The rich are different — and not in a good way...

Why not give to charity, as opposed to giving to the wasteful bureaucracy? Oh wait, that won't help the useless and lazy.

archer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: Why is it just decided that the rich means GOP or Tea Party? Have you checked who the richest representatives are?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php

Walsh and Rubio have negative net worth. Seems that the dems in congress are selfish...

Selfish relates to how much you are willing to care about your fellow citizens, do you vote to take away medicare, medicaid, SS, welfare, health care....or do you look for ways to protect those programs and cut spending elsewhere and raise revenue where ever you can. It isn't if you are rich or poor, it's where your priorities lie. I know a lot of unselfish people, both rich and poor, ditto the selfish. What I am seeing is those who want to keep everything they have, and don't care what happens to anyone else, are usually from the GOP......just MHO.

So does this mean I can come by and grab a cord of wood and a few beers then?

sorry, no beer in the house, wine ok? If you need wood and can't afford to buy it I would be happy to share what I have. It wouldn't be the first time I have given wood to someone who needs it.

People who create wealthe (Riches) are different than those that are Born rich. I believe the article is refering mainly to those that have not/do not need to work or have ever worked for the $$$.
I posted this along time ago about the "Rich".
They think differently, and are raised differently.

archer wrote: Who posted they want the next generation to pay for what you spend today? no one I have read.....did I miss that post? Did anyone say we shouldn't live within our means......I must have missed that post too. I'll go look and see if anyone was bashing Gates for his charity. Not sure what your point about the working guy giving to charity vs Gates is. Perhaps you could clear that up.

If, however, you are talking about how we should live within our means, what would be a responsible approach to balancing our budget and creating a surplus that can be used to pay down our debt....well, yeah, that is a good discussion. Misrepresenting what has been posted by others, not so good.

By spending trillions of dollars more than we have in revenues to benefit the current generation we are leaving behind an unpaid debt that others, who have not been the beneficiaries of the deficit spending, will be required to pay back. You don't have to post that you want the next generation to pay for what is spent today, all you need do is support the current benefits paid out by Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the individual welfare programs and you have taken that position by default.

The only plan that is a responsible plan is to look at the historic revenues of the DC government as a percentage of GDP and limit the spending of the federal government to that amount or less every year, preferably at least 1% of GDP below historic levels of revenue. Given the wide swings over the last 65 years in tax structure and tax rates, and the consistent level of revenue received over that period of time despite those variables, it would appear that limiting the federal spending to something less than 18% of GDP would be the reasoned and logical place to set that limit since this is approximately the last 60 year average, the last 30 year average and the last 10 year average.

So let's have a good discussion on the Mack Penny Plan archer. It proposes reducing the amount spent from year to year by a single penny of every dollar spent the year before. It starts from where we are now, not where we were a few years ago, and it proposes reaching the historical average of revenue in less than a decade. Why is this not a responsible approach?

archer wrote: sorry, no beer in the house, wine ok? If you need wood and can't afford to buy it I would be happy to share what I have. It wouldn't be the first time I have given wood to someone who needs it.

Wine sounds good I have plenty of wood laying around I am too lazy to cut it.

PrintSmith wrote: The only plan that is a responsible plan is to look at the historic revenues of the DC government as a percentage of GDP and limit the spending of the federal government to that amount or less every year, preferably at least 1% of GDP below historic levels of revenue.

No... That is not "the only plan"... <sigh>

So, just for fun, I just searched a catalog of my "greatest hits" for Revenue Enhancers and Tax-Cuts:

REVENUE:

Social Security: Remove the $106,800 limit, and tax all the income at the individual's share, but keep the $106,800 limit for employer contributions.... Problem solved for the next 150+ years....

Restore the Bush tax-cuts... ALL of them.

Remove the subsidies for oil companies.

Remove the subsidies for corn/ethanol

Remove (or means-test) the farm subsidies for large agri-business

Remove the tax-breaks for corporate jets

Lower the corporate tax rates from 35% to 28%-25%, but close EVERY damned loophole so that the EFFECTIVE tax rate really IS 25%... (The current effect tax-rate is around 18% or less.)

Remove the tax-break for hedge-fund managers so that they pay the full personal tax-rate on their earnings instead of the 15% capital-gains rate.

Close ALL tax-breaks for companies that move their jobs off-shore.

Continue to close EVERY off-shore income-sheltering device; Swiss bank accounts; Cayman Islands; Ireland; ALL of it. Give the companies 1 year to repatriate their off-shore assets. No 5% rate for bringing them back... ONE YEAR to bring them back or there will be a 5% PENALTY on top of the applicable taxes.

Close the loophole that allows ANY Congressperson or Senator to collect benefits, pensions, health-care, etc., if they were expelled, removed from office, or committed a crime while in office where it could be proved that they used their office for financial gain, selling their vote, bribery, or any other malfeasance of their office.

Return the Inheritance taxes to their pre-Bush levels.

Do away with the REIT tax loophole; (Real-Estate Investment Trusts), that cute trick that companies like Wal-Mart uses to create shell companies to buy property and then lease it back to the company, tax-free.

Change the mortgage-interest deduction so that any homes over $500,000 are means-tested and on a sliding scale based on income-level.

Change the rule that lets millionaires spend as few as 14 days on their luxury yachts and declare them at the same rate as second "home mortgages."

Change Medicare, so that coverage is means-tested... The more you make over $500,000, the more you contribute in co-pays, and the less benefits you get.

..............

I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that come to mind.

---

TAX-CUTS:

MILITARY:
1) Close unnecessary bases, particularly in Europe and the Middle East where they aren't needed.
2) Do away with no-bid contracts.
3) File lawsuits to recover money from contractors who don't perform, or do shoddy work, or don't fulfill contractual obligations.
4) Bring troops back home from unnecessary wars... Stop the fantasy that "We won't leave until we win"... There IS NO "WINNING" here... There is "declare we've won" and get the hell out.
5) Shutdown programs that the military doesn't need and want, but are only being funded because of defense-industry lobbying, and pork-barrel reasons having to do with the fact that they are done in some congressman's or senator's district.

Leave Medicare and Medicaid alone.

Rescind the cute little law that gives Congress-critters automatic raises when no one is looking... MAKE them have to approve it...in the light of day... Not at 2am in the morning when the cameras aren't turned on, and where the public has to be able to see them do it.

Approve and support the Consumer Protection Agency

Approve and support the Financial Regulations recently passed.

Approve and support the Affordable Health Care Act.


Admittedly some of these could be considered as much "tax-cuts" as revenue-raisers, but the theme is the same.

Must See Chart: Tax Breaks for the Rich Versus Budget Cuts

http://www.good.is/post/must-see-chart- ... dget-cuts/

---

I refer to the salient quotes from the original post:

Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish.

Because the rich gloss over the ways family connections, money and education helped, they come to denigrate the role of government and vigorously oppose taxes to fund it.

Then there is the problem of Tea Partiers’ own class position. While they are funded by the wealthy, many do not identify themselves as wealthy (though there is dispute on the real demographics). Still, a strong allegiance to the American Dream can lead even regular folks to overestimate their own self-reliance in the same way as rich people.

The Party of Selfish has no other solution than: "Screw the middle & lower classes....but protect the tax breaks for the wealthy." Boom...The End...

Sociopaths...

archer wrote: sorry, no beer in the house

See ya!

if you need... and can't afford to buy it I would be happy to share what I have.

I really can afford to buy it if I work and manage my finances responsibly. However, I don't. So gimmee gimeee, I want your piece of the pie.

Actually I don't buy firewood, I go out and work for it. Sometimes I even buy a permit to work for it, from the Gubmint.

I like pellets.

Do all of that and you know what you will end up with? 18% of the annual GDP of the nation for the goverment to spend. Know how I know this? By looking at the post WWII average tax revenues.

The privilege to be employed/have employee taxes have doubled on both the rate and the amount of revenue subject to the tax during the time I have been alive. How much did that raise total average revenues as a percentage of GDP? 0%.

Reagan lowered the rates, broadened the base and closed billions of dollars worth of tax loopholes. Effect on average revenues as a percentage of GDP? 0%.

We closed lots of bases within our own borders, slashed defense spending, lowered the number of troops and raised taxes under Clinton. Effect on average revenue as a percentage of GDP? 0%.

See a consistent pattern in there anywhere? I do. Regardless of tax rates, tax policies or what is or is not subject to being taxed over time the tax revenue will average 18% of tha annual national production. That is the tax capacity of the union. 18% of annual GDP. If we want to stop ringing up deficits that put the full faith and credit of the DC government at perpetual risk of being downgraded the spending indulged in by DC must be at or below this number. This is what the past 65 years of data tells us and we ignore it at our own peril.