Survey on the Rich

[foureyes]

250,000 combined income labels you a "millionaire"



Yes, Especially with Obama in office, if you make more than 100,000 you get slammed hard.



I am a libertarian capitalist, I say no... but I'm sure everyone disagrees with me. We should have a flat tax. I'm not trying to start a political argument though. Socialism only cheapens the strength of our greatest power, which is the freedom to acquire wealth and property and then leave it to our loved ones when we die. Most innovation comes from capitalist society as does the highest standard of living.



The rich are great people, they are innovators and hard workers who created a hell of a country in the US, all of the founders were businessmen and wealthy land owners, they threw off the British King basically for economic and moral freedoms. Without the rich there is no economy, without an economy you will need to start farming your own food and defending your family yourself from vandals. The more strain we put on the rich, the less opportunity there is for the rest of us because the rich provide all the jobs.

I completely understand why you would feel that the rich deserve to keep their money and use it to help their familes, but the thing is is that the government is supposed to work for the common good, do what benifits the majority of the population while the rich are a minority and the lower middle class (aka poor I consider the term middle class to be an overstatement thesedays) are the majority of the population. So the government should be working in their intrest, not in the interest of those already well off.
Yes having large sums of money for family is nice but at a certain point it becomes excessive. Wouldn't you rather have your money going into taxes which would help benifit the public, you included, by providing public services like our roadways, libraries, and education for your children? (If not yours than sombody elses.)
My official stance is that government work how it should work, for the common good, the majority of the public by providing economic conditions in favoring the middle class majority and there for stabalizing the economy and that's what proportional taxation is designed to do.
However, I must admit I do not know the current US tax rates. . . .

 

[alcyone]

uh oh ok i'll get right on that. You wanna come?

I can always use a refresher course, rereading old books is such a delight. You may want to start around 190 AD.

 

[Billy]

I can always use a refresher course, rereading old books is such a delight. You may want to start around 190 AD.

I really like Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics.

 

[Billy]

I completely understand why you would feel that the rich deserve to keep there money and use it to help their familes, but the thing is is that the gonvernment is supposed to work for the common good, do what benifits the majority of the population while the rich are a minority and the lower middle class (aka poor I consider the term middle class to be an overstatement anymore) are the majority of the population. So the government should be working in their intrest, not in the interest of those already well off.
Yes having large sums of money for family I nice but at a certain point it just becomes excess. Wouldn't you rather have your money going into taxes which would help benifit the public, you included, by providing public services like our roadways, library, and education for your children? (If not yours than sombody elses.)
My official stance is that government work how it should work, for the common good, the majority of the public by providing economic conditions which would help the middle class majority, and that's what proportional taxation is designed to do.
However, I must admit I do not know the current US tax rates. . . .

Well to answer your question, no I dont want my money to go to taxes any more than it already does. I want to keep it for myself to do with as I will. I have more faith that I can use it more wisely to effect more positive than the government ever ever ever could.

 

[alcyone]

For anyone else wondering what a libertarian capitalist is here is a definition :

Libertarian Capitalism is an extreme form of Moral Liberalism.

It is a political philosophy which advocates individual rights and a limited government.

Libertarian Capitalists believe individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.

They further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect those rights.

For libertarians, there are no positive rights (such as to food or shelter or health care), only negative rights (such as to not be assaulted, abused, robbed or censored).

That I found here http://www.moral-politics.com/xpoli...ce=PoliticalIdeologies.Libertarian_Capitalism

 

[foureyes]

Well to answer your question, no I dont want my money to go to taxes any more than it already does. I want to keep it for myself to do with as I will. I have more faith that I can use it more wisely to effect more positive than the government ever ever ever could.

But to think that you could spend you money more wisely is silly. Just how would you do that? How do you do that if you spend your money as wisely as you claim? I know our government is corrupt but it still pays for all the public services of our nation.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I do not believe there is anyone in this world that can be morally "obligated." Morals can't really be forced on a person.

Government is not meant to be moral. It'd be nice for the government to take care of the social aspects of peoples' lives, but in reality, that should be up to the people to organize and help their fellow man. The government is meant to protect rights and property, not provide them -- that's up to the individual and the community. If a government expends all its time and efforts on the public's pity parties, it makes it more complicated for it to do the things it was set up for.

Sorry if this comes out a bit calloused. But in America, the addition of government programs designed to be socialist in nature end up clogging the system. It wouldn't be too bad, except we don't clean them up when they aren't needed; take the Tennessee Valley Authority from the New Deal -- why the hell do we need a program designed to modernize and bring electricity to that part of the country in 2009? Money goes into that stuff, and it's diverted away from things that matter.

In reality, there is no government on Earth that can provide an even distribution of wealth. Instead of blaming the wealthy or the government, we should focus on our own actions and our own communities.

 

[foureyes]

In reality, there is no government on Earth that can provide an even distribution of wealth. Instead of blaming the wealthy or the government, we should focus on our own actions and our own communities.

No ones asking for perfection just honest work motivated by a will to do good for people as opposed to selfishness. Is that really too much to ask?
And to the second part, change is so much easier though if its intiated on a national level. They have so much more power than our small communities, why should we ignore the government?

 

[Billy]

But to think that you could spend you money more wisely is silly. Just how would you do that? How do you do that if you spend your money as wisely as you claim? I know our government is corrupt but it still pays for all the public services of our nation.

Well for one thing It wouldn't be tithed away through a bureaucracy. It would go to establishing a REAL charity that deals with real people with limited crap between the money and those that need it. I plan on establishing at some point in my life a small rescue shelter for battered women in Thailand and Laos who were forced into the sex trade with an active arm that goes out to brothels and takes back children and sex slaves and attempts to reunite them with their loved ones or offers them a time slot in the shelter to get their lives in order.

To me this can be handled much better by myself and my business partners than by the government who cant even run a DMV or sell stamps at the post office.

 

[Billy]

No ones asking for perfection just honest work motivated by a will to do good for people as opposed to selfishness. Is that really too much to ask?
And to the second part, change is so much easier though if its intiated on a national level. They have so much more power than our small communities, why should we ignore the government?

Yes it is too much to ask, who are you to say what is selfish and then try to moralize everyone about it? Morals by force are not morals.

 

[foureyes]

To me this can be handled much better by myself and my business partners than by the government who cant even run a DMV or sell stamps at the post office.

I've never had such expiriences. All the publis facallities are run fine in our area because we have high property taxes. We also have a county with some of the best public education in the country.

To what you said before, that's all very nice and good but that still doesn't take away from the fact that the government needs the money to pay for public services. period.

And what about the very very rich who are just wallowing in money. You thinks its fair that they still pay the same amount of taxes as all the single moms in the country?

 

[foureyes]

Yes it is too much to ask, who are you to say what is selfish and then try to moralize everyone about it? Morals by force are not morals.

by selfishness I was reffering to the illegal practices of our politicians who steal our tax money.

 

[Billy]

I've never had such expiriences. All the publis facallities are run fine in our area because we have high property taxes. We also have a county with some of the best public education in the country.

To what you said before, that's all very nice and good but that still doesn't take away from the fact that the government needs the money to pay for public services. period.

And what about the very very rich who are just wallowing in money. You thinks its fair that they still pay the same amount of taxes as all the single moms in the country?

I dont know where you are getting your info from, but the government needs LESS not more. And the Rich pay the majority of the taxes, what are you talking about? Single moms barely pay any taxes at all! unless of course they are wealthy single moms.

 

[foureyes]

I dont know where you are getting your info from, but the government needs LESS not more. And the Rich pay the majority of the taxes, what are you talking about? Single moms barely pay any taxes at all! unless of course they are wealthy single moms.

I know I assume our taxes are all fine right now. I'm just arguing against your flat tax theory. Then the example would be true. That's what your proposing taxtaion should be?
EDIT: Just to clarify, I know it's all in percentages. I just meant the same proportion of their income as the very very rich. Prolly too obvious to say. I am just an amatuer.

 

[alcyone]

..........sell stamps at the post office.

DMV's are state organized and operated.
And the USPS is a private entity. Contrary to popular belief the USPS is not a Government run institution, it is a Federal Government protected institution. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1971 made it independent.

I had to write about it for an essay in HS a long time ago.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

No ones asking for perfection just honest work motivated by a will to do good for people as opposed to selfishness. Is that really too much to ask?
And to the second part, change is so much easier though if its intiated on a national level. They have so much more power than our small communities, why should we ignore the government?

You cannot nationally institute a change of heart. Besides that, you cannot possibly come up with a national program that could cater the needs of the people properly in the US -- a community could really take care of each other on a more intimate and real basis. It's not up to the government to be selfless for us -- it starts with the individual, then the community, then the nation. Not the other way around. It's very unrealistic, inefficient, and otherwise somewhat ignorant to expect it work that way...although the idea is nice, I'll admit.

Government isn't meant to make everyone happy. It's meant to take care of the decision-making process of and for the people, and make sure that things on the national level run smoothly. I'd much rather my government concern itself with quality in terms of laws and enforcement, etc, then a neighborly interest in the private lives of the people. A government is neither selfish nor selfless -- it's management, and it should stay that way. People should have access to happiness, but that doesn't mean it should be handed to them. And a government should clean up it's processes to make sure it runs smoothly before trying to conquer every humanitarian problem they see.

 

[Shai Gar]

The change of heart came when Obama was voted in. He ran on a campaign of decriminalising cannabis and providing universal health care.

The people knew this and voted him in for it. Democrats who go against this, are going against the man who was the reason people voted for them.

 

[the]

But to think that you could spend you money more wisely is silly.

Why is it silly?

 

[Satya]

1. How much would one have to make per year in order to be considered 'rich'? What about a working couple?

The average American makes between 30-60K. A "rich" American is probably somebody who makes over 500K. A "wealthy" American is probably somebody who makes over 100 million.

2. Would your figure change based on the amount of money that is taken away by taxes?

No.

3. Do the rich have an obligation (moral or other, please specifiy in your response) to pay for services provided to others (such as healthcare, insurance, government assistance programs, etc).

Unless legally mandated, the rich have no obligation. They can do what they want with their own money. In good sense, they would share it with those who need it or invest it.

4. What are your own thoughts/perceptions concerning the rich and wealth in general?

None. Money doesn't make the man, the man makes money.

I think as the monetary system continues to grow more and more inefficient, that humans will benefit by considering new methods.

 

[foureyes]

Why is it silly?

it's not completely. In someways its true that you yourself can spend it more wisely but the government still needs tax money to pay for public services regardless. And plus you don't get taxed for the money you've donated to charities anyhow.