So do you feel it is the government's responsibility to redistribute money from higher earners to lower earners?

 

Obviously

So do you feel it is the government's responsibility to redistribute money from higher earners to lower earners?

 

In a successful society, it is often said that one good measure is how the society treats the lower tier of the society. I don't want hand outs to anyone capable. I want more opportunities for those lower end people to better themselves. I believe if the lower part of our society begins to feel disenfranchised, it leads to a disruption of the whole society and possibly eventually to anarchy. This is where the Tea Party and Occupy are similar - these are protests against a government by people who feel disenfranchised. So yes, everyone including the government should have a strong interest in making sure the lower earners and the incapable in our society are provided for. Anyone who is a high end wage earner should be thankful to this nation that they were able to achieve that level of wealth. They should have no problem with sharing some of their hard earned wealth to ensure the capitalist nation that brought them that wealth remains strong. Right now, our structure is out of balance.

 

Here is another stat for you to consider. I don't have a reference for this. It was told to me recently so I can't verify it to be accurate. But here are the numbers. In the last 30 years, the income of the lower third of our society has grown about 10%; the income of the middle class has grown about 40%; the income of the top end has grown 171%. That is not a recipe for a fruitful society for all.

 

Now again, let me be very clear. I AM A CAPITALIST! A society and economic structure that provides me the opportunity to earn $1,000,000 is incredible. I have no problem paying 40% of the hard earned $1M back to the government and society to ensure continued success.

Something tells me if you were earning that $1M your opinion would be different. It's real easy to share fantasy wealth.

In a successful society, it is often said that one good measure is how the society treats the lower tier of the society. I don't want hand outs to anyone capable. I want more opportunities for those lower end people to better themselves. I believe if the lower part of our society begins to feel disenfranchised, it leads to a disruption of the whole society and possibly eventually to anarchy. This is where the Tea Party and Occupy are similar - these are protests against a government by people who feel disenfranchised. So yes, everyone including the government should have a strong interest in making sure the lower earners and the incapable in our society are provided for. Anyone who is a high end wage earner should be thankful to this nation that they were able to achieve that level of wealth. They should have no problem with sharing some of their hard earned wealth to ensure the capitalist nation that brought them that wealth remains strong. Right now, our structure is out of balance.

 

Here is another stat for you to consider. I don't have a reference for this. It was told to me recently so I can't verify it to be accurate. But here are the numbers. In the last 30 years, the income of the lower third of our society has grown about 10%; the income of the middle class has grown about 40%; the income of the top end has grown 171%. That is not a recipe for a fruitful society for all.

 

Now again, let me be very clear. I AM A CAPITALIST! A society and economic structure that provides me the opportunity to earn $1,000,000 is incredible. I have no problem paying 40% of the hard earned $1M back to the government and society to ensure continued success.

 

I have coached many workers over the years and continue to do so. The thing I stress over and over is not to let the government or one company control your financial destiny. The key is to take one's well-being into one's own hand, and the best way to do that is to increase one's education and skills. My concern with your email is that you make it the higher income people's obligation to increase the income of the lower wage earner. Of course, a civilized society offers a safety net, and sometimes people need a hand UP, but not a perpetual hand OUT with the resultant malaise of people who expect others to take care of them.

I heard on local radio show today that if you taxed everyone who earns over $250,000 100% (i.e. took their entire earnings) that would fund the Federal Government for 6 months. Demonize away...but the spending party is over. Or needs to be unless we end up like Greece.

I have coached many workers over the years and continue to do so. The thing I stress over and over is not to let the government or one company control your financial destiny. The key is to take one's well-being into one's own hand, and the best way to do that is to increase one's education and skills. My concern with your email is that you make it the higher income people's obligation to increase the income of the lower wage earner. Of course, a civilized society offers a safety net, and sometimes people need a hand UP, but not a perpetual hand OUT with the resultant malaise of people who expect others to take care of them.

 

No need to be concerned. I don't feel that way at all. Everyone has personal responsibility for their lot in life. If there have been tragic hurdles and challenges in the path to success, it is your job to fight through them. The obligation the higher income people carry is to ensure our government and society continue to be the greatest and the American Dream remains intact. Stuffing all the money you can into your own pockets does not do that.

Something tells me if you were earning that $1M your opinion would be different. It's real easy to share fantasy wealth.

 

Trust me, my opinion would not change. I have very strong beliefs and principals that greed for the dollar bill can not change.

I actually don't do that. I actually do try to go the distance to try and understand another's point of view. It must really be outrageous for me to go there. I will try to reverse my knee-jerk reaction to the statement and give woodsrider's post another look. But...I'm not ashamed to admit I was aghast when I read that line, and disinclined to even consider going furhter.

 

No need to explain yourself. I know you wouldn't play that card lightly.:thumb:

Here is another stat for you to consider. I don't have a reference for this. It was told to me recently so I can't verify it to be accurate. But here are the numbers. In the last 30 years, the income of the lower third of our society has grown about 10%; the income of the middle class has grown about 40%; the income of the top end has grown 171%. That is not a recipe for a fruitful society for all.

 

As bad as that looks, you have to take into account that in the past 30 years, our economy has globalized. The internet has made it much easier for products to be sold around the world therefore making it possible for them to make a lot more money. The top percentage of people are the ones that benefit from this. That is the biggest reason why their income has grown so much and the others haven't.

Why not Soros since he's been a major player on Wall Street?

 

Soros is scum.

As bad as that looks, you have to take into account that in the past 30 years, our economy has globalized. The internet has made it much easier for products to be sold around the world therefore making it possible for them to make a lot more money. The top percentage of people are the ones that benefit from this. That is the biggest reason why their income has grown so much and the others haven't.

 

So repeated tax cuts for the upper income earners hasn't had an impact?

Trust me, my opinion would not change. I have very strong beliefs and principals that greed for the dollar bill can not change.

 

Sorry, can't buy it. Seen it too many times.

So repeated tax cuts for the upper income earners hasn't had an impact?

 

No it has. Tax cuts indirectly feed us more revenue. More revenue allows certain individuals to have healthcare in the US as well as other social expenditures. You are also assuming that given the top percentage have more income that everyone's should increase. I am under the impression that they broaden the base of the middle class. Giving tax cuts doesn't make everyone's income increase. The purpose of those tax cuts isn't necessarily to pay everyone more but to higher more workers.

No it has. Tax cuts indirectly feed us more revenue. More revenue allows certain individuals to have healthcare in the US as well as other social expenditures. You are also assuming that given the top percentage have more income that everyone's should increase. I am under the impression that they broaden the base of the middle class. Giving tax cuts doesn't make everyone's income increase. The purpose of those tax cuts isn't necessarily to pay everyone more but to higher more workers.

 

This is the great disconnect. They have not hired more workers and have only increased profits.

No it has. Tax cuts indirectly feed us more revenue. .

 

One of the great debates regarding tax cuts.