal is to have your money make money for you.

^dude, i stand to inherit a good deal of money...i don't know whether or not it will be enough to qualify me as "rich" on its own. i'm not worried about it, though...at my current rate of investment, I'm on pace (by my calculations, depending on rates of return, and in today's dollars) to accumulate about 1-1.5 million by the time I'm 50...and several million by the time I'm 60-65. That's all on my 1st Lt salary right now...I'm sure I'll invest even more as my salary grows.

[Edited on October 10, 2006 at 10:52 PM. Reason : asdfas]

10/10/2006 10:47:59 PM

words of wisdom, sir

I just dont need that new amp!!

10/10/2006 10:49:23 PM

If we look at the riches people in the world, their initial wealth came from family. This holds true through the entire class strata except for a few cases.

10/10/2006 10:49:41 PM

I was going to add something about being lucky. Now of course there is an element of luck involved sometime. Some people create the right product at the right time and stike gold.

But the vast majority of the time, its through hard work and making wise spending choices. Plain and simple. the opportunities are there. you have to be willing to makethe most of them.

10/10/2006 10:52:04 PM

^^yeah, if you're some prince in the UAE or something...

and there are hollywood starlets and rock stars and stuff

and a few people like the Google guys or Bill Gates

maybe the majority of the STRATOSPHERICALLY rich either got their start from inherited wealth or by becoming a celebrity or something

but i'd bet that most people who are worth, say, a few million got their on their own through hard work and financial savvy and discipline.

10/10/2006 10:55:48 PM

whats the estate tax these days?

10/10/2006 10:58:18 PM