Its great what some of these people have chosen to do, but I certainly
can't tell them how to spend their money. Its theirs.If a rich
person who has earned a lot of money wants to give his money to charity, give it
to his kids, spend every dollar, or throw it away - that's his decision. A
rich person doesn't owe me his money(through taxes). I'd
be lazy if I thought that Buffet owed me(through taxes) money he earns any more
than I owe him money I earn.Him and I use about the same govt
resources, so there is no reason he should pay for my share.That
would make me lazy if I said that.
Agreed!John Hoffmire is spot on with this article.Conservatives preach to us time and time again, That taxation
doesn't work.Show me, don't tell me.But, IF they are not freely giving it away -- TAX them!BTW --
It's that how our tax system - and it's tax write offs - is supposed
Wealthy people are not stupid (most of them). They know they can get more bang
for their buck if they donate it and control how it is used... instead of just
giving it to the Government and HOPING they use it for stuff they would like
(knowing most of it goes to government cronies and bureaucratic waste). But a
little of it gets used for good stuff. But they probably want ALL of it to get
used for good stuff. I know... selfish...I am constantly amazed at
the level of giving I see from some uber-wealthy people. I wish I could give
like them. But I can't... so I just do what I can. But I
try to refrain from vilifying them (knowing they give much much more to charity
and to society than I do).
LDS Liberal: "But, IF they are not freely giving it away -- TAX
them!"So it really isn't THEIR money. It's mine and
yours and we should take it away from them, right?Look, I understand
some of the concern people have that wealth is being concentrated in the hands
of few people. We need a fair tax policy that insures that the wealthy pay their
portion of taxes (and no, more than 50% is not fair). We also want to make sure
that the rich are earning their money in a legal manner and not getting special
favors from government.But if they earned it, we have no right to
take it all from them just because we don't like how they are spending
their money. If we let government take all the rich people's money, it
doesn't take long before they are doing the same thing to everyone above
the poverty line.You may vote to take money from others, but
don't be surprised when the governments hand is on your wallet too.
It would be interesting to see where the money actually goes. I've seem
some studies on the charitable giving of the wealthy. it seems that they give a
great deal to their alma-maters and a great deal to cultural and arts
organizations, but very little to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc.When most of us think of charity we're not thinking of Harvard
Business School, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, or the Metropolitan
Opera, yet that is where the majority of charitable donations from the wealthy
seem to end up.
Its amazing that noted bleeding hearts like Buffet and Gates are going to give
away most of their fortunes. We live in great country with
opportunities for any person to make money, and that is why the inheritance tax
is such a good idea. Each of us gets to battle it out to make a few dollars,
and then like ending a game of Monopoly, we give the money back to the bank, and
let the next players try their hand.There is no benefit to society
to let huge wealth perpetuate itself.
larry,The money you earn in your life is yours. Its not mine. If
you want to give it to your kids, or flush it down the toilet at the end of your
life - that's your decision.I would be lazy and wrong to
suggest you owe that money to me when you die. You don't. I didn't
JoeCapitalist2Orem, UTLDS Liberal: "But, IF they are not freely
giving it away -- TAX them!"So it really isn't THEIR money.
It's mine and yours and we should take it away from them, right?======== There "fairest" giving SHOULD be in the form of
wage increases -- since it was those who worked who actually created their
wealth in the 1st place.Charitable giving would be next.
Its no surprise that studies show that conservatives give both more money and a
higher percentage of their income to charity compared to liberals. Mitt Romney has given more to charity than barack both in terms of total
dollars and percentage of income, EVEN if you deduct what Mitt gave to his
church.What biden has given is a joke, averaging just a couple
percent of his income for many years, some years .1%, one tenth of one percent
of his income.For liberals, its a do as I say not as I do when it
comes to charity.
LDS Liberal:I agree that it would be very noble of wealthy
individuals to give all their workers a higher salary. But it is not my place to
demand that action if the market shows that workers are willing to do the work
for less.America would be in a much better place if all the
companies who are currently sitting on a huge pile of cash and who pay their
senior executives outrageous salaries would voluntarily "spread the
wealth" within their own organizations. But again, it is not our place to
demand that they do this.First, spread your own wealth voluntarily
by paying more than you have to for goods and services, then talk about
spreading other people's wealth.
How a person spends his money is no business of the government or of the people.
YOU have the right to spend your money on those things that YOU find important.
YOU have the choice of living in a sleeping bag on "federal land" or of
buying a house. YOU have the choice of eating berries that you find on
"public property" or of buying groceries from a store. Yet, YOU want to
take that privilege away from others, just because they have more money than you
do.That's called coveting. Coveting is immoral.It's hard to know which organization is "worthy" of receiving our
gifts. We give blood. During the last two months, we have had constant calls
from the organization that collects blood. They know when we last gave blood.
They know how long we have to wait until giving blood again, yet they call to
remind us that they need our blood. We give it freely, but those who receive it
pay dearly for our "gift".What is "given" should not
be taxed or "sold". It should be given freely to those in need.
Chris B said:"I'd be lazy if I thought that Buffet owed
me(through taxes) money he earns any more than I owe him money I earn.Him
and I use about the same govt resources, so there is no reason he should pay for
my share.That would make me lazy if I said that."You
really love that word Lazy, Does it make you feel better to define the less
affluent in such a way. Hard working poor folks who deserve a piece of the
pie they're creating are not LAZY, Covetous, greedy or most of the things
conservatives believe about them. Chris said: "Him and I use
about the same govt resources," ...with super simple thinking like
that how could you be wrong, You seriously believe your on equal footing, using
Americas resources with a billionaire? Laughable.Shouting how
charitable and goodly you are, while belittling the widow for her mite is so
@JoeCapitalist2 – “So it really isn't THEIR money…
right?”Not after they’re gone… then it belongs to
someone else. @liberal larry – “There is no benefit to
society to let huge wealth perpetuate itself.”That’s
right… and the smart billionaires are recognizing this and leaving very
little of their fortunes to their kids (enough for a good head start but not
enough to create lazy trust fund babies). The current estate tax
gets it about right (although the rate is far too low) with a tax free cap of
around $5M. After that taxes kick in. But any estate taxes can still
be largely avoided if the rich do what Buffett and others have done which is to
direct the transfer of their wealth (while they’re alive) to charity or
any productive organization they deem worthy. This largely guarantees their
wealth is channeled into productive endeavors which they are free to decide.But willing large fortunes to your children – which almost always
results in disastrous consequences – should be greatly discouraged (by tax
policy) since throughout history this has done little more than serve to
entrench aristocracies and oligarchic elites.
I remember when Bill Clinton was in office and the media reported on his
charitable contributions... The list was small, it included a donation of used
clothing to a local thrift store (their DI). Clinton groupies ran to the
thrift store trying to get a pair of Bill Clinton's used underwear... it
was hilarious.The Clinton's weren't "rich" before
being plopped in the White House. But they made out very well during their
time in office (and after). They are one of America's wealthy families
now (Spent $3.3 Million on Chelsea's lavish, star studded wedding
ceremony).Google "Stingiest Politicians"..."In the eight years after President Bill Clinton left office, he and
Hillary soared north through the tax brackets, earning a combined $109 million.
Much of that wealth came from blockbuster memoir sales and huge speaking fees.
During those eight years, tax returns show they recorded $10.2 million in
charitable contributions, or 9.35 percent of their income. Most of those
contributions went straight into the Clinton Foundation—a charity founded
by the Clintons to focus on issues like healthcare, climate change, and economic
Tyler D:I'm sure Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, and a whole bunch
of other rich people would sleep very well each night under such a confiscatory
estate tax. Imagine if all their wealth over a couple million $ automatically
went to the government for redistribution (to some bureaucrat's cronies no
doubt), in the event of their demise.Nobody in or out of government
would have a reason to speed along their date with the grim reaper under your
happy valley,You are the one, not Chris, who is correlating poor
with lazy. Chris says the lazy are people who think Buffet owes them what he
has earned. Those people may be rich, poor, old, young. There have been times
in my life I was very poor and yet even in those years I never looked towards
the affluent expecting them to give more than they were already given. So while
I fell under the "poor" group I didn't fall under the group Chris
is referring to. Never once I have felt I deserve an affluent persons money
upon their death. And yet you are equating the two - incorrectly.
I would ask you please not equate lazy with poor. You are the one who has done
this, not Chris.
But the writer leaves aside the question, how are the wealthy, the super-super
wealthy getting so wealthy? Do they work harder than the average guy? Not
likely.The French economist Piketty's work "Capital in the 21st
Century" will be a topic on tonight's PBS Newshour. Piketty answers
this question to a great degree, at least I have been given to understand. I
haven't read his book (600 pages by a statistician - yikes!).Despite the title of Piketty's work, he is not a Marxist. He is in fact
a modern day Keynes who wants to save capitalism from itself. To Piketty, like
Keynes before him, capitalism is best but unless tempered in some way it will
result in a situation where almost all of the rewards go to the top with nothing
going to the bottom. That's whats happening now.AS a socialist
I think we only have a future with some brand of socialism. That's a topic
for another time. In the meantime watch the discussion of Piketty tonight.
@JoeCapitalist2 - If the government did take the money from the elite wealthy,
image how much larger our defense spending could be?
In the capitalism of today a few (very) are free to accumulate without limit,
while the rest (most of us) struggle to survive. This, at least to me, seems
less than optimal.
@JoeCapitalist2 – “Nobody in or out of government would have a
reason to speed along their date with the grim reaper under your system,
right?”You’ve made a number of comments in the past that
while I don’t always agree with, I at least respect for being
reasonable… this is not one of them.So now the government is
assassinating rich people because they failed to do some simple estate planning?
Wow!The next time you hear someone saying the Right has gone cuckoo
for cocoa puffs lately, just refer back to your response for a little insight
into why reasonable people think so.
JoeCapitalist2 said, "...it is not my place to demand that action [salary
increases] if the market shows that workers are willing to do the work for
less."I'm not sure the market shows workers are WILLING to
work for less. It appears to me they are FORCED to work for less, and the less
they're forced to work for is inadequate, in many, many cases, to give
people a standard of living above that of constant desperation, inability to
save, and inability to pay for health care.
@Chris BHere's the problem though... it's the rich who determine
who gets what share of the money since they're making pay decisions.
It's not like money "earned" is determined by some fair and
impartial neutral source. Let's try something we can agree on, in some
third world nations the poor get exploited having to work many hours for little
pay, the pay controlled by the company and those in charge. Wealth inequality is
massive in those nations, even much more so than the US which is near the most
inequality for industrialized nations. Heck, a couple centuries ago we had
slavery, the ultimate extreme of power being used to suppress workers and
deciding where money should go. So the question is... how do we make
sure that employers are being reasonable in how pay gets distributed in the
company without using force (which we do use to some extent through things like
the minimum wage)?
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThat's called coveting.
Coveting is immoral.======= So, in other words...If no one can "own" anything, then coveting ceases to exist.And
the world becomes less immoral.BTW -- The uber-wealthy wanting
the wealth that their employees produce is just as much coveting as your
definition of it.So is being idle.The uber-wealthy can be just
as lazy and "idle" as the poor begger.I for one applaud
"The Giving Pledge", and those who have signed on to it.If the
world's wealthy would all be so wise, We would not need to tax and
redistribute their wealth FOR them.
Lets look first at who is saying that the wealthy should give their money to
charity. It is Warren Buffett, the same man who also said that the rich should
pay more in taxes. If he thinks that he should pay more in taxes, why is he
preventing the government from getting their hands on his fortunes?Next, look at what our government is doing to inheritance laws. You can spend
a lifetime building your wealth, you are taxed on every dollar that you get.
Then, when you die the government taxes it again so that they can be included on
your inheritance. The only way to keep the government out of it is to give it
all away.You can no longer easily leave your money to your kids to
benefit them and your grandchildren. Why do we keep allowing the government to
take our children's inheritance?
Democrats have never seen a tax (on somebody else)... they didn't like.
If conservatives really believed America was a meritocracy they would be in
favor of increasing the inheritance tax.Giving vast sums of money to
our children not only allows them to waste away their lives as the idle rich,
but it also shows them that you don't have any confidence that the children
can make it on their own.So not giving money to your offsprings is a
way of demonstrating your confidence in their ability to succeed!
Hard work and individual achievement have long been values held dear by
@Schnee - You must not be very familiar with anti-trust law. Our country has
every strict anti-trust laws which ensure that competing parties will offer a
fair price.You are not exactly correct in saying the rich make the
pay "decision." The rich may make pay "offers" but they do not
make the decisions on whether that offer is accepted. If I deserve to make more
money than I am making, anti-trust laws make it so that a competitor will exist
and will offer me more money if I will simultaneously increase the profits of
the competitor as well as my own salary. If I'm not valuable enough for a
competitor to want me, I don't deserve to make any more than I am
currently. Remember, its another evil rich person at the competitor - and if
I'll make him more money then due to his greedy nature he'll be
willing to pay me more. Here, two rich people made pay "offers" to me,
and I make the decision.Its up to ME to make it so I make more
money. And yes, it is in my control.
I liked what billionaire Jon Huntman Sr. did...Gave each of his 9
children $10 million - Which he said was MORE than anyone could possilbe
need -- and the rest of HIS wealth is going to Philanthropic causes.I have no qualms with the wealthy who are like this -- God Bless
Jon Huntsman.But for every 1 Jon Huntman billionaires there are in
the world, There are 1,000 more who aren't.
To "liberal larry" conservatives don't believe that we are a
"meritocracy". Conservatives believe that if you risk your money and
reputation on a business, you should be able to benefit from that. There are a
lot of dumb people that have accumulated large fortunes through sheer luck or by
surrounding themselves with people who could make things work.To
"LDS Liberal" tell us who covets more. The wealthy person who pays
their employees a fair wage (you decide what fair is) or the employee who
receives the fair wage and wants more from their employer?Most
employers pay their employees a fair wage. If you disagree with that, come up
with a definition of fair that does not depend on an opinion, tell us how to
So who is more "charitable"?1) The employer who pays an
American worker a "living wage" (e.g. $60,000) to run a machine that
makes a million widgets.2) The employer who instead opens a factory
in China, India, or other place and pays 20 workers $2000 each to make those
same widgets. Most of us consider it "slave" wages to work all year for
a lousy $2000, but for many of those workers it is a lot better than the
alternative (begging for money and rummaging through the garbage for food).
Mike Richards - such a literalist as yourself surely recognizes that nobody
"owns" anything. He or she is only given moral guidelines for their
stewardship over assets "owned" by another. The only "moral"
justification for obtaining wealth is sharing wealth.
Have it taken... or GIVE it away... let's see.... that one's pretty
much a no-brainer IMO.How many people would prefer to be mugged and
have their money taken away... vs give to people they WANT to help...?No-brainer...I'd rather give away all I have... if the
alternative is to have it taken away from me against my will by somebody...
That's just human nature!
To explain what's going on with capitalism one needs to have Marx's
critique of same "Capital" in 3 vols. Since none of you conservatives
(or liberals for that matter) are going to look at it, and like most people will
have a hard time understanding it, economists have to come to the rescue and
include it in their coursework. This they refuse to do because they won't
be hired as profs - so much for the assumption of leftist bias in higher ed.We socialists are going to be having some free-to-the-public seminars on
"Capital." We'll let you know just in case you want to stock up on
@RedShirt – “Why do we keep allowing the government to take our
children's inheritance?”Perhaps because they did nothing
to earn it… again, if you don’t like it, funnel your money into
productive/charitable enterprises while you’re alive.@RedShirt
– “… conservatives don't believe that we are a
"meritocracy".”Thanks for this (unintentional?) bit of
honesty… I wish more partisans on both the right and left would tell us
what they really think rather than hiding their true motives behind a veneer of
shared values.See for me, I believe in a meritocracy (vs. an
aristocracy) which is again why I believe large amounts of inherited wealth is
damaging not only to those who inherit the money but to society at large.Look at history – all societies in the past were eventually undone
by the ever growing power and influence of those at the top of the pyramid, and
the first step in creating this pyramid is through inherited wealth (which
eventually morphs into a de facto nobility… it’s what we had in the
antebellum South and were beginning to see in the Gilded Age and again today).
What's funny is reading some commentors who tell us they "believe"
that God created this Earth, and owns everything.Whining and
complainging about "ownership", and how nobody can take away
anything that they "own".Kind of reminds me of someone else
I know claiming a false sense of "ownership" of everything in this
To "Tyler D" why shouldn't your kids beneifit from your labor if
you want them to. Imagine you have $1 million to leave to your kids. They
still owe money on their homes and have kids to raise. Wouldn't you want
them to receive that wealth so that they can get out of debt and have the means
to send your grandchildren to college?Also, if we use your argument,
then why continue Social Security or any welfare program. The retired people
and poor didn't earn what they are getting. Why are they more important
than your own children and grandchildren?You are wrong about society
and the accumulation of wealth. The dangerous accumulation of wealth into the
hands of a few people is a symptom of big government and an overreaching
government. It is not a direct result of wealth and wealthy people. If you
look at the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and other highly regulated
countries, the wealth in those nations is concentrated into the hands of a
few.If you truely want the poor to prosper, cut the regulations back
and make people responsible for their lives.
re: Open Minded Mormon/LDS Liberal,Do you own everything you have or
have you already joined some kind of communistic society where the State owns
everything? As far as I know, the Church that you belong to is not practicing
the United Order, leaving you to find some other society to practice what you
preach. If you actually own anything, using your own definition, you first
"coveted" that thing. ===Everyone is free to
give away his wealth. It does seem strange, however, that some people wait
until they are dead to do it. They want to enjoy their wealth while
they're alive. If they believed in helping others, wouldn't they want
to help others while they were alive?I applaud anyone who gives away
his fortune while he is alive. I applaud anyone who uses his fortune to provide
jobs for others. I applaud anyone who risks his fortune to build a business
that provides goods and services to others.I do not applaud those
who covet the wealth of others. I believe in working not wishing.
@RedShirt – “Imagine you have $1 million to leave to your
kids…”You’re arguing with a self-created straw
man. Please reread my 1st comment where I said the $5M tax free cap is about
right. As for wealth accumulation, you’re only half right (as
is so often the case for partisans). But the pernicious effects of concentrated
wealth can also happen in an unregulated economy too where producers overtime
will seek to destroy competition and create entrenched monopolies and
oligarchies, or at a minimum will seek to create an unlevel playing field for
their family or class, which is precisely what large inherited wealth does
(creating an entitled class of those who are “born on third and think they
hit a triple”).The cartoon world of an Ayn Rand novel
notwithstanding, unfettered capitalism can be just as damaging as a centrally
planned economy (as Adam Smith pointed out often).But you’re
right about crony government and it starts with lobbyists writing laws (often at
the expense of the public interest) and unlimited campaign contributions.Is a society of unfettered oligarchs what you want?Reached
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahI applaud anyone who gives away
his fortune while he is alive. I applaud anyone who uses his fortune to provide
jobs for others. I applaud anyone who risks his fortune to build a business that
provides goods and services to others.I do not applaud those who
covet the wealth of others. I believe in working not wishing.2:40
p.m. May 12, 2014======== So do I, BUT --
The vast amount of fortune in this country is in the hands a very,
very select few.Most of whom did NOTHING but be born with a silver spoon
in their mouth.THEY did nothing to deserve it, They DO nothing
to keep and earn it.I do not applaud those who DO nothing for
everything they have.I do not applaud anyone who has more than enough, and is still unwilling to redistribute the work of America's workers as
measured by GDP under a false sense of "entitlement".
To "Tyler D" your ignorance is showing. Ayn Rand does not support
unfettered capitalism.You should realize that croney capitalism is
highly regulated capitalism. It is nearly equivalent to Fascism where the state
micromanages privately held businesses.You still don't get it.
You can't have unfettered oligarcs where the government has little power.
For an oligarchy to work, government has to have significant power. If
government is little more than a referee the amount of corruption possible
diminishes significantly. There is little for businesses to gain if little
power can be purchased.You are also ignoring the fact that most
wealthy people did not inherit their wealth, they built it themselves. Again,
why can't we pass wealth along to our kids, regardless of the amount? What
did the government do to earn that money?To "Open Minded
Mormon" you say that we should not allow people to inherit fortunes in
theiis country because they did nothing to deserve it or to earn it. So, why
keep supporting government welfare or Social Secuity? What did the poor and
elderly do to deserve the money that I earn, why are they entitled to benefit
from my labor?
re: LDS Liberal/Open Minded Mormon,You wrote: "The vast amount
of fortune in this country is in the hands a very, very select few.Most of
whom did NOTHING but be born with a silver spoon in their mouth.THEY
did nothing to deserve it, They DO nothing to keep and earn it."Whose decision is it whether someone has enough, not enough, or too
much? It seems that you want to judge others according to whatever standard you
think is appropriate. For the vast majority of people in the world, your salary
would be a king's fortune. Does that mean that you should divest yourself
of any wealth greater than those people have? Do you work harder than they do?
Are you sure?===Good people help other people as much as
they are able. It would be counterproductive to sell a business, causing people
to lose their jobs, to "give" money to the poor; but, there is no reason
that a charitable person could not live modestly while giving his
"excess" to an organization that helps the poor.
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT3:14 p.m. May 12, 2014===== Thanks for once again showing your True colors.The Fawning, Mesmorizing and Worshipping of the Wealthy, vs.utter
distain, mockery, and trampling of the poor, sick and the needy.sort
of like -- Coveting, Babylon, Idol Worship, Selfishness and
Mammonvs.Compassion, Liberalism, Charity, and Christlike Love.Nice.
Re: Mike Richards "I do not applaud those who covet the wealth of others.
I believe in working not wishing."I do not covet anything
anybody else has. I am however AFRAID of the super wealthy who have declared
war on all economic safety nets including social security, medicare,
unemployment insurance, and all private pensions. Apparently they don't
just want most of it, they want ALL of it. My opposition to them is borne of
When a person says I made a lot of money and I did it all by himself, he is not
being realistic or honest. The truth is that he was able to play the game of
life with more skill than others and may have had some fortunate luck to help.
All wealth is created by the physical or mental labor of human
beings. Some people are able to tap into the wealth of labor by skillfully
buying and selling the wealth created by others. And even though they may work
very hard at what they are doing, the manipulation of the wealth of others does
not create wealth. It's not that they are unnecessary to our society, the
creation of wealth doesn't do any good if there are no buyers. If we want a good working economic system that serves society properly, wealth
must be able to flow back and forth from the creators to the manipulators. And
not be horded into the wealth of the rich. The best way to do that is to have
the person give back to society his excess money at the time of his death.
Hey Redshirt –There’s a fine line between crony
capitalism, and effective governance that get things done. It might be said that
Crony capitalism is inherent to Capitalism.It looks to me like you
can only see extremes. There is a middle way. It’s called moderation, and
that’s what we Moderates advocate . . . government, but not too much
government . . . Just the right amount.“You should realize
that croney capitalism is highly regulated capitalism.’Wrong.Well regulated capitalism can and does diminish the worst
sorts of crony capitalism.A Democratic Republic that becomes so weak
that it gives up its power to Oligarchs is no longer a Democratic Republic.
It’s an Oligarchy. And that’s the wrong kind of government to have.
That is not what the Constitution advocates.“Ayn Rand does not
support unfettered capitalism.” Wrong again. Ayn Rand shuns
ANY government intercession that might restrain the biggest Capitalist (and
potential Oligarchs) from having their way.The only way to have
healthy competitive Capitalism is to have a certain amount of government
control. Otherwise capitalism will always mutate to the
One of the important details most of us miss in all of this is that many wealthy
people are wealthy only on paper. They don't necessarily have a lot of
money. What they usually have is stock in a private or public corporation. The
stock has a monetary value because they have created something of value. They
have made a profitable business where one did not exist before. They have
created wealth.Threats to tax away this wealth, then, are synonymous
with threats of taking from them, by force, ownership of the corporation they
have created. It's saying, "you cannot be allowed to have control of
this corporation because you have been too successful at running it." If
it's a private corporation, they could be forced to sell the company to pay
the taxes. That's absurd.The same problem exists with the
estate tax. Businesses have to be sold and farms broken up and sold to pay the
estate tax. This is pure nonsense.
Pops - There is nothing all that admirable about the mega-players
who play the stock market, and through various tricks of manipulation and
arbitrage, make huge amounts of money for themselves.Who is
proposing a tax on wealth?It's the tax on INCOME that needs to
be addressed. The over 90 percent nominal tax during the Eisenhower
administration did not "tax away wealth."Plenty of people
still got wealthy, AND the nation paid its bills.A return to
Pre-Reagan tax rates for the highest earners, 70%, would bump revenue back up
where it should be. I say, do what works, and Reagonomics does NOT
work. The tax rate for the highest earners is 1/2 of what it was before Reagan.
And before Reagan, we actually balanced the budget every now and then and
consistently kept budget deficits low.The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.Advocating more Reagonomics and expecting better results is INSANE.
To "Open Minded Mormon" why do you hate the rich so much? Why
don't you want to be rich? According to the Book of Mormon, being rich can
be a good thing.Jacob 2:19 "And after ye have obtained a hope in
Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the
intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to
liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted."
Why don't you want to do good or allow others to do good with their riches?
I would love to have the ability to help more people.Next, why do
you go against the Doctrine and Covenants, when it speaks out against taking
from the wealthy to give to the lazy and greedy?D&C 56:17
"Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not
contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed
from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of
greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!"
It is funny we pull scriptures out to condemn the poor, but we do not pull them
out to condemn the rich. "To whom much is given, much will be required"
(Luke 12:48. Or Brigham Young's warning: “The worst fear that I have
about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His
people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This
people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and
be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; If we
are going to quote scripture to criticize the poor lets also quote it to
criticize the rich.The belief that this would be a better country if
tax and regulatory policies where changed to favor those on the lower end of the
economic scale is not coveting someone else's money, it is simply an
economic reality based in fact in this country prior to the 1980's.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "Open Minded Mormon" why do
you hate the rich so much? Why don't you want to be rich? According to the
Book of Mormon, being rich can be a good thing.Jacob 2:19 "And
after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them;
and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and
to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the
sick and the afflicted." Why don't you want to do good or allow others
to do good with their riches? I would love to have the ability to help more
people.========= And when the rich do that - I have no
problem whatsoever.Tell me RedShirt, Do you see this
To "Open Minded Mormon" yes, I do see the rich doing that all the
time.Jon Huntsman Sr. is administering relief to the sick and
afflicted through the Huntsman Cancer Institute.Glenn Beck supports
the Operation Underground Railroad that sends experts and law enforcement into
situations to free girls that have been sold into slavery, thus liberating the
captive.Mitt Romney lead a campaign for and donated to the Red Cross
to buy food and clothing for victims of hurricain Sandy. In addition to the
food and funding drive he also donated large sums money for Hurricain Sandy and
Katrina. Romney also shut down his office, few his staff to New York, and paid
for the search for the daughter of one of his employees.The
Rockefellers have a foundation that provides food for needy people in Africa.I see all sorts of good being done by the wealthy because they have
money to be able to do large scale aid projects. Most of the wealthy that I
read about in the news are often going out and are doing good with their wealth.
I am sorry that you can't see the good that the wealthy do.
To all of you conservatives who are saying things such as "I certainly
can't tell them how to spend their money. Its theirs," please consider
that it is only "theirs" because of the society we all help provide,
where they can take advantage of a great (but crumbling) infrastructure, a
federally maintained monetary system, (a dwindling number of ) consumers with
enough money to buy their products, laborers who agree to sell their time for
shrinking wages, etc. And for all you Christians out there, please
consider what these individuals are going to say when they stand before their
Maker and try to convince him it was really "theirs." I doubt he'll
be amused. My guess is he will smile warmly upon Warren Buffett. Buffett seems
to get it.
"Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and
we don't resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible
success. That's what America's all about." President Barack Obama
Fred44,Thanks for the Brigham Young quote, it appeared in the Sunday
School class I taught recently and was the first thing that came to my mind
reading some of these comments. I can only add that anyone who thinks that the
Book of Mormon endorses gaining riches, or implies support for a
'prosperity gospel' of any kind, has missed some key readings.
This so-called "giving pledge" sounds sort of interesting... But it
should have nothing to do with wealth.Whether I have $100,000 or
$1,000,000,000 in assets is irrelevant; if I give a significant amount of my
time and resources to others it is good. If I do not, it is my fair and just
decision not to, and having $1 billion doesn't make me any greedier than
$100k.If it is expected of me to give my money, it is not charity.
If I am compulsed, not only is it not charity, it is effectively theft. it is
disappointing that I must be constantly aware of this fact today.