Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Rich Get Richer
The American Conservative ^ | September 25, 2006 Issue | James Kurth

Posted on 09/20/2006 7:46:02 AM PDT by A. Pole

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
I just came back from the bread lines! Bought an apple for 5 cents too.

Sure, rub it in. My Hooverville is down to dividing one baked bean a week.

101 posted on 09/20/2006 11:05:53 AM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
"She can "enjoy" her wealth only because there is a society and working people who sustain her wealth in existence."

It's called a free market. People can either stay at a Hilton or somewhere else...personally I don't stay at too many Hilton's due to price.

102 posted on 09/20/2006 11:06:13 AM PDT by Sam's Army (Imagine a world without car commercials.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Feldkurat_Katz
Define UNEARNED. Does that include inheritance, dividends, speculating in the stock market (which of these?) or something else (if so, what?)

I am not sure. I guess it is hard or maybe impossible to draw a clear border.

But it is clear that the wealth of Paris Hilton is not earned while the wealth of many others is.

103 posted on 09/20/2006 11:11:46 AM PDT by A. Pole (Hush Bimbo: "Low wage is good for you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Using this definition, is it good for a nation to have a sizable class of permanently wealthy?

Yet another misunderstanding of the real world. Read a copy of "The Millionaire Next Door". People who earn their wealth understand how it was produced. In general, those who inherit wealth from a prior generation fail to hold on to it for more than one or two generations. The reason is that they don't understand how it was generated. It doesn't take government interference with estate taxes to destroy or confiscate the wealth created by a given generation of a family.

The travesty of estate taxes is the way it causes family farms to be sold for taxes. Families are unable to continue farming a piece of land due to the greed of the socialist politicians. The farms are frequently turned into nature conservation preserves, developed with houses or snapped up by a large corporate agricultural entity. The farmers are hardly "rich".

I pose a similar question to you: is it good to import an endless flow of uneducated and unskilled people from all over the world to live on the dole? There is an endless supply of people who would love to come to this country and sit on their asses while the taxpayer cares for their every want and desire.

104 posted on 09/20/2006 11:12:46 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Feldkurat_Katz; Michamilton; A. Pole
The productive people in society drive the train that pulls the economy. Some people don't earn much because of their lack of skill. They may work hard, but produce less, because of a lack of skill. Others work in jobs (usually government) that pay less, but are extremely rewarding (Military, Police, Firefighters, Teachers). Government redistribution of wealth should be avoided to punish high productive or high achieving people and reward indolence. Provide help to the old, blind, disabled, children, but don't throw money at the poor to try to make them equal, they aren't.

Here's an article on the wealth gap.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRmNjdkMDRlNDI0NjE1ODA4NmM4NTFkNjYzMjZjZmQ=
105 posted on 09/20/2006 11:12:55 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Are you for inheritance/estate tax then?

Yes, I am -- in a very specific form. All inheritances should be taxed as if they were sales of capital assets -- with any tax consequences that would result from it. There is no reason why a person who sells $1 billion worth of his assets the day before he dies should have a maximum tax exposure of 20% (the top capital gains tax rate), while the one who passes his assets on to his heirs should pass on a 50% tax burden to them.

BTW, how the previous generations of Kennedies earned their wealth?

Most of their wealth was generated illegally -- through the sale of liquor and the operation of speakeasies during Prohibition.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? Whether they're running speakeasies or running government, there's a sh!t-load of booze behind everything they do, eh?

106 posted on 09/20/2006 11:13:26 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: A Longer Name
So the question should be, did he deserve to pass his wealth to his descendants as was surely his intention? And the answer is yes.

Fine, so what about the brave knights who risked their life, who displayed the nobility of character and defended their nation from deadly enemies. Did they deserve to preserve their privileges and status to their descendants?

107 posted on 09/20/2006 11:14:54 AM PDT by A. Pole (Hush Bimbo: "Low wage is good for you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
But it is clear that the wealth of Paris Hilton is not earned

The stupid bleached blonde slut does some work (TV shows,) in that sense her wealth is more earned than that of many others who keep low profile.

108 posted on 09/20/2006 11:15:36 AM PDT by Feldkurat_Katz (What no women’s magazine ever offers to improve is women’s minds - Taki)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Fine, so what about the brave knights who risked their life, who displayed the nobility of character and defended their nation from deadly enemies. Did they deserve to preserve their privileges and status to their descendants?

I am not sure if this is a good analogy. Wealth can be wasted by prolifigate descendants. A title of nobility was a lifetime privilege.

109 posted on 09/20/2006 11:22:10 AM PDT by Feldkurat_Katz (What no women’s magazine ever offers to improve is women’s minds - Taki)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Feldkurat_Katz
The stupid bleached blonde slut does some work (TV shows,) in that sense her wealth is more earned than that of many others who keep low profile.

True

110 posted on 09/20/2006 11:24:41 AM PDT by A. Pole (Hush Bimbo: "Low wage is good for you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Michamilton
True. I was really explaining why the growth rate for low-income households was so low in and of itself -- not why it was so low in comparison to upper-income households.

There's a simple reason why the highest quintile of almost any group of people -- under any form of measurement you wish to use (income, vital statistics, etc.) -- will increase faster than the lowest. It's because for most measurements there is no practical limitation on how high the measurement in question can go, but there is usually a practical limitation on how low it can go.

For example . . .

If you were to compare the change in life expectancy for the top 20% of the U.S. population (i.e., the 20% of the population that lives the longest) to the change in life expectancy for the lowest 20% of the U.S. population (i.e., the 20% of the population that dies earliest), you'll likely find a similar trend. This is because the distribution of the population based on age at their deaths is not a true "normal distribution" bell curve . . . people can live incrementally longer over time (someone who died at the age of 50 a century ago might live to the age of 60, 80 or even 100 today), but the lowest end of the curve is constrained at the age of 0 and cannot decrease over time.

111 posted on 09/20/2006 11:25:40 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

The contention that the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is based on figures from 1979 - 2001. I believe the Bush tax cuts have changed things - especially since the poor and middle class got much bigger tax cuts than did the rich.


112 posted on 09/20/2006 11:28:55 AM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
The travesty of estate taxes is the way it causes family farms to be sold for taxes. Families are unable to continue farming a piece of land due to the greed of the socialist politicians. The farms are frequently turned into nature conservation preserves, developed with houses or snapped up by a large corporate agricultural entity. The farmers are hardly "rich".

This may have been true at one time, but not anymore. Farms are specifically exempted from estate taxes under certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the heir or heirs must continue to occupy and run the farm, and this is what ultimately causes many of these farms to be sold off. The heirs simply don't want to run the family farm like their parents did.

Of course, the phrase, "My father left me the family farm but I had to sell it due to the greed of the socialist politicians" sounds a lot better than, "My father left me the family farm but I had to sell it because I have no interest in running it."

113 posted on 09/20/2006 11:32:10 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

I don't know any "brave knights", but paris hilton spends tons of her inherited money, which is spread throughout the economy, and taxed many times over. This is far preferable to the government confiscating inherited wealth only to throw it into the treasury where it disappears. Personally, I hope the stupid bimbo dies broke.


114 posted on 09/20/2006 11:38:08 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The shock is that it comes from something with the name Conservative attached to it.

Some Conservatives recognize that when things get too far out of wack, an FDR comes along.

115 posted on 09/20/2006 11:43:57 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Did they deserve to preserve their privileges and status to their descendants?

What privileges and status? Wealth, mansions, etc.? Yes. Political power? No.

116 posted on 09/20/2006 11:46:07 AM PDT by A Longer Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
And low-income households today are far more likely to be headed by a single parent than low-income households 25 years ago.

Twenty-five years ago you were more likely to find households with one wage earner, now for most people in most areas, its commonly accepted that it takes two wage earners to support a family.

117 posted on 09/20/2006 11:55:51 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
And yet in many of those cases, having a second wage earner is completely extraneous and does not "pay off" in the long run.

When you add all of the costs associated with having a second income in a family (second car, work clothing, child care, stupid government programs that are nothing more than expensive day care, etc.), you often find that a second spouse who works for a salary of $60,000 per year is actually working for less than the minimum wage.

118 posted on 09/20/2006 12:07:19 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: A Longer Name
What privileges and status? Wealth, mansions, etc.? Yes. Political power? No.

And why the wealth is to be preserved while political power/position not? What is the difference?

119 posted on 09/20/2006 12:11:13 PM PDT by A. Pole (Hush Bimbo: "Low wage is good for you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
But so far nobody here tried to defend the idea of permanent UNEARNED wealth.

Unearned wealth? I guess you can take the A.Pole out of Marxism but you can't take the Marxism out of A.Pole.

I've got a better tagline for you, (A.Pole: "Socialism is good for you!")

120 posted on 09/20/2006 12:17:57 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson