Meet the Press hosted what David Gregory dubbed a “special economic roundtable” on December 2 that included “CNBC‘s dynamic duo,” Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer. But Bartiromo’s comments about tax increases for the wealthy needed a factcheck.
She started by making a familiar conservative point about the so-called “fiscal cliff”—that the White House talks about ending tax cuts for the wealthy, but will not talk about spending cuts:
And the fact is that I find it extraordinary that we are zeroing in on this discussion only about taxes, and we do not have this kind of elaborate discussion when it comes to spending cuts. Two points here. Number one, Americans realized that the three biggest drivers of our debt are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We need structural change. We haven’t heard that.
Let’s step in here for a second: When did Americans “realize” any of this? When they’re asked, they tend to oppose cuts to these programs by substantial margins. There was an election last month; surely voters could have sent a message about their desire to cut these programs.
She went on:
Number two, on taxes, you really can’t put all of the taxes into one category. Dividend taxes, for one, is probably the biggest threat to the markets and the economy right now, when you’re just looking at taxes. And dividend taxes are not a rich tax, nor are capital gains. You’re talking about pension funds, 401(k) plans, investments in companies that pay dividends. If you’re expecting a dividend tax to go from 15 percent to 44 percent, that completely removes the opportunity or the incentive to buy dividend-paying companies. And that’s going to hurt not just the rich. That’s going to hurt everybody if, in fact, we were to see that. That’s very dangerous, and it is going to create a massive selloff.
For starters, income from 401(k) retirement accounts is taxed as normal income when funds are withdrawn from those accounts, so it is hard to see how that would be relevant. It has been, however, a popular media talking point in discussions like this—like when then–CNBC host Erin Burnett declared that a capital gains rate cut meant that “the half of Americans that own stocks get a benefit there as well.”)
The truth is that tax breaks on dividends and capital gains are most certainly a “rich tax.” This chart from the Citizens for Tax Justice shows that the overwhelming share of these tax breaks goes to the top 1 percent:
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice
Or consider this chart from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities:
The attempt to portray tax hikes on the wealthy as something else is mostly a misdirection; as the New York Times reported today (12/3/12):
Many economists agree than an increasing proportion of the entire equities market is now held by retirement investors whose holdings are not subject to current tax law; by foreign investors who don’t pay American taxes, or by institutional investors like insurance companies and pension funds that are exempt from taxes.
Or, to put it another way: According to the Congressional Research Service, the most significant contributor to the growth in inequality from 1996 to 2006 was dividends and capital gains. That income has enjoyed a massive break over the past dozen years.
If it’s important to have an “economic roundtable,” then Meet the Press should book a guest who might challenge these very familiar, very misleading talking points—or find a host who can do the same.
When, oh when, are those who are supposedly on the side of the 99% (e.g., FAIR) going to start hammering home the point that so-called “entitlements” legally have nothing to do with the budget deficit. Social Security and Medicare are funded through FICA, not the income tax or any of the other taxes so often thrown into the mix. We often hear that Social Security will be broke by 2042 (or whenever). When was the last time you heard that the Pentagon (or the Agriculture Department or FEMA) will be broke by 2042? By law there should be no relationship between the Federal budget and the “entitlement” programs. It’s time that FAIR and the like start making THAT argument.
Isn’t it curious how those who seem so concerned about the consequences of tax cuts on the middle class on these “roundtables”
Are never actually members of it?
You can call that altruism.
I can think of another word for it.
While I like the substance of this posting, the (at least two) typos make it difficult for me to regard it as fully credible.
“For starters, income from 401(k) retirement accounts is taxed as normal income when funds are withdrawn from those accounts, so it is hard to see how that would be relevant.”
Wow, talk about needing a fact check.
First off, the 60 million Americans have a 401K and 80% of contributors earn less than $100K a year, just to clear up your assertion that this is about rich folk.
Second, you apparently don’t realize how a 401K works. You can take deductions from contributions and defer taxation until withdrawal. What Congress is considering doing it limiting the size of contributions/ deductions to raise revenue. So it has a very real effect on the average Joe.
“The truth is that tax breaks on dividends and capital gains are most certainly a “rich tax.”
Umm, again, you should try some basic research on how a 401K works before writing about it. It’s a tax-sheltered account, not an investment account.
You might try the online movement savemy401k.com It has dumbed down charts and everything so you should be able to understand it.
MinnMouth, I’m not sure if you read FAIR Blog often, but I know I’ve seen that in multiple posts. It was even one of the points in their 9/2/11 Action Alert:
“Social Security and Medicare have their own budgets and are supported by dedicated payroll taxes. Each has amassed massive surpluses over the past two decades, which they have loaned to the Treasury by buying U.S. government bonds.”
Given their past record of pointing this out, I was surprised when it was not mentioned in this piece (I was actually looking for it). MinnMouth, typographical errors can be sign of unreliability, but they’re everywhere on the internet, even in news. The media produces content at such a harried pace, that errors, whether factual, typographical, or grammatical are common on mainstream news sites and blogs. FAIR carefully documents their pieces and relies on credible sources, and do so with (as far as I can tell) a pretty small staff. I think in terms of errors I’d prefer typographical to factual.
I’m not sure who is talking to whom here about what and why. Shouldn’t we focus on the notion that 401(k) plans will have neither an “opportunity nor an incentive to buy dividend-paying companies” if taxes on dividends go up? That seems a bit naive even for the Money Honey, given that 401(k) dividend income accumulates tax-free in the account until distributions begin, at which time it is taxed as ordinary income, not dividends. We are discussing the rather monumental ignorance of a news network investment specialist, no?
I just sent Bartiromo a tweet asking her why she does not factcheck her stories before letting them slip out between her lips. I supplied a shortURL for the WaPo story about the poll they did (http://alturl.com/jbrjx).
My only qualm here is that we are falsifying a claim by one MSM outlet that is notorious for misleading stories with “proof” by another MSM outlet that is also notorious for misleading stories (not to mention “self-censorship,” etc.
It is too bad the real Left in this country does not have its own polling apparatus, regardless what some self-proclaimed Leftists may say otherwise.
Maria Bartiromo, hand puppet of Jamie Dimon. David Gregory should be fired from MTP as soon as possible.
I think everyone knows that the biggest use of tax money is constant warfare! If we had the same size military as in 1912 and didn’t keep trying to rule the world, we could afford Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare easily.
You might want to go back and re-read the article, Robert–especially the part that’s bolded. Bartiromo is either confused, or she’s deliberately conflating two different things. I checked out your site, and indeed the grapics are simple, but so is the one posted above–the one that shows that capital gains and dividends are indeed a rich person’s tax.
Dang, how do ignorant people like Robert get through the front door *sigh*
robert
8 hours ago
His first point is about 401k not actually being about the rich folk.
1) This point is silly as he will admit to later, but to summarise, how many people of what bracket are tied to 401k is irrelevent because it wouldnt be affected by tax differences, as it is tax exempt until it is withdrawn from at normal income tax costs.
Therefore the actual effects of the taxes are a rich man issue.
His second
2) He declares that the writer doesnt know how 401k works, but then goes away from tax policy, onto a subject that isnt even discussed here because the media they respond to isnt discussing it. So how can he declare they dont understand something that they dont talk about.
contribution/deduction issue is a separate discussion of the bill from the tax portion, and this means congress an debate them separately.
The tax portion is about the rich folk. Stay on topic.
but I would like to know which proposals you are talking about in regards to 401k contributions/deductions, because I find so many different stories, and there are a few proposals, that I would really need to know how devastating your problem is. How many people it would actually affect, as a change would not affect everybody by
design of how each bracket uses 401k.
Here is something to help you understand 401k though.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-57535386/401-k-contribution-limit-to-rise-in-2013/
The contribution limit goes up next year, and I dont see how allowing you to contribute less would raise revenue, but I want to see where they plan to lower contributions anyway, and by how much, because only 5% of people even hit the max contribution amount. Hear that? 5%, should I repeat it a third time?
I guarantee those 5% arent in the lower brackets, not likely even middle class, which is under 100k a year income.
So if they did lower contribution, maybe 10% would hit the limit, and that would hurt them how? It would affect them, but where is the hurt?
I will respond to deduction limit issue if you can link a relevent and informative article on your worries.
3) You again accuse Hart of not understanding 401k by saying that its a tax shelter account, when that is exactly what Hart said it was. He didnt say it was an investment account, so maybe you just cant read?
Maybe you can quote his line that is confusing you, because you only seem to confirm that he does understand how 401k works.
So what was the point of your post, robert?
Hmmm
OK here are the facts. The FEDERAL RESERVE which is a private FOR PROFIT banking cartel is the number ONE creator of debt for Americans. They do it in 2 ways; by unloading the private debt of Wall street, banks and literally their friends on the US tax payer. And they do it by directly debasing the US dollar. In 1912 Before the FED we had a base line dollar that was bar none the most stable currency in the World. Fast forward 100 years under the FED and we have a dollar that is worth only about 2.5 cents conpared to 1912 (and falling rapidly)
The NUMBER 2 driver of DEBT in America since 2001 is the phony wars on terror we have been fighing for israeli imperialism and aparthied. They have taken a pentagon budget that was about 285 Billion in 2000 and turned it into over 1 trillion today. (please don’t look at the base line “pentagon” budget because it leaves out just about everything but the kitchen sink. No war costs, no homeland security costs, no black projects that today run into the 10’s of billions each and there a bunch of themetc. etc.
In relative terms the so called “entitlements” are chicken feed.
And Dividends, interest and capital gains all of which are done with little or no labor going almost entirely to the 1%. All that the rich are doing literally is skimming the profits from the hard labor of the working class and putting it in their pockets. It is in fact stealing plain and simple. They bribe the politicians and judges to change the laws so that they can legally lie, cheat and steal from the working class. It isn’t rocket science. Frankly it couldn’t be because as a group the one percent just don’t have the brain power…….
Left and Right: I wish that folks here as well as in the MSM would stop using the term “Left” when referring to Democrats (from the context, I assume that is what you meant; correct me if I am off about my interpretation of your remarks).
The single biggest problem of these made-for-miseducated-viewers name-calling and shouting matches they call debate is exactly the fact that the Left’s POV is never uttered. They don’t normally invite the Leftist pundits (and there are plenty) onto MSM news shows.
So while you may, in fact, be correctly identifying two points of view, neither of these are genuinely Leftist rhetoric or positions. For POVs distinct from the bloviating heard on MSM news, you would need to tune in therealnews.com and watch Bill Black and others. Then you’d get some notion of what the Left is really talking about.
Some really good posts here.Reminds me of what happened with the tea party bringing the constitution back into the debate.Now we have people slowly(far to slowly) realizing that our government -through countless administrations have spent us into insolvency.It is like a rich man waking up from a long sleep to find he is broke ,and will soon be out on the street.Im glad you people are finally coming in the door and joining the meeting.Some of us have been waiting for 10 years or more for you to join the fray.By the sounds of things you have a lot of catching up to do.But better late than never.Lets jump ahead.Medicare WILL collapse within 12 years,taking ss with it.Dept will jump at that point to 200 trillion.Divestitures will collapse(mainly in Europe)Driving dept over one and one half quatrillion.if Im not being clear enough…..World wide financial collapse within twelve years.We are on a non sustainable world wide financial trajectory to destruction.US leading the way.This has NEVER been a fiduciary problem.This has always been a spending problem.Our current newly elected village idiot an chief has a great plan.Speed up spending and borrowing.Devalue the dollar further by printing money unchecked and unfettered.Cut nothing.Oh and gain a few shekels by taxing the so called rich who will simply pass the tax onto the class they employ,or sell to.They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.Speaking of Obamas second term…………
What most Americans know is that the debt is principally the legacy of aggressive warfare including two ten year brutal occupations, and the bush tax cuts which were never really tax cuts because the taxes were cut into a debt !!!
All the bush tax “cuts” did was re-distribute additional debt from the 1% to the 99% !
There never were any bush tax cuts, and there never can be any tax cuts when the nation is in debt !
Bartiromo and her crew have already succeeded in eliminating guaranteed employer funded pensions into 401K crap, and now they are relentlessly trying via lying, scheming, and propaganda to get rid of medicare and social security.
Bartiromo et al. need to be pushed back HARD !
I think ‘Bartiromo’ is Italian for ‘complete f?!+ing idiot’. Little known facts about Maria…. she can’t spell C-N-B-C; it takes her an hour and a half to watch 60 minutes.
MinnMouth has it right. When do we start saying over and over again that War is what drains the budget and no amount of restructuring will work if we keep spending so much money on killing (defense just isn’t the right word; we are not being attacked on anything like the scale that we attack).
You’re twisted. Americans are now realizing that the biggest driver of the national debt is not Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, (the latter of which is paid for by a payroll tax in a completely different revenue stream but this oligarchy propaganda wants people to believe otherwise.) What’s really “very “dangerous” is the unscrupulous greed of most of the very rich. If someone personally has twenty two billion dollars I would feel very comfortable if that person was taxed down to a quantity of two billion dollars and so would they. Plutocratic sucks like Meet the Press are a waste of viewers time.
The problem with us on the so-called left is that we cannot frame issues in the proper moral context. We have not paid less taxes (17% average) in the past few decades than we are right now. The rich do not pay their fair share. One out of four corporations don’t pay taxes, period.
Until we can frame the government as a member-owned national co-op to keep the costs down for all its members (i.e. citizens) for basic services and goods, people will deem taxes as something evil.
Of course we must also recapture the phrase National Security from the corporate hijackers and restore its meaning to having a healthy planet (no global warming), jobs for all who want them, free education, single-payer health insurance, social safety net especially at old age, clean environment, women’s control over their bodies, women’s right to walk at night without being raped, infrastructure, gender and racial equality and safety from bullies and hate criminals, freedom to practice one’s faith or lack thereof, population control, and PEACE.
Until then the so-called right will define National Security as the military prison security complex and plunder our tax dollars on it leaving nothing for what taxes are supposed to be for. Until then your average American will resent being taxed.
I must say that most of these comments were of very good quality. I think I have nothing of substance to add except to second the motion to fire David Gregory post-haste.
Walter: if you could write a coherent sentence I might be able to respond. But I can’t understand what you’re saying because your writing is so muddled that you fail to make a point.
Im still amazed that people on these blogs believe that taxing the rich now or in years past would of ever made a dent in the spending.Cutting out the wars….cutting out the Bush tax cuts….cut it all and still you don’t make a dent.What is it you cant grasp about that fact?If Obama gets all his tax wishes now- it will fund the government for 8 days!Or pay for food stamps.Whatever you would of saved for the tax man theses past decades ,nothing would of come close to effecting government spending.A grain of sand in an ocean my friends.Today we spend ,print,and borrow as fast as we can.That is the answer.Oh and taxing one subset of our population.And the bloody hypocrisy….Just read today that Google paid 1 billion in taxes ,but that Obama allowed offshore shelters in the Bahamas of the other ten billion they should of paid.Also saw China bought the main battery plant here that was hoped to produce 90% of hybrid cars in Obamas car company.You cant make this stuff up.Good news is Mexicans are flowing back into Mexico since their growth rate is now bigger than ours.Like I say you cant make this stuff up.Seriously how many out there of you Obama voters are suffering buyers remorse?I am enjoying his speeches/campaigning this week.I call it the class warfare tour
Ending the Bush tax cuts would make more than a “dent” in the budget. Coupled with a very modest transaction tax, the end of ALL entitlements to the wealthy, and a single-payer health care system, the US would be able to thrive and not just survive.
No difference…..I cant even say you drank of the koolaid.You are even more deluded than that.Your in your own little happy place aren’t you?Even Obama and his fiscal committee have never said this would fix anything.They just say it will be more fair.Clinton himself said you could tax me, and all rich people at 100% and it would not begin to fix the problem.You Dems are like little children .Dancing about saying you have won only to finally realize you have won nothing.it is hard to get this through your thick heads but here goes.YOU CANT TAX YOUR WAY BACK TO PROSPERITY.Enjoy your feel good moment.Put your dunce cap back on and go sit somewhere where we dont have to hear you.
In argumentation, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of a scoundrel. I refuse to engage anyone on that level, whether they think they have a point or not. Good luck finding other anti-social playfriends.
Ok I apologize for the nastiness.It just gets me going to hear people still campaigning on this lie that taxing the so called rich will accomplish anything.
Just reported that England has lost 60% of their high earners in a very short term.Million plus folks are fleeing France in droves.What is it you don’t get?
Walter: Yes, I do find it a waste of time to argue with someone who actually uses LOL in a post.
Walter if I raised the taxes on your house, but kept the taxes across the street low where do you go?I would not demonize you for moving.I would say smart move.Why is it a smart move for governments to give the most successful among us a motivation to leave- pulling their tax base with them?In this country that would amount to a drop of about 60% of all taxes.Im stunned by the abject economic stupidity of it.And you stomping your feet in indignation saying don’t worry -the poor and the middle class will pick up the slack is really stupefying.
And Walt I have to agree about the LOL thing that Rob just wrote.Really anyone here who has written LOL should just raise their hands.Then make a fist , and punch yourself in the face.INLOLIJSALB……”Im not laughing out loud Im just smirking a little bit”
And my comment about the lol applies to you too michael, if you cant handle some emotional response, then too bad
lololololol or is it somehow more proper if I spell it out?
Laughing out loud, haha
What a thing you and him choose to lose an argument over.
So Walter you are saying that although people making over a certain income level pay 87% of all taxes,while 50% pay nothing in Fed income taxes…..That loosing them wont amount to anything?Um what are you smoking in Asia sir?You can not now, or ever shall be able to tax yourself to prosperity.When you allow for the recreation of wealth all benefit.When you force all wealth out …..all will suffer.All social services will collapse.Your bravado not withstanding this is not even economics 101.It is more like economics for pre school.IINRBTRIHTTSIH****It is not really better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.Or how about DSOYNTSYF***** Dont slice off your nose to spite your face!And you wonder why in the hell this country continues to spend borrow and print money hand over fist.The lunatics are truly in charge.So what part of Asia lucked out, and is blessed by your presence?
People who have created wealth must have gotten something from someone or some community at some earlier point, whether by permission or not. In the case of people born into fortunate circumstances, permission may not have been difficult and perhaps the environment around them could provide for them sufficiently, which later manifested itself into power or wealth of some kind.
I believe that everything I have or don’t have is the result of the environment and community I live in. I may add to the wealth of that community, but I must have their permission first. Some societies grant permission automatically for certain things, such as a public school education, public roads, public transportation. A road to drive to college on, a scholarship to pay for tuition, and affordable housing could be the difference between finishing a degree or not. And that degree, of course, may further distinguish success or failure.
Some people believe they just created something out of thin air all by themselves. This is impossible, because the raw materials of any kind of success require a transfer of some type of resources from somewhere, whether public OR private. If some community did not agree to these basic inputs to someone’s success, then no doubt something was stolen from some community or another.
No difference I have heard this claptrap since the sixties.Communal diversification of all things, as all things are connected. Lets take this bizarro notion a step further.Since Mom and Dad created you literally(and therefore all of government employees)…ALL taxes should be payed to them.For religious people to God i,.e their church.Great talking economics with you…….Remember sir dumb ass “you didn’t build that”?
Snowshoe
Those who have the money pay the taxes.Chase them away and those that don’t have the money -pay the taxes.Since you can’t get blood from a turnip those who dont have the money are left to watch the government collapse about their ears.
This is not about taxation.This is about where taxes come from.You can gain taxes from expansion,taxing growth like in a flat tax.Or you can inhibit growth and tax savings.One works ,one never has.When you add all taxes into a lump amount you will see most rich people are paying 60 cents on the dollar.Add in devaluation of our dollar by government and you are left with pennies.Look at the death tax.Your whole life you pay taxes.Taxes on things already taxed.You are taxed on everything basically in some fashion.What is left …you are taxed on.What is left from that,that amount you have saved while playing by every rule the government has laid at your feet, is now taxed upon your death.Obama is a rich rich rich man.He pays nothing in charity to speak of.His expenses are covered by us(the ultimate tax write off)His future monstrous paycheck will be due to our electing him(bill clinton made 100 million in 4 years)and he will follow all the rules with an eye to keeping as much of his wealth as he can.Just like anybody with half a brain.You will not see him(the greatest believer in redistribution)giving the tax man an extra 5-10-15-80% of his wealth just to make the point.In a pigs eye.
Michael e, do you have any sort of substantiation for your quote “when you add all taxes into a lump amount you will see most rich people are paying 60 cents on the dollar”? While you’re at it, you’ll need to define what constitutes a rich person. I guess I’m looking for something like “those earning over $500k/year are paying an average of $300k in taxes”. Maybe you’re happy to run with that as is? Good luck substantiating it.
michael e wrote: “Since Mom and Dad created you literally(and therefore all of government employees)…ALL taxes should be payed to them.”
Are you saying that my parents created all government employees, or did I miss a logical gymnastic which maybe you think is obvious? At any rate, to claim that by creating me that somehow they created all government employees sounds ridiculous on its face. No one will buy your argument, unless they are getting something that I don’t.
“ALL taxes should be payed to them.” What does that mean? Perhaps if I understood the first part of your argument, above, maybe this would logically follow?
“For religious people to God i,.e their church.” Again, I don’t get the nexus between the statements. Can you break down your argument a bit more so I can follow it?
“Those who have the money pay the taxes.” In theory, perhaps, but that isn’t what is happening in reality. In nearly every country of the world that engages in some form of capitalism, the wealthy soak the poor by shifting the tax burden; the resulting economic disasters result in government spending cuts on social programs precisely when the poor need those the most.
“Chase them away and those that don’t have the money -pay the taxes.” (what’s with the dash?) Anyway, it depends. If you mean the wealthy pick up and leave, then what about all of their investments they can’t just pick up and take with them? I mean, should they be required to sell them at a residual price to the community, or what should be done with those assets since they are not portable?
“Since you can’t get blood from a turnip those who dont have the money are left to watch the government collapse about their ears.” So, capital leaves (I assume is your argument) … but as I just asked, what happens to their investments? When the car companies came crawling to The People demanding a bailout, should those plants and inventories have been turned over in exchange — smart investment regulations (like bank loans, e.g.) would demand that. Once again, the right-wing leadership of this country didn’t bother to make sure that The People got their fare share in the bargain.
“This is not about taxation.This is about where taxes come from.” Oh, come on, michael e — those two consecutive statements are self-conflicting. Of course your argument is about taxation. It has been all along. And taxation is all about where they come from, and that is the whole point, and always has been. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth so that consumption can be sustained. We have seen what has happened to Greece and the US and other places where taxes have been curbed or favored toward the wealthy. To try to segregate the concept of taxation from its implementation is ludicrous since they are both one and part of the same.
“You can gain taxes from expansion,taxing growth like in a flat tax.” Studies I have read over the years have mostly concluded that flat taxes — like sales taxes — hurt the poor for merely being consumers of life’s necessities. When one is struggling on low wages to pay unaffordable rent and unaffordable groceries, it is cruel to force that one to pay taxes on top of that. A few dollars to them can be the difference between survival and starvation.
Then, you reverse yourself completely by suggesting that GROWTH be taxed. In nearly all other rightwing arguments on taxation, that would be heresy! The right wants us to believe that growth is good and necessary (at least for profits). Interesting; so why do you depart on this point?
“When you add all taxes into a lump amount you will see most rich people are paying 60 cents on the dollar.Add in devaluation of our dollar by government and you are left with pennies.Look at the death tax.Your whole life you pay taxes.Taxes on things already taxed.You are taxed on everything basically in some fashion.What is left …you are taxed on.What is left from that,that amount you have saved while playing by every rule the government has laid at your feet, is now taxed upon your death.” Are you crying for the wealthy, or are you crying for the poor here? Like you first asserted, SOMEONE must pay the taxes: If you like wars that make military contractors wealthy, and if you like endless subsidies to corporations, and if you like corporate executives’ perks, all of which benefit wealthy people far more than the poor — if the poor can be said to really benefit from any of these things you like so much but don’t want to pay for — then you had better be ready to ante up and pay your taxes like all other Americans do and stop crying about it.
“Obama is a rich rich rich man.” I thought you said, elsewhere, that Obama is a socialist and so are all the Democrats and Greens and so on and so forth. If socialism is about redistributing wealth, then once again, you have contradicted yourself.
Please note that I, myself, have not really posited any of my own counter-arguments here. I am merely responding to YOUR post. I would prefer that you keep with defending your position, because perhaps you are right some places, and I would like to know where those are. Thanks!
No difference your understanding of how wealth is generated,for the individual and the country is sorely lacking.If what you are trying to say is the recreation of wealth is a negative….I disagree.If you believe in the end anything will stop those with the means from leaving if things are disagreeable to them you are wrong.If you don’t believe Obama can be rich personally….yet make his bones on tearing down the rich you are again wrong.I dont think you have a clue how Capitalism works.Or I could be wrong.Maybe you understand so well that you have made a fortune understanding how it does in fact work.My guess is just the opposite.You dont believe in capitalism.So swimming against the current you are angry at the results.Me Im doing fine
If the free market system works so well — and only you would know, michael e, since it is clear I do not understand it — then explain how this happens:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/watch/Embedded-Only/News/The National/Americas Broken Dream/ID=2288969732
No Diff.First Im doing fine because I worked my ass off my whole life,and still do.As far as your idea of wealth sharing, how in the hell is that fair?I work my whole life in school and jobs for a dream.Go to med school.Make little till Im in my thirties .By that time I have a massive bill to pay back.Now I hit my fifties, and am starting to see payback,though I work 14 hour days ,on call round the clock,six days a week with massive responsibility.Insurance premiums ect.Now who is it you want me to share my money with in a fair share?The guy who cleans my windows?The girl who cleans my office?My nurse who is 24 just out of school?All those years I had friends in the un ions.Making buku bucks.Vacations.Hell some are ready to retire and Im just getting started.I will work till i die.Do they owe me for all their fun years while I struggled?I will get the bill ready.In Hollywood you hear this claptrap.Yet I dont ever see Brad pitt dividing his 30 million with the grips or the make up people.in your case I guess you want the government to do that.I will not give you a sillillique on capitalism.Waste of time Im sure.Just know this.I don’t owe you anything.I do my job.Take care of my family.Give to charity.I pay my taxes.Yet I am target number one to a government who can’t manage OTHER people money well and now needs more .Always more.You on the left ride on with your banner held high that reads “WE GOT WHAT IT TAKES, TO TAKE WHAT YOU GOT.”Then you flush it down a rat hole.