"Income Inequality": So What?

[The Rabbi]

Pop Quiz:

Warren Buffet wants to "spend" 100 million dollars in the way that provides the greatest benefit to Society. These are his options:

(1) Send the IRS an extra $100,000,000.00 with his next tax return (this is permissible under U.S. law); or

(2) Send a check for $100,000,000.00 to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where it will be distributed to various charitable initiatives; or

(3) Go out and purchase American-made goods and services (boats, cars, furniture, artworks, golf lessons, etc) having a total cost of $100,000,000.00.

Which of the three options will provide the greatest benefit to Society. And why?

I would add:
4) Go out and buy an underperforming company, hire expensive managerial talent to turn it around.

And I would answer 4.
$100M is what the gov't spends about every 30 seconds. It wont even be noticed. The charities may or may not do work that benefits some selected individuals. Measuring the effect will be difficult for years.
Buying American made crap he doesnt need (Bufffet is very frugal) provides a short boost in demand one time. This is essentially the Obama Administration's strategy for the economy. It is a fail.
Buying an underperforming company and turning it around provides the best effect. The company will become profitable, so it provides continuing employment, possibly at higher rates of pay and benefits, to employees. It will satisfy customer's needs, making the economy more efficient. It will pay taxes, providing a revenue stream to the gov't that would exceed over the long term by many times any $100M he could give them.

 

[HUGGY]

"Income Inequality": So What?

Wasn't THAT a Bernie Maddoff quote?

 

[regent]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

 

[The Rabbi]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You people on the left have for your own reasons omitted a word from the general welfare clause. The word is "for"...You people believe it reads "provide general welfare"..
It does not say that and there is no intent for the clause to mean that either.
General welfare means one thing., To make sure the freedom and liberty of the people is preserved.

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

Which isn't taking money from half the citizens to provide a home, food, education, medical, etc. for the other half from cradle to grave.

The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Giving money to people is a waste because every dollar given must come from somewhere else. And no, Obama does not have a stash somewhere. So money given to unproductive people must come from productive people. How does that make sense?

Not really that true, Rabbi.

I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste”....

Why?

When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$’s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.

So we end up with a situation where the:

a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.

What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.

Here’s another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.

.
.

Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.

You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pop Quiz:

Warren Buffet wants to "spend" 100 million dollars in the way that provides the greatest benefit to Society. These are his options:

(1) Send the IRS an extra $100,000,000.00 with his next tax return (this is permissible under U.S. law); or

(2) Send a check for $100,000,000.00 to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where it will be distributed to various charitable initiatives; or

(3) Go out and purchase American-made goods and services (boats, cars, furniture, artworks, golf lessons, etc) having a total cost of $100,000,000.00.

Which of the three options will provide the greatest benefit to Society. And why?

I would add:
4) Go out and buy an underperforming company, hire expensive managerial talent to turn it around.

And I would answer 4.
$100M is what the gov't spends about every 30 seconds. It wont even be noticed. The charities may or may not do work that benefits some selected individuals. Measuring the effect will be difficult for years.
Buying American made crap he doesnt need (Bufffet is very frugal) provides a short boost in demand one time. This is essentially the Obama Administration's strategy for the economy. It is a fail.
Buying an underperforming company and turning it around provides the best effect. The company will become profitable, so it provides continuing employment, possibly at higher rates of pay and benefits, to employees. It will satisfy customer's needs, making the economy more efficient. It will pay taxes, providing a revenue stream to the gov't that would exceed over the long term by many times any $100M he could give them.

It will give a boost to other businesses around it and doing business with it, thereby helping to provide all those benefits through THOSE businesses, as well.

 

[regent]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

So much here that indicates a woeful lack of understanding about the world and everything in it, I'm not sure where to start.

First, there's nothing "greedy" about continuing to work even after you've made enough money to live on for the rest of your life. Some people just like what they do, and who are YOU to tell them they have to stop because it's "greedy" to make more money?

Second, where do you get off declaring any particular level of income or lifestyle more noble or moral than any other? Just because YOU like getting by from paycheck to paycheck does NOT make it the pinnacle of What Is Right and How Things Should Be. Maybe I want to make enough to leave each of my three children financially set for life. Who are you to tell me that's wrong, or that I shouldn't want that? It's MY money, MY time, MY labor, and MY choice.

Third, who are you to decide what others "need" or not? Can you display a little more hubris there? For that matter, who are you to decide that only "need" - as defined by you - is acceptable and moral at all? Did Mitt Romney break any laws accumulating that money? No? Then what's it to you what he has or does in his life?

Fourth, anyone who thinks Donald Trump became and remains wealthy by "doing nothing more difficult than combing his hair" obviously knows so little about financial success as to actually make me embarrassed to even be talking to him. It's like having an economics discussion with my dog, except my dog is at least cute and pretends to be listening.

Fifth, and finally, let me explain something in a bit more depth that you've obviously never in your pointless existence considered: not everyone works at loser jobs they hate for the sole purpose of paying the bills. Some people do what they do because they enjoy it and have a talent for it.

Case in point: My favorite author, Stephen King. Mr. King is one of the wealthiest living writers on the planet, based solely on his book sales and the investment of the money from same (as opposed to Danielle Steel, who is at least as wealthy from marrying a multimillionaire as she is from book sales and such). He at this moment is in possession of enough money to keep himself and his wife in luxury the rest of his life, and THEN to keep all of his children in luxury for the rest of THEIR lives, and probably his grandchildren as well.

By your standards, you should at this point be screeching in outrage, "How much money does he NEED? Why does he keep making more? Does he have some sort of greed gene?!" Because, despite the vast wealth Mr. King already has, he perniciously insists on continuing to write and publish books. He has all the money he "needs", and yet he continues to work, rather than retiring and sitting around picking his nose. The nerve!

This is because Mr. King ENJOYS his work. He stopped doing it for the money a long time ago, and never was entirely doing it for the money, anyway. He does it because he has a talent for writing, and he enjoys the process of writing, and he enjoys entertaining the people who love his books and would be sad if he stopped producing them (not to mention putting whole rafts of employees at his publishing company out of work).

What, you might ask, does this have to do with people like Mitt Romney (or Warren Buffett, for that matter)? Simply put, they continue doing what they do because they ENJOY it. They have a talent for it. The money is largely just a way to keep score in the game they're enjoying playing (and frankly, after a certain point, it's nigh-on impossible to make it STOP multiplying). Warren Buffett, by all accounts, lives quite frugally for a billionaire. He continues to play the investment and financial game because that's what he's good at, and that's what he enjoys. Mitt Romney continues to manage his personal investments and play the financial game because that's what HE'S good at and enjoys (and because it allows him the free time to do the other thing he likes, which is running for political office). Who the hell are you to tell them they have to abandon the things they like to do just because YOU wouldn't do them if you won the same amount of money in the lottery tomorrow?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.

You mean the way Warren Buffett is carrying Obama around in his pocket like a cheap watch? Or the way George Soros carries the whole DNC around in his pocket like a pack of Tic Tacs? Oh, wait, of COURSE you don't mean that, because HE'S buying politicians for GOOD causes.

The truth is, it's NONE of your business, and you know it, but damn it, how DARE those rich bastards have more and enjoy life more than you are, so you'll bloody well make up some vague excuse for butting in and demanding that the government rob them blind.

By the way, dipshit, if rich people have "bought" politicians, how is it that pissants like you get so much traction with those same politicians for the idea of taking everything away from the rich people who allegedly have bought the politicians and run the country? Explain the "logic" there for me, please.

The only people destroying the middle class are leftist peons like you, desperately looking for a way to make everyone as big a loser as you are so you won't have to feel so bad about it. The rich aren't hurting anyone, except for the occasional TV viewer who randomly channel-surfs onto something with Paris Hilton in it.

 

[Againsheila]

Giving money to people is a waste because every dollar given must come from somewhere else. And no, Obama does not have a stash somewhere. So money given to unproductive people must come from productive people. How does that make sense?

Not really that true, Rabbi.

I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste”....

Why?

When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$’s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.

So we end up with a situation where the:

a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.

What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.

Here’s another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.

.
.

Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.

You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.

Here's the point YOU missed...over the past decades the wealth of the upper 10% has increased by over 200% while the wealth of the rest of us has stagnated or gone down....Do you really believe the top 10% deserve more wealth that the bottom 90% of us combined??????

 

[The Rabbi]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.

Which politicians have been "bought"? I want names. You know individuals are limited in how much they can give in campaign contributions, right?
No, it isn't any of your fucking business how much money people make or what they spend it on.

 

[KevinWestern]

Giving money to people is a waste because every dollar given must come from somewhere else. And no, Obama does not have a stash somewhere. So money given to unproductive people must come from productive people. How does that make sense?

Not really that true, Rabbi.

I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste”....

Why?

When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$’s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.

So we end up with a situation where the:

a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.

What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.

Here’s another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.

.
.

Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.

You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.

Listen lady friend,

My point is that we as humans are historically not that great at distributing wealth across society in the most net beneficial way. Wealth pools, the rich get richer, and eventually we end up with unstable societies that collapse into civil war. It happens over and over again and I don't want to see that happen here in America's future.

Although I'm not god and do not claim to know the best formula for redistribution, I think it's a common sense realization to acknowledge that there exists a thing called excessive wealth accumulation, and that some people in this world could stand to give more in the name of lifting their fellow humans out of poverty.

The less people we have struggling to find something to eat, pay their medical bills, make ends meet, the more people we'll have working on solving our most pressing issues and creating additional wealth for all to benefit in.

I never once mentioned in my posts that this redistribution would be best conducted by our gov't (as you seem to allude to in your post). I suggested that we start by eliminating excessive money in and around our political campaigns, as it corrupts the Democratic process by granting an unfair advantage to the most powerful amongst us. Another solution would be education reform. Either way, I never suggested that the government forcefully redistribute the money and that's the point that YOU seemed to have missed.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.

Which politicians have been "bought"? I want names. You know individuals are limited in how much they can give in campaign contributions, right?
No, it isn't any of your fucking business how much money people make or what they spend it on.

Give me a break. What's the limit on Super PAC contributions? Do you realize that these campaign machines are being run by our candidate's close friends and relatives, and are going to lead us into a MULTI BILLION dollar election cycle?

Do you realize that politicians today spend 30% of their time (on taxpayer's watches) fundraising? You don't think that they take into account their multi-million dollar donors when voting on regulation mandates and economic reform policies?

You need to get wise, my friend.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.

Which politicians have been "bought"? I want names. You know individuals are limited in how much they can give in campaign contributions, right?
No, it isn't any of your fucking business how much money people make or what they spend it on.

Give me a break. What's the limit on Super PAC contributions? Do you realize that these campaign machines are being run by our candidate's close friends and relatives, and are going to lead us into a MULTI BILLION dollar election cycle?

Do you realize that politicians today spend 30% of their time (on taxpayer's watches) fundraising? You don't think that they take into account their multi-million dollar donors when voting on regulation mandates and economic reform policies?

You need to get wise, my friend.

.

Dunce.
Do you know why they spend so much fundraising? Reagan got elected with the support of about a dozen people. After that each individual could only give so much. So now the candidates have to run after millions of people rather than do any actual campaigning.
What is your alternative? Ban campaign contributions and let only rich people, who can spend their own money, or incumbents, who have automatic advantages, get elected?

 

[Fordsflylow]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

Should the money he gives to his church be considered charitable?

 

[KevinWestern]

Which politicians have been "bought"? I want names. You know individuals are limited in how much they can give in campaign contributions, right?
No, it isn't any of your fucking business how much money people make or what they spend it on.

Give me a break. What's the limit on Super PAC contributions? Do you realize that these campaign machines are being run by our candidate's close friends and relatives, and are going to lead us into a MULTI BILLION dollar election cycle?

Do you realize that politicians today spend 30% of their time (on taxpayer's watches) fundraising? You don't think that they take into account their multi-million dollar donors when voting on regulation mandates and economic reform policies?

You need to get wise, my friend.

.

Dunce.
Do you know why they spend so much fundraising? Reagan got elected with the support of about a dozen people. After that each individual could only give so much. So now the candidates have to run after millions of people rather than do any actual campaigning.
What is your alternative? Ban campaign contributions and let only rich people, who can spend their own money, or incumbents, who have automatic advantages, get elected?

No - of course not.

How about publicly funded elections through tax credits (I read this idea somewhere in a book)? Each US taxpayer would have the option to donate $50 of their tax dollars to a Presidential candidate, and if they opt out, the $50 will still be deducted from their annual income (so there's really no reason to opt out).

That could generate billions of dollars, and would be much less corrupting than the setup we have today...

.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Provide "for" the general welfare

Do what is best for the country

Which isn't taking money from half the citizens to provide a home, food, education, medical, etc. for the other half from cradle to grave.

The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".

Why should the poor be expected to pay taxes? They're poor! If they are working poor they still pay all taxes (i.e. income tax, etc.) cept payroll tax.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Giving money to people is a waste because every dollar given must come from somewhere else. And no, Obama does not have a stash somewhere. So money given to unproductive people must come from productive people. How does that make sense?

Not really that true, Rabbi.

I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste”....

Why?

When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$’s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.

So we end up with a situation where the:

a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.

What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.

Here’s another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.

.
.

Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.

You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.

it's not THEIR money!

 

[Dr Grump]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.

It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.

Dontcha know that greed is good Regent?