sycasey;842067248 said:

---

Question for your thought experiment: how did the wealthy man in this scenario obtain his wealth?

---

Admittedly if we look at economic history most of the "wealthy" were miltary leaders who had seized the land or who inherited from ancestors who had seized it generations before.

But some of the wealthy men in the past did design or build something useful. Or had engaged in trade (either by caravan or ship) and built up a large amount of wealth while young before retiring to an estate and spending the accumlated wealth. (since life on a ship or in a caravan back in the Dark Ages was miserable at best I can understand the desire to enjoy life once enough wealth was accumulated.)

And I should note I'm not saying I agree with how the wealth was accumulated. My "thought-experiment" was to open up the question of who benefitted more from the roads. Someone who had wealth and could theoritically use his wealth to obtain items, or a poor man who really had no opportunity to travel and had to rely on goods. and services that could be obtained nearby.

68great;842067273 said:

---

If you want to talk history, please be advised that historically the wealthy have almost always paid the lion's share of things like infrastructure and defense. Until the last 100+ years the wealthy knew that they had the most to lose if their country was defeated. They also knew that things like trade benefitted them much more than the poor peasant who was working the land. yes the poor could take advantage of the roads. But their wealth increased exponentially when there were good safe and secure trade routes, good transportation, new markets for their goods.
This applies to not just highways, but railroads, sea transport, air transport, and other forms of communications (pony express, mail, telegraph, telephone, internet).
[FYI: even writing began not to benefit the general public but to facilitate commerce. Which put a lot of money into the hands of the land owners, manufacturers and the middle men.]

Yes an poor person benefitted from these infrastructure improvements. But proportionally the wealthy individuals benefitted more (not just in purchasing items for personal use but for their business and properties and investments).

So why shouldn; the wealthy pay more.

---

Yes, the rich did pay more, partly because for a long time in economic history they were the only ones who could pay at all since the poor had nothing or were effectively enslaved by the local governments that existed.

However, historically a high tax might be 1 part in 10. Now we argue over tax rates that add up to 1 oart in 2 for the wealthy. I can understand wanting the rich to pay more, but they already do and at some point it cannot be fair to demand more from them.

But that gets into the argument of how much government should do and how generous benefits should be and that is something I quite honestly have never found a good answer for. My compassion says that we should always try to give more to the old, sick and poor, but my analytical side knows that there is no level of taxation we can put forth that will give those groups everything that people demand. Worse, long time evidence shows that at some point increased taxes result in reduced revenues. There is an absolutel limit on how much you can collect with taxes. In the us is seems to have topped out at around 20% of GDP as tax revenues run between 18-21% and have since the income tax was first introduced. So while I want to see the poor given more, at some point you have to call a halt and then start to make the difficult decisions as to what programs must be cut.

mvargus;842067279 said:

---

Admittedly if we look at economic history most of the "wealthy" were miltary leaders who had seized the land or who inherited from ancestors who had seized it generations before.

But some of the wealthy men in the past did design or build something useful. Or had engaged in trade (either by caravan or ship) and built up a large amount of wealth while young before retiring to an estate and spending the accumlated wealth. (since life on a ship or in a caravan back in the Dark Ages was miserable at best I can understand the desire to enjoy life once enough wealth was accumulated.)

And I should note I'm not saying I agree with how the wealth was accumulated. My "thought-experiment" was to open up the question of who benefitted more from the roads. Someone who had wealth and could theoritically use his wealth to obtain items, or a poor man who really had no opportunity to travel and had to rely on goods. and services that could be obtained nearby.

---

I understand that, but I think you grasped the point of my question: before there was infrastructure there were fewer wealthy people and it was much harder to become wealthy if you were not already. Infrastructure allowed wealth to grow much faster, at an exponential rate. It allowed for improved upward mobility. As such, the people who are wealthy now have indeed seen a great benefit from that infrastructure (which is in large part regulated and maintained by the government), even if it is in a somewhat indirect fashion, and therefore there is a reasonable argument to be made that them paying more in taxes to support said infrastructure is fair.

I mean, this is not a crazy argument. Moderate conservatives (like Eisenhower) used to make it.

mvargus;842067271 said:

---

The last libertarian I argued with wanted to privitize all government services including roads, military and even the justice system. And he was adamant that such a society would still be just and fair. He was less intellectually coherent than my pet rabbit.

In general I don't like government power when it becomes to concentated so I support smaller solutions and will argue against the seemingly endless excuses made to consolidate all power into the government. I don't think it will be just in the long run, and I find no one able and willing to show me an argument where the government can/will stop before it goes too far and destroys all freedoms.

I am registered as "decline to state." as a voter. I do vote in every election, but mostly to vote on the propositions. In general I just choose the 3rd party candidate with the most interesting name since I like neither main party and there is no political place for me at this time.

---

Well, if I may, I think you are on the the right of the political spectrum. Your fear or disdain for "centralized" government and your dislike of liberal policy with regard to entitlements leads me to conclude that you are more libertarian than you realize.

You remind me of my brother-in-law. He declines to state - for whatever reason I don't know - but he is conservative/right wing on nearly every policy and rails against any government intervention into the market. Maybe it's the negative stigma of being Republican, particularly here in California. I believe only 25-30% of registered voters identify as Republican and that number is getting smaller.

mvargus;842067285 said:

---

However, historically a high tax might be 1 part in 10. Now we argue over tax rates that add up to 1 oart in 2 for the wealthy. I can understand wanting the rich to pay more, but they already do and at some point it cannot be fair to demand more from them.

---

This is what happens when income inequality reaches historically high levels as well. Government has to get the money where it can.

mvargus;842067271 said:

---

...

In general I don't like government power when it becomes to concentated so I support smaller solutions and will argue against the seemingly endless excuses made to consolidate all power into the government. I don't think it will be just in the long run, and I find no one able and willing to show me an argument where the government can/will stop before it goes too far and destroys all freedoms....

.

---

Well, "as far as smaller solutions," this generally is not practicable when we have a diverse population of 311 million...that is ever growing. Just an example, I remember when I went through the Riverside Sheriff's Academy in 1970, the California Vehicle Code was about 1 inch thick; 30 years later, it had almost tripled in size. Why? Because it an example of how we manage chaos with an ever growing population in a very dynamic environment.

And as for your "show me an argument where government...will stop before..destroys all freedoms," well, that is why we have three branches in government, with the courts being the final arbiter of those freedoms spelled out in the Constitution.

Yeah, that last paragraph by mvargus was bordering on the whole militia, birther/truther, anti-UN fringe.

philly1121;842067298 said:

---

Yeah, that last paragraph by mvargus was bordering on the whole militia, birther/truther, anti-UN fringe.

---

In the olden days these guys were called John Birchers.

manus;842067291 said:

---

Well, "as far as smaller solutions," this generally is not practicable when we have a diverse population of 311 million...that is ever growing. Just an example, I remember when I went through the Riverside Sheriff's Academy in 1970, the California Vehicle Code was about 1 inch thick; 30 years later, it had almost tripled in size. Why? Because it an example of how we manage chaos with an ever growing population in a very dynamic environment.

And as for your "show me an argument where government...will stop before..destroys all freedoms," well, that is why we have three branches in government, with the courts being the final arbiter of those freedoms spelled out in the Constitution.

---

Three branches of government may be true but it's obvious to me the current resident of the White House doesn't respect the other two branches with his use of executive orders....over 900 to date. GO BEARS!!!

tommie317;842067251 said:

---

You mean via offshore accounts in the caymans?

---

Most wealthy people play plenty of taxes while they avoid them as much as they can. The problem is they don't pay as much as you would like to have them pay. Does the greed lie with the wealthy, many of whom have earned their way there, or does it reside with you wanting to reallocate their wealth? I know my answer, and can pretty surely guess yours. Isn't it interesting that it is OK to sh*t on the rich, but not the poor? What if the rich actually earned every penny of it, and the poor p*ssed their life away to get that way? Hmmm.

Ukrainian;842066943 said:

---

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"]Note that the peak of the graph is during the Reagan years !![/SIZE][/COLOR]

---

hey Einstein..Reagan was elected in 1980 and the tax rates immediately started dropping....

OdontoBear66;842067308 said:

---

Isn't it interesting that it is OK to sh*t on the rich, but not the poor? What if the rich actually earned every penny of it, and the poor p*ssed their life away to get that way? Hmmm.

---

You do realize that some people are born rich and some are born poor, and not everyone "earned" their way there, right?

Golden One;842067260 said:

---

Actually, you're wrong. Salaries for professional people are the same in Houston as they are in San Ramon. So, if you're an engineer working for Chevron and get a lateral transfer to Houston, your income will not change. Often these transfers come with a promotion so your income actually increases, giving you much more buying power in Houston. Same thing applies to blue collar workers who work for a major corporation. For example, if you're an operator or craftsman in a Contra Costa County refinery, you'll make exactly the same wage as your counterpart working in a refinery in Houston. When you consider that there is no income tax in Texas and that houses are about half the cost (or less) of those in California, your standard of living increases dramatically.

---

Actually, no I'm not. Salaries for most professional positions are not the same. If Chevron can get the same service for less in Houston, and not lose benefits they get by being in California, fine, they should move. Businesses leave California and New York all the time because it is too expensive FOR THEM. People leave lots of places because it is too expensive FOR THEM. Hell, many of the businesses that are in San Ramon are there because it is cheaper than San Francisco and Silicon Valley. But the reason it is too expensive FOR THEM is that other businesses are pricing them out of the market. It's like saying "stupid NFL. Their high priced tickets for the SuperBowl are driving tons of people away" And your last sentence proves the point. The fact that you have to pay half a mil more for a house in the Bay Area dwarfs the annual tax bill.

So, yes, maybe a business like Chevron leaves. And then a business like Facebook pops up. The bottom line is, much of the high priced talent want to live here and businesses that want the high priced talent come. The Bay Area is doing fine. If Houston wants our sloppy seconds, fine. Again, people have been saying this about California all my life.

BigPape;842067312 said:

---

hey Einstein..Reagan was elected in 1980 and the tax rates immediately started dropping....

---

This is always a Grover Norquist whopper and one that Mitt Romney unsuccessfully tried to emulate in his bogus tax plan. Tax rates certainly dropped under Reagan, but corporate tax rates went up. That's why his tax plan was largely revenue neutral. Reagan taxed corporations upwards of $120 billion. Reagan also raised the capital gains tax rate to almost 30%. This directly affected the wealthy. Mitt Romney said he wouldn't touch this rate or raise it.

We could go on and on but that's why Romneys plan was so widely criticized and discredited. So, taxes did drop for most individuals during Reagans term, but he also raised taxes on corporations and capital gains - something this iteration of the Republican Party is dead set against. Go figure.

uchighlander;842067306 said:

---

Three branches of government may be true but it's obvious to me the current resident of the White House doesn't respect the other two branches with his use of executive orders....over 900 to date. GO BEARS!!!

---

First of all, he does respect the other two branches.

Secondly, if someone does not like his Executive Orders, he can challenge him in court...

sycasey;842067313 said:

---

You do realize that some people are born rich and some are born poor, and not everyone "earned" their way there, right?

---

Yes I do, and I also have tremendous empathy with any have nots. It is just that it has become sport to needle the rich, many of whom are selfish bastards, but many I know are and were hard working, honest good men and women. Conversely, many of the poor are victims, but many too have p*ssed away opportunity in work, in relationships, in a bottle or drugs, in laziness. This whole conversation seems so black and white when it is so very grey, as with most things.

manus;842067332 said:

---

First of all, he does respect the other two branches.

Secondly, if someone does not like his Executive Orders, he can challenge him in court...

---

Thirdly, the Congress he's had to deal with since the last mid-term has been, legitimately, the most do-nothing Congress in a long time. When the legislative branch is that entrenched, Executive Orders are the only way to get anything done.

sycasey;842067210 said:

---

They lost the overall popular vote in House elections. The only reason they still hold their majority is that they successfully gerrymandered their districts after the last election cycle.

---

Both sides gerrymander. In my home state of Arizona, the state completely swung due to obvious gerrymandering by a left leaning redistricting committee. Illinois and several other states are notorious for gerrymandering districts in favor of Democrats. With that said, your point is taken even though it completely ignores the obvious fact that the 2012 gerrymandering was able to occur because of the 2010 elections.

I guess all what I'm saying is the death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated. I wish the party would die but it won't. Dead parties don't have 61 million people show up and vote for a dope like Romney.

dyeager78;842067360 said:

---

Both sides gerrymander. In my home state of Arizona, the state completely swung due to obvious gerrymandering by a left leaning redistricting committee. Illinois and several other states are notorious for gerrymandering districts in favor of Democrats. With that said, your point is taken even though it completely ignores the obvious fact that the 2012 gerrymandering was able to occur because of the 2010 elections.

I guess all what I'm saying is the death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated. I wish the party would die but it won't. Dead parties don't have 61 million people show up and vote for a dope like Romney.

---

Gerrymandering has occurred on both sides, but the GOP's gerrymandering in the just concluded Congressional term was (I believe) nearly unprecedented in its scope. It's almost as if they knew they were going to lose in the next cycle.

dyeager78;842067360 said:

---

Both sides gerrymander. In my home state of Arizona, the state completely swung due to obvious gerrymandering by a left leaning redistricting committee. Illinois and several other states are notorious for gerrymandering districts in favor of Democrats. With that said, your point is taken even though it completely ignores the obvious fact that the 2012 gerrymandering was able to occur because of the 2010 elections.

I guess all what I'm saying is the death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated. I wish the party would die but it won't. Dead parties don't have 61 million people show up and vote for a dope like Romney.

---

GOP controls 30 state houses. They aren't dead yet

sycasey;842067210 said:

---

They lost the overall popular vote in House elections

---

I'm too lazy to look up the info, but I'm guessing that's a pretty meaningless factoid. For example, what's the vote split if you ignore California?

If you have a few areas that are overwhelmingly Democratic and a majority that are marginally Republican, I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw.

LudwigsFountain;842067369 said:

---

If you have a few areas that are overwhelmingly Democratic and a majority that are marginally Republican, I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw.

---

That the districts (which should ideally be based on population) have been gerrymandered to favor Republican-leaning areas?

sycasey;842067313 said:

---

You do realize that some people are born rich and some are born poor, and not everyone "earned" their way there, right?

---

Yes, they call those guys "silverspoons"...they toil not.

Of course, if you are not lucky enough to be a "silvespoon", there are several simple tasks to become a $Millionaire.

One way is to expedite a good idea or situation.

Another is to first get a $Million and then from there it's easy. Ask Mitt Romney. America is abundant with such success stories.

Hey, speaking of MR, you could even go to war to preserve and exploit a slave society to save on labor costs. I mean isn't war OK when you want to keep your "property"? We've seen it before in America (1861) and it's still happening in other places.

Or you could do business with the enemy like certain former Presidents from Tx and a automobile manufacturer from Deerborn, MI. That way it wouldn't matter which side you were on because you'd profit coming and going.

America loves greed...greed is good, and America is willing to look the other way when the cash flows. Whatever.

I'm going to go out and get a $Million this afternoon.

:beer:

Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say I grew up very, very poor. Worked my arse off all the way through high school, got admitted to an all expenses paid education at Cal. Graduated, worked to obtain a professional license in my field.

Never collected a dime from the government (welfare, food stamps, housing or unemployment). Always paid my taxes & paid medical bills with cash.

Then, let's say, last year, I spent over 1200 hours over six months on a project that didn't pay me a penny (a speculative endeavor).

Then, this year, I am able to sell this project for $1 million dollars, plus future royalties.

The question is, is the government entitled to take 62% of that $1 million dollars, leaving me with $380,000 ( about enough to buy a 2 bedroom condo conversion in Concord?

Is this fair? Should I be considered one of the evil rich?

BGolden;842067377 said:

---

Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say I grew up very, very poor. Worked my arse off all the way through high school, got admitted to an all expenses paid education at Cal. Graduated, worked to obtain a professional license in my field.

Never collected a dime from the government (welfare, food stamps, housing or unemployment). Always paid my taxes & paid medical bills with cash.

Then, let's say, last year, I spent over 1200 hours over six months on a project that didn't pay me a penny (a speculative endeavor).

Then, this year, I am able to sell this project for $1 million dollars, plus future royalties.

The question is, is the government entitled to take 62% of that $1 million dollars, leaving me with $380,000 ( about enough to buy a 2 bedroom condo conversion in Concord?

Is this fair? Should I be considered one of the evil rich?

---

If you were poor, you would be collecting food stamps, welfare, housing, education, etc. so your story doesn't even make sense.

BGolden;842067377 said:

---

Let's say I grew up very, very poor. Worked my arse off all the way through high school, got admitted to an all expenses paid education at Cal. Graduated, worked to obtain a professional license in my field.

Never collected a dime from the government (welfare, food stamps, housing or unemployment). Always paid my taxes & paid medical bills with cash.

---

If you were poor, how did you afford to go to a private high school?

Or maybe that means you went to a public school, which means you did take a few dimes from the government.

EDIT: Oh, and wait, you also went to Cal, which means at least 12% of your education was paid for by the state.

He has apologized for his remarks and says he won't let it happen again.

sycasey;842067385 said:

---

If you were poor, how did you afford to go to a private high school?

Or maybe that means you went to a public school, which means you did take a few dimes from the government.

EDIT: Oh, and wait, you also went to Cal, which means at least 12% of your education was paid for by the state.

---

government hands off my medicare!

glb78;842067394 said:

---

He has apologized for his remarks and says he won't let it happen again.

---

Probably "concerned" about his "brand" going forward.

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8868333/phil-mickelson-says-regrets-airing-opinion-taxes

manus;842067398 said:

---

Probably "concerned" about his "brand" going forward.

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8868333/phil-mickelson-says-regrets-airing-opinion-taxes

---

No surprise that the goofball Perry got involved.

sycasey;842067286 said:

---

I understand that, but I think you grasped the point of my question: before there was infrastructure there were fewer wealthy people and it was much harder to become wealthy if you were not already. Infrastructure allowed wealth to grow much faster, at an exponential rate. It allowed for improved upward mobility. As such, the people who are wealthy now have indeed seen a great benefit from that infrastructure (which is in large part regulated and maintained by the government), even if it is in a somewhat indirect fashion, and therefore there is a reasonable argument to be made that them paying more in taxes to support said infrastructure is fair.

I mean, this is not a crazy argument. Moderate conservatives (like Eisenhower) used to make it.

---

I don't think the "nouveau riche" understand this point.

They think "let them eat cake" is just a historical anecdote and cannot repeat.

They think Amurica was won from the Indians by homesteaders with their brown bessies.

BearRaid;842067396 said:

---

The Republicans have nobody better than a ham sandwich to send up there. The position of their party can win local elections, depending on the district. It can even win Senatorial seats depending on the state. It is too extreme to win presidential elections.

---

It is a question about policy positions with respect to social policy, foreign policy and women's issues. But it's the demographic shift in this country that should cause alarm bells to go off for the GOP. There are more single women and single moms in this country than ever before. There are more people who do not identify with a particular religion/faith. The ethnic demographics in this country are shifting. AND, they are shifting in terms of location (North Carolina and Virginia being one of the biggest two).

So though policy positions may shift (tho for Republicans they seem to be shifting in the wrong direction), the more diverse population and the youthfulness of it means that, at least nationally, Dems may hold the advantage for the long term. All the demographics mentioned above are firmly on the Dem side.

But with respect to more local races, and state houses, I think it's probably 50-50.

Not coincidentally, there is now a major push by Republicans in state houses and in congress to change the manner in which Electoral College votes are awarded. Rather than winner take all, they want it based on proportion. This is clearly a sign that Republicans see the demographic shift. In short, on a national level, they see long-term trouble.

tommie317;842067379 said:

---

If you were poor, you would be collecting food stamps, welfare, housing, education, etc. so your story doesn't even make sense.

---

You have been brainwashed to believe that all people who are poor accept food stamps, welfare & housing.

You would be wrong.

Anyway, I was talking about myself, after I graduated, Einstein.

Golden One;842067260 said:

---

Actually, you're wrong. Salaries for professional people are the same in Houston as they are in San Ramon. So, if you're an engineer working for Chevron and get a lateral transfer to Houston, your income will not change. Often these transfers come with a promotion so your income actually increases, giving you much more buying power in Houston. Same thing applies to blue collar workers who work for a major corporation. For example, if you're an operator or craftsman in a Contra Costa County refinery, you'll make exactly the same wage as your counterpart working in a refinery in Houston. When you consider that there is no income tax in Texas and that houses are about half the cost (or less) of those in California, your standard of living increases dramatically.

---

So why are so many poor slobs working here in California instead of clamoring to move to Houston? Maybe because some of us would rather have a poor lifestyle in California than live like a king in Texas?


My girlfriend has a cousin in Houston and when her family goes to visit them all we hear about from them is how big and beautiful the cousin's house is. I've seen the pictures. It looks really nice and it costs a fraction of what my house here costs. Problem is: It's in Houston! And for all of the people oohing and aahing over their house not a single one of them has relocated (not necessarily just from California) either.


I am sure Houston works for a lot of people. It's one of the biggest cities in the country. However, I hate humidity, hate the Gulf (as compared to the Pacific Ocean anyway), and don't really like the politics of most of the people there. I would never move even if I could double my salary. Not to Houston. "Standard of living" has a lot of intangibles.

sycasey;842067385 said:

---

If you were poor, how did you afford to go to a private high school?

Or maybe that means you went to a public school, which means you did take a few dimes from the government.

EDIT: Oh, and wait, you also went to Cal, which means at least 12% of your education was paid for by the state.

---

Scholarships. Any money the government spent on my education has already been paid back in taxes.

The stupid is strong with these.