Actually if you do some reading of Philip K. Dick and Blade Runner you might be really surprised by what he had to say about it. Originally Philip K. Dick got a hold of one of the early scripts and read it and then he was pretty much ignored during most of the startup/development work for Blade Runner. PKD was very pissed about the script he read and constantly blasted it in the press and in interviews at the time. It wasn't until Ridley Scott got him to come to the studio and see a rough cut of some of the film that things really changed and got interesting. Once PKD saw what was actually being done and how it was in the spirit of what he was writting that he completely did a 180 on the film. After PKD saw what Ridley Scott was doing and how the film was looking and the final script he was very impressed with the movie and loved what he saw. He said he realized it wasn't really a movie of his novel "So Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but a movie that took bits and pieces and had many of the same themes and ideas as the book. PKD really thought the movie was good and changed his mind publicaly about the film. PKD then started recommending the movie saying he was really impressed with what Ridley Scott was doing and like how the movie was turning out.
Most people seem to remember PKD blasting Hollywood and every time they optioned one of his stories for a movie and how he always thought they screwed him and his novels over. I would suspect most people remember or have heard about PKD blasting "Blade Runner" as a terrible movie and idea. The reality is though once he saw the vision that Ridley Scott had for the movie he actually loved what was being done and thought people should see it and that they would like it. PKD point blank said that "Blade Runner" wasn't "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but that it would have existed in the same universe of the book and covered almost all of the themes that he was doing in the book. So in the end "Blade Runner" did get the PKD stamp of approval.
You can read about a good percentage of this story of PKD and Blade Runner in the book "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner". There are also several articles around about Philip K. Dick blasting the movie in interviews. If you look harder though you will see a few articles where he did interviews and actually talked up the film once he was shown what it would end up being by Ridley Scott.
I don't know how Philip K. Dick would have felt about Next, Minority Report, Screamers, Impostor, or even A Scanner Darkly. I suspect he would be fine with A Scanner Darkly and even perhaps one or two of the other films made from his work, but he definitely approved of Blade Runner.
That is crap. I have started my own company. So it is absolutely possible for people to make a better station in life for themselves if they work hard and are willing to sacrifice. The problem is 98% of the people out there are not willing to take those risks or sacrifice.
Would you be willing to never eat out, never buy a book, DVD, magazine or anything else. Only watch over the air TV and work 60 hour a week working more than 5 days? Would you be willing to do that for 10-20 years? If not then it isn't suprising that your not one of the rich. That is exactly the kinds of sacrifices people who are willing to work their ass off and take risks are willing to do to at some point become rich. That is what entrepreneurs do to get their companies off the ground.
This idea that you can't work hard to make your life better is total crap. It's called being lazy and not willing to sacrifice.
$1 Payroll is not the same as zero income. If you think that then you clearly don't understand how income tax works. You might want to talk with an accountant to get a better understanding of this. If you mean for example Steve Jobs. You bet your ass he pays income tax. He paid it on the jet they gave him. He paid it on the stocks they gave him. He absolutely was taxed on everything they gave him that was beyond the $1 payroll that he took. Better understanding of the tax code might help you understand this better. Now does he have deductions that lower what he has to pay? Probably but I seriously doubt he gets it down to zero on a regular basis. If he did it would mean he is bleeding money badly somewhere and won't be rich long.
Actually no payroll taxes are not dropped in to the general fund and spent that way. You need to study how the income and spending actually works. The trick you are talking about is excess income to the programs and Treasury Bonds. The excess revenues for Social Security, etc are spend per year not normally saved. This all changed back in the 80's. The was a short fall of money coming in versus money going out. Social Security and the like are yearly in-out programs. In other words money comes in this year, and is paid out to people this year. You pay in social security but you don't get until 60 or whatever it ends up being. Regardless your money is spent this year to pay those retired this year. It has always worked this way. Anyway they ran short so instead of it being the governments problem they made it our problem and raised the tax rate. Now there is excess. So that went in to a trust account. Now guess what they did. Yep they saw money laying there unused and figured hey lets spend it. So they put Treasury Bond in its place and then spend the excess via bonds in the general funds. Of course they never get around to paying it back but that's beside this point. Oh and the interest on the bonds they are suppose to pay.....those get paid in more bonds as well. Yep nice mess they made there.
Anyway the money paid in to payroll tax is not dumped into the general fund. That was my point.
I need to see a citation of actual cold hard numbers showing the change in total percentage of population changes over the last 100 years minimum. Other wise I am going to have to say you are letting your emotions and what you see limited around you effect you and lead you to believe it is true everywhere for everyone.
Actually the quality of life even of the poor is higher in America than most any other industrialized nation. The average home has 2 TVs for god's sake. How is that a poor quality of life? The average family has something like 2 cars on average. I have yet to see that many people who have no car at all. Yes there are some but not huge numbers. There is not a huge population of homeless in America. There is not a huge number of homes with no electricity, no water, no heat. The average poor American is not going hungry. The idea that the quality of life of the poor is America is bad, is just complete nonsense and a lie. The quality of life for damn near every American is damn good, especially compared to the rest of the world. The percentage of Americans who have a truly crap existence is very very low. Even our homeless have places to eat, and they get food stamps. They usually have some kind of a shelter to sleep in if they choose. American's actually have it really good all the way across the board. Only those who actively refuse any kind of help end up with problems, and usually they are the ones who are homeless with mental issues. Being poor in America is actually pretty good, especially compared to other countries.
So people pay for the services they use big deal. You think the "rich" are worried about getting Medicare and social security? If you do then you don't understand how retirement plans work. They absolutely do not even think about depending on that money. They make plans for other money to be available. So if they don't pay in they aren't going to get it. So what difference does it make then if they don't pay if they are never a burden on that system? You do know if you don't pay in you don't get the services right? Remember Medicare isn't the same as Medicaid they are two different programs. Social Security you don't pay in they don't send you anything at all. You can't collect what you didn't pay in.
Because social security and all the payroll taxes have zero to do with running the government. Those are all the programs that can't be cut because of how they are run and where the money for them comes from. So all the payroll taxes and the programs they go to don't really matter in the grand scheme of running the government. Payroll taxes don't fund the defense, roads, census, farmer subsidies and all the other programs the government does. They go to very specific programs and the feds aren't allowed to spend that money somewhere else. Instead they borrow the excess and put Treasury Bonds in its place which is a whole different story.
Right because the guy who owned a frame shop was only middle-class. Please. That isn't the case and you know it. Most people would classify him as rich. If he never had to think about going out to eat and never had to worry about his mortgage, or anything else it was all always taken care of then most people would call that rich.
He went to work for someone else and became part of the middle class. Big freaking deal. If he couldn't adapt his business to the changes or see the changes coming and close down and save all his money to go into some other business then he wasn't all that great of a business person. Yes I have owned my own business and I was very aware of all of those changes. It's called being a good business man.
The percentage of poor are the same. So either the middle class are becoming rich, or the percentage of the middle class is exactly the same still. If the middle class is becoming rich then that isn't a problem at all.
Also a few select personal examples are not a trend and they don't mean crap. I have examples of just the opposite but they don't mean anything either. You have to look at the whole country and what is happening with cold hard numbers and not politics or what people feel or think they see.
It does seem that more and more are falling in to the middle class because the cost of everything is going up, but they definitely aren't poor. Having to watch your spending and having a budget isn't a sign of being poor that is how the middle class has always operated. Being poor isn't not being able to go out to eat or see a movie. Poor is barely having enough for rent, electric, water, food, gas, medicine, etc. and nothing left over or having to choose between those things because there isn't enough for all of the basics.
MSFT rarely paid dividends. The sole value of the stock for the longest time was simply demand for it and what others would buy it for. I never understood why people liked it so much when it never paid a single dividend for the longest time.
2/3 of corporations pay no taxes are you freaking high? What are you smoking or what drugs are you taking because I want some of that good stuff.
The myth of 2/3 of corporations don't pay any income tax is a lie. It's a flat out lie that just looking at the IRS and budget office numbers will show. 99% of all corporations have less than 100 employees. So your saying all these mom and pop corporations are paying no tax. That is complete bullshit. You need to show me the citation for that piece of garbage information. Just look at the links I posted and you will see that is absolutely impossible. Also if you take too many deductions and show no profit to pay taxes on too many years in a row the IRS relabels your business a hobby and it looses all it's corporate advantages. So that is simply not true that corporations pay zero income tax for years on end. It simply isn't allowed. I don't know where you got your information but it is very clear you have never run or owned a business before or you wouldn't believe that nonsense.
Having the masses love you means more are likely to invest in your company and if you sell a widget or service the more likely the public will buy from you. So it is absolutely in his best interest for the masses to love him. It is a clear cut business move and is actually pretty smart. If a owner of a company is hated it absolutely will effect the bottom line of the company usually or in time. It also gives an open to your competitors when the owner of a company is hated. I have seen that used time and time again against a company.
Why the rich still have to pay all of those things. If they don't keep having income then it doesn't take long for there to be no wealth. Also how many old money families do you actually think there are in this country? I suspect you think there are a lot when there really aren't that many. A number of wealth parents are not leaving huge amounts of money to their kids anymore. They are putting most of it in trusts for charities. I see that more and more. So I am not sure why you think there are huge numbers of old money families.
Actually I am not sure that is so true any more. I have travelled a number of states and it is seems like not paying sales tax on food and groceries is more uncommon than paying it. At least in my experience. I am not aware of any state that doesn't charge sales tax on clothing. Every state I have ever visited has.
So a huge majority of them should get off their asses and actually work hard. If they can't get a decent job then go back to school and get a better education. Don't tell me it is too expensive. There are very very few in this country who can't get loans to go to school to pay for school. You may not want loans because they have to be paid back, but don't say you can't afford school. You and anyone else absolutely can get loans to afford school. School loans usually aren't that bad to pay back until you get a decent job then they seriously want you to start paying them back. Most of the time until then it's like $50-$100 a month which isn't that much at all.
So once again anyone in this country can get rich and make lots of money if they are willing to work hard and sacrifice. If not then don't complain about being poor. Hard work and sacrifice is what makes people rich.
The idea that most wealth is previously owned wealth is simply not born out by the facts. More millionaries have created their wealth in their own life time. The number of the "super wealthy" families that you refer to isn't as large as you thing or that you would lead people to believe. If you can name more than 300 "super wealthy" families that most of their money is more then 3 generations old I would be shocked. There just aren't that many old money families as people would like to believe. Most are from people who worked their asses off and made their own money.
If you think the wealthy/rich don't invest and make their money work for them then you are severally deluded. The rich absolutely do not let their money just sit around not making them more money. They are always investing and looking for ways to make their money work harder for them. Which is exactly why the rich grow the economy and are worth far more to society that those that simply punch a time clock, risk nothing and go home at 5pm. That isn't taking risks and it isn't growing the economy by increasing the GDP and hiring more people to lower unemployment which in turn raises the GDP.
Why is it only fair they pay 38% of the taxes? Do they get 38% of the benefit of the federal government and everyone else only gets 2.7%? Or are you just pissed that they are rich and you aren't willing to risk it or work that hard? Are you willing to take out a $100,000 loan and maybe have to pay it off for the next 10-20 years? Are you willing to risk starting your own business and having no health insurance and no vacation or any of the other benefits of working for someone else? Are you willing to risk that you might not be able to always pay yourself and that you might have to work some seriously long hours to get things done and get more customers? The answer for 98% of the population is absolutely no way are they willing to work that hard and deal with that much risk. They see it as way to risky and way too much work.
So explain to me why if someone is willing to do all that it is only fair they pay more when your sitting in a nice comfy job and get to go home at 5pm and don't have to worry about how the company is going to pay their bills or where new clients are going to come from? Seems to me since you have it so much easier you should have to pay more. After all your taking the easy way with hardly any risk at all. Less risk should absolutely cost you more. Your also not creating more jobs or really even helping the economy grow. Your just consuming. So why should you get to pay less? Seems to me logically since your more of a drain on society you should have to pay more. Business owners make the economy grow by injecting more services and products in to the economy increasing the GDP. They hire more people decreasing the unemployment rates. Seems business owners are far better for society than those that just simply punch a clock and work for someone else without the hassles and risks.
I do not see the logic in why it's only fair that the "rich" pay more. They definitely aren't using more of the government services, they don't need them. So they are less a burden on the government. Sorry but I don't think it is fair for the "rich" to pay more than everyone else. That is just a socialist idea and it's crap. Those who are more of a burden on society and use more of societies services should pay more. Those who are self sufficient should pay less since they are less of a drain.
Also because there are no hard and concrete numbers of how much wealth is owned versus how much is paid in income tax. That is why I didn't include it. I have seen people claim all kinds of things, but I have never seen any actually supported concrete numbers than can be verified.
You show me cold hard facts that are verified of wealth (total personal or estate worth/value) in respect to actual taxes paid then I would be interested.
This idea of fair is silly. What about fair to the person who worked their ass off for that money? Why don't you think about what is fair to them? Why only think about what you feel like is fair because in reality it doesn't effect you one bit. If they pay more you wouldn't see a single change in your life, so I guess that makes it easy to say "well it's only fair they pay more". That is complete crap. It's a socialist idea that somehow everyone should have the same amount of money. It's crap and it isn't what capitalism and America was built on. You want to be rich then go work your ass off, start your own company and take the huge risks. If you don't want to do that then stop bitching about other people being richer.
Payroll taxes are not money that can be spend by the federal government to actually run it. They are money paid in to Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment etc, that go in to Trust Accounts that the Federal Government is not suppose to touch except for those programs. So it actually doesn't matter how much those taxes bring in. Especially since if you never pay in to them you aren't going to use them. They are personal use taxes. In other words what you pay in you get to spend later. So if someone never pays in they don't get it. So what's the big deal? I never understood why people get bent out of shape if someone doesn't pay payroll taxes and thus won't get those benefits. Big freaking deal.
Why should you get to tell anyone how they should spend their money? Most of the millionaires today actually created that wealth in their own life time. They worked their asses off and took huge risks that most people would never dare to take.
If they want to work 60-70 hour weeks for 30-40 years and then leave it all to their kids, what business of mine is that? When did society decide that we could just run around telling people what they could and couldn't do their money. Just because your parents didn't take huge risks and work their ass off doesn't mean you have the right to tell someone else how to spend their money or take it away from them. If they don't want to give it to charity that is their right.
You going to tell any of tech startups that are worth millions or even billions that they can't give their kids whatever they want? That is complete crap. They worked their asses off for it and made the right decisions that made them that money. There are just as many who tried to do the same thing and crashed and burned. You are basically saying it is ok for the federal government to steal money simply because you don't think it is fair. Guess what, so what. Life isn't fair, some people take big risks and it works, other people take big risks and crash hard. That's life. How about the government take 50% of your money and give it away? How would you like that and I don't mean waiting until you die either. You want money to go to charity? How much have you yourself given to charity out of your own pocket every year? Most people who bitch about the rich and say it should go to charity are usually the ones who give almost nothing to charity themselves. Democrats are famous for this. Look at their IRS returns and see how little they give to charity. Yet they are the ones who always want more charity and social programs (government charity). That just makes them hypocrites in my eyes. It also makes anyone else who says the same thing a hypocrite.
Unless your ready to loose large percentages of your own money while your alive stop telling other people how they shouldn't let their family have money they worked their ass for.
You also might want to realize that $1-$3 million in assets for a family business is absolutely nothing. Even $5 million in business assets isn't uncommon. If a business does $200,000 a year in sales regardless of overhead then it is easily worth at least $2 million or more, and that doesn't include any tangible assets that is just basically the customer list. It is very easy for a family farm to have $1-$2 million in farming equipment and land built up over the years. The value of the farm would be many times that amount. The days of the tiny family farms are mostly over. Family farms these days are typically thousands of acres. A family hardware store may have $1-$2 million in inventory built up over the years but only make a much lower amount because the markup on hardware supplies isn't all that great. If you throw in some land and a building it is instantly easy to hit the $2 million mark in just hard assets that the business owns. Your family own a single hotel franchise? Well that is $2-3 million just in the building alone. So the type of people being slammed by this death tax is a much lower type of individual than most people realize. Owning your own business it is easy to hit a $1 million value but it is easy to be far from that amount that you take home in paycheck for your family after all the expenses.
This is a total PR stunt. They have absolutely no plans to actually take real questions from real people. I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't already have lined up who they would take questions from and that they will be total softball or cream puff questions. There is no chance they will take any tough or difficult questions that require real thought and real committment to actually comment on an issue or make a real change. This is merely a stunt. They are only doing this so they can say in the mass media, see we are paying attention to the public, then go right back to doing whatever they want regardless of what the public actually wants.
Obama and the Democrats aren't about actual change for the better of the country. They are about change in the sense of getting them in office and letting them do whatever the hell they want. Like that is any different than any other President or Congress. Obama and his radical left would be more happy if everyone would just shut up and not bother them while they push more and more socialist crap down everyone's throat. They also don't want anyone to be rich, which is why they bash the rich. They want everyone to be poor but themselves. Obama doesn't talk about his net worth ever because he wants to seem like a common man, but that is crap. His net worth makes him a multi-millionaire but you won't ever see anyone talk about that. Nope he wants you to think he is just like everyone else in the middle class, which is a complete lie. Has the public ever looked at his actual IRS returns? He is no better than anyone else in Congress. They are all freaking wealthy beyond what the average American could ever hope to be. They fly private planes and chartered planes for god's sake. How many average American's do that?
Obama isn't the pocket of Corporations, but he is firmly in the pockets of the elite radical left. Groups like the Tides Foundation that sponsors ACORN. The people and groups that have sponsored ACORN and similar groups is absolutely who Obama serves. Some even say George Soros has put up big money for Obama. I do know that when Soros commented that unless Obama was going to rule by Executive Order, Soros said it was time to look for someone else to support to get their agenda served. It wasn't too long after that, that Obama started doing just that.
Just look at how he voted in Illinois and how he voted in the Senate. If that doesn't convince you then look at what he has done as President. If you still don't get it you never will. Look at some of the big donors he had when he was running for President. Don't let him fool you into thinking he just took grassroots small donations from average people that isn't the truth but he would like for people to believe it. Look at who Obama surrounds himself with and who he appoints to work in his White House. You have people like Bill Ayers, Van Jones and other similar radicals. That is where Obama's allegiance lays.
It's called voting. We don't have to run for office to effect change. Also what the hell do you think blogs and YouTube channels are, just distracting fun? They are also forms of media and commenting on public events and policy. You might want to look around more before you make such foolish comments.
Regan was great for this country. We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy. We had low unemployment and nice growth of entrepreneurs. Everything after that was down hill. Some more downhill than others, but downhill not the less. Too bad Clinton didn't actually help with the Internet. We were just fortunate that he stayed the hell out of the way and let it happen. Now Obama and his Congress seem intent on putting a nice strangle hold on it with all their regulations and what not. So we can blame Obama's Presidency for putting a major damper on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if you do some reading of Philip K. Dick and Blade Runner you might be really surprised by what he had to say about it. Originally Philip K. Dick got a hold of one of the early scripts and read it and then he was pretty much ignored during most of the startup/development work for Blade Runner. PKD was very pissed about the script he read and constantly blasted it in the press and in interviews at the time. It wasn't until Ridley Scott got him to come to the studio and see a rough cut of some of the film that things really changed and got interesting. Once PKD saw what was actually being done and how it was in the spirit of what he was writting that he completely did a 180 on the film. After PKD saw what Ridley Scott was doing and how the film was looking and the final script he was very impressed with the movie and loved what he saw. He said he realized it wasn't really a movie of his novel "So Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but a movie that took bits and pieces and had many of the same themes and ideas as the book. PKD really thought the movie was good and changed his mind publicaly about the film. PKD then started recommending the movie saying he was really impressed with what Ridley Scott was doing and like how the movie was turning out.
Most people seem to remember PKD blasting Hollywood and every time they optioned one of his stories for a movie and how he always thought they screwed him and his novels over. I would suspect most people remember or have heard about PKD blasting "Blade Runner" as a terrible movie and idea. The reality is though once he saw the vision that Ridley Scott had for the movie he actually loved what was being done and thought people should see it and that they would like it. PKD point blank said that "Blade Runner" wasn't "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but that it would have existed in the same universe of the book and covered almost all of the themes that he was doing in the book. So in the end "Blade Runner" did get the PKD stamp of approval.
You can read about a good percentage of this story of PKD and Blade Runner in the book "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner". There are also several articles around about Philip K. Dick blasting the movie in interviews. If you look harder though you will see a few articles where he did interviews and actually talked up the film once he was shown what it would end up being by Ridley Scott.
I don't know how Philip K. Dick would have felt about Next, Minority Report, Screamers, Impostor, or even A Scanner Darkly. I suspect he would be fine with A Scanner Darkly and even perhaps one or two of the other films made from his work, but he definitely approved of Blade Runner.
That is crap. I have started my own company. So it is absolutely possible for people to make a better station in life for themselves if they work hard and are willing to sacrifice. The problem is 98% of the people out there are not willing to take those risks or sacrifice.
Would you be willing to never eat out, never buy a book, DVD, magazine or anything else. Only watch over the air TV and work 60 hour a week working more than 5 days? Would you be willing to do that for 10-20 years? If not then it isn't suprising that your not one of the rich. That is exactly the kinds of sacrifices people who are willing to work their ass off and take risks are willing to do to at some point become rich. That is what entrepreneurs do to get their companies off the ground.
This idea that you can't work hard to make your life better is total crap. It's called being lazy and not willing to sacrifice.
$1 Payroll is not the same as zero income. If you think that then you clearly don't understand how income tax works. You might want to talk with an accountant to get a better understanding of this. If you mean for example Steve Jobs. You bet your ass he pays income tax. He paid it on the jet they gave him. He paid it on the stocks they gave him. He absolutely was taxed on everything they gave him that was beyond the $1 payroll that he took. Better understanding of the tax code might help you understand this better. Now does he have deductions that lower what he has to pay? Probably but I seriously doubt he gets it down to zero on a regular basis. If he did it would mean he is bleeding money badly somewhere and won't be rich long.
Actually no payroll taxes are not dropped in to the general fund and spent that way. You need to study how the income and spending actually works. The trick you are talking about is excess income to the programs and Treasury Bonds. The excess revenues for Social Security, etc are spend per year not normally saved. This all changed back in the 80's. The was a short fall of money coming in versus money going out. Social Security and the like are yearly in-out programs. In other words money comes in this year, and is paid out to people this year. You pay in social security but you don't get until 60 or whatever it ends up being. Regardless your money is spent this year to pay those retired this year. It has always worked this way. Anyway they ran short so instead of it being the governments problem they made it our problem and raised the tax rate. Now there is excess. So that went in to a trust account. Now guess what they did. Yep they saw money laying there unused and figured hey lets spend it. So they put Treasury Bond in its place and then spend the excess via bonds in the general funds. Of course they never get around to paying it back but that's beside this point. Oh and the interest on the bonds they are suppose to pay.....those get paid in more bonds as well. Yep nice mess they made there.
Anyway the money paid in to payroll tax is not dumped into the general fund. That was my point.
I need to see a citation of actual cold hard numbers showing the change in total percentage of population changes over the last 100 years minimum. Other wise I am going to have to say you are letting your emotions and what you see limited around you effect you and lead you to believe it is true everywhere for everyone.
Actually the quality of life even of the poor is higher in America than most any other industrialized nation. The average home has 2 TVs for god's sake. How is that a poor quality of life? The average family has something like 2 cars on average. I have yet to see that many people who have no car at all. Yes there are some but not huge numbers. There is not a huge population of homeless in America. There is not a huge number of homes with no electricity, no water, no heat. The average poor American is not going hungry. The idea that the quality of life of the poor is America is bad, is just complete nonsense and a lie. The quality of life for damn near every American is damn good, especially compared to the rest of the world. The percentage of Americans who have a truly crap existence is very very low. Even our homeless have places to eat, and they get food stamps. They usually have some kind of a shelter to sleep in if they choose. American's actually have it really good all the way across the board. Only those who actively refuse any kind of help end up with problems, and usually they are the ones who are homeless with mental issues. Being poor in America is actually pretty good, especially compared to other countries.
So people pay for the services they use big deal. You think the "rich" are worried about getting Medicare and social security? If you do then you don't understand how retirement plans work. They absolutely do not even think about depending on that money. They make plans for other money to be available. So if they don't pay in they aren't going to get it. So what difference does it make then if they don't pay if they are never a burden on that system? You do know if you don't pay in you don't get the services right? Remember Medicare isn't the same as Medicaid they are two different programs. Social Security you don't pay in they don't send you anything at all. You can't collect what you didn't pay in.
Because social security and all the payroll taxes have zero to do with running the government. Those are all the programs that can't be cut because of how they are run and where the money for them comes from. So all the payroll taxes and the programs they go to don't really matter in the grand scheme of running the government. Payroll taxes don't fund the defense, roads, census, farmer subsidies and all the other programs the government does. They go to very specific programs and the feds aren't allowed to spend that money somewhere else. Instead they borrow the excess and put Treasury Bonds in its place which is a whole different story.
Right because the guy who owned a frame shop was only middle-class. Please. That isn't the case and you know it. Most people would classify him as rich. If he never had to think about going out to eat and never had to worry about his mortgage, or anything else it was all always taken care of then most people would call that rich.
He went to work for someone else and became part of the middle class. Big freaking deal. If he couldn't adapt his business to the changes or see the changes coming and close down and save all his money to go into some other business then he wasn't all that great of a business person. Yes I have owned my own business and I was very aware of all of those changes. It's called being a good business man.
The percentage of poor are the same. So either the middle class are becoming rich, or the percentage of the middle class is exactly the same still. If the middle class is becoming rich then that isn't a problem at all.
Also a few select personal examples are not a trend and they don't mean crap. I have examples of just the opposite but they don't mean anything either. You have to look at the whole country and what is happening with cold hard numbers and not politics or what people feel or think they see.
It does seem that more and more are falling in to the middle class because the cost of everything is going up, but they definitely aren't poor. Having to watch your spending and having a budget isn't a sign of being poor that is how the middle class has always operated. Being poor isn't not being able to go out to eat or see a movie. Poor is barely having enough for rent, electric, water, food, gas, medicine, etc. and nothing left over or having to choose between those things because there isn't enough for all of the basics.
MSFT rarely paid dividends. The sole value of the stock for the longest time was simply demand for it and what others would buy it for. I never understood why people liked it so much when it never paid a single dividend for the longest time.
2/3 of corporations pay no taxes are you freaking high? What are you smoking or what drugs are you taking because I want some of that good stuff.
The myth of 2/3 of corporations don't pay any income tax is a lie. It's a flat out lie that just looking at the IRS and budget office numbers will show. 99% of all corporations have less than 100 employees. So your saying all these mom and pop corporations are paying no tax. That is complete bullshit. You need to show me the citation for that piece of garbage information. Just look at the links I posted and you will see that is absolutely impossible. Also if you take too many deductions and show no profit to pay taxes on too many years in a row the IRS relabels your business a hobby and it looses all it's corporate advantages. So that is simply not true that corporations pay zero income tax for years on end. It simply isn't allowed. I don't know where you got your information but it is very clear you have never run or owned a business before or you wouldn't believe that nonsense.
Having the masses love you means more are likely to invest in your company and if you sell a widget or service the more likely the public will buy from you. So it is absolutely in his best interest for the masses to love him. It is a clear cut business move and is actually pretty smart. If a owner of a company is hated it absolutely will effect the bottom line of the company usually or in time. It also gives an open to your competitors when the owner of a company is hated. I have seen that used time and time again against a company.
Why the rich still have to pay all of those things. If they don't keep having income then it doesn't take long for there to be no wealth. Also how many old money families do you actually think there are in this country? I suspect you think there are a lot when there really aren't that many. A number of wealth parents are not leaving huge amounts of money to their kids anymore. They are putting most of it in trusts for charities. I see that more and more. So I am not sure why you think there are huge numbers of old money families.
Actually I am not sure that is so true any more. I have travelled a number of states and it is seems like not paying sales tax on food and groceries is more uncommon than paying it. At least in my experience. I am not aware of any state that doesn't charge sales tax on clothing. Every state I have ever visited has.
So a huge majority of them should get off their asses and actually work hard. If they can't get a decent job then go back to school and get a better education. Don't tell me it is too expensive. There are very very few in this country who can't get loans to go to school to pay for school. You may not want loans because they have to be paid back, but don't say you can't afford school. You and anyone else absolutely can get loans to afford school. School loans usually aren't that bad to pay back until you get a decent job then they seriously want you to start paying them back. Most of the time until then it's like $50-$100 a month which isn't that much at all.
So once again anyone in this country can get rich and make lots of money if they are willing to work hard and sacrifice. If not then don't complain about being poor. Hard work and sacrifice is what makes people rich.
The idea that most wealth is previously owned wealth is simply not born out by the facts. More millionaries have created their wealth in their own life time. The number of the "super wealthy" families that you refer to isn't as large as you thing or that you would lead people to believe. If you can name more than 300 "super wealthy" families that most of their money is more then 3 generations old I would be shocked. There just aren't that many old money families as people would like to believe. Most are from people who worked their asses off and made their own money.
If you think the wealthy/rich don't invest and make their money work for them then you are severally deluded. The rich absolutely do not let their money just sit around not making them more money. They are always investing and looking for ways to make their money work harder for them. Which is exactly why the rich grow the economy and are worth far more to society that those that simply punch a time clock, risk nothing and go home at 5pm. That isn't taking risks and it isn't growing the economy by increasing the GDP and hiring more people to lower unemployment which in turn raises the GDP.
Why is it only fair they pay 38% of the taxes? Do they get 38% of the benefit of the federal government and everyone else only gets 2.7%? Or are you just pissed that they are rich and you aren't willing to risk it or work that hard? Are you willing to take out a $100,000 loan and maybe have to pay it off for the next 10-20 years? Are you willing to risk starting your own business and having no health insurance and no vacation or any of the other benefits of working for someone else? Are you willing to risk that you might not be able to always pay yourself and that you might have to work some seriously long hours to get things done and get more customers? The answer for 98% of the population is absolutely no way are they willing to work that hard and deal with that much risk. They see it as way to risky and way too much work.
So explain to me why if someone is willing to do all that it is only fair they pay more when your sitting in a nice comfy job and get to go home at 5pm and don't have to worry about how the company is going to pay their bills or where new clients are going to come from? Seems to me since you have it so much easier you should have to pay more. After all your taking the easy way with hardly any risk at all. Less risk should absolutely cost you more. Your also not creating more jobs or really even helping the economy grow. Your just consuming. So why should you get to pay less? Seems to me logically since your more of a drain on society you should have to pay more. Business owners make the economy grow by injecting more services and products in to the economy increasing the GDP. They hire more people decreasing the unemployment rates. Seems business owners are far better for society than those that just simply punch a clock and work for someone else without the hassles and risks.
I do not see the logic in why it's only fair that the "rich" pay more. They definitely aren't using more of the government services, they don't need them. So they are less a burden on the government. Sorry but I don't think it is fair for the "rich" to pay more than everyone else. That is just a socialist idea and it's crap. Those who are more of a burden on society and use more of societies services should pay more. Those who are self sufficient should pay less since they are less of a drain.
Also because there are no hard and concrete numbers of how much wealth is owned versus how much is paid in income tax. That is why I didn't include it. I have seen people claim all kinds of things, but I have never seen any actually supported concrete numbers than can be verified.
You show me cold hard facts that are verified of wealth (total personal or estate worth/value) in respect to actual taxes paid then I would be interested.
This idea of fair is silly. What about fair to the person who worked their ass off for that money? Why don't you think about what is fair to them? Why only think about what you feel like is fair because in reality it doesn't effect you one bit. If they pay more you wouldn't see a single change in your life, so I guess that makes it easy to say "well it's only fair they pay more". That is complete crap. It's a socialist idea that somehow everyone should have the same amount of money. It's crap and it isn't what capitalism and America was built on. You want to be rich then go work your ass off, start your own company and take the huge risks. If you don't want to do that then stop bitching about other people being richer.
Payroll taxes are not money that can be spend by the federal government to actually run it. They are money paid in to Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment etc, that go in to Trust Accounts that the Federal Government is not suppose to touch except for those programs. So it actually doesn't matter how much those taxes bring in. Especially since if you never pay in to them you aren't going to use them. They are personal use taxes. In other words what you pay in you get to spend later. So if someone never pays in they don't get it. So what's the big deal? I never understood why people get bent out of shape if someone doesn't pay payroll taxes and thus won't get those benefits. Big freaking deal.
Why should you get to tell anyone how they should spend their money? Most of the millionaires today actually created that wealth in their own life time. They worked their asses off and took huge risks that most people would never dare to take.
If they want to work 60-70 hour weeks for 30-40 years and then leave it all to their kids, what business of mine is that? When did society decide that we could just run around telling people what they could and couldn't do their money. Just because your parents didn't take huge risks and work their ass off doesn't mean you have the right to tell someone else how to spend their money or take it away from them. If they don't want to give it to charity that is their right.
You going to tell any of tech startups that are worth millions or even billions that they can't give their kids whatever they want? That is complete crap. They worked their asses off for it and made the right decisions that made them that money. There are just as many who tried to do the same thing and crashed and burned. You are basically saying it is ok for the federal government to steal money simply because you don't think it is fair. Guess what, so what. Life isn't fair, some people take big risks and it works, other people take big risks and crash hard. That's life. How about the government take 50% of your money and give it away? How would you like that and I don't mean waiting until you die either. You want money to go to charity? How much have you yourself given to charity out of your own pocket every year? Most people who bitch about the rich and say it should go to charity are usually the ones who give almost nothing to charity themselves. Democrats are famous for this. Look at their IRS returns and see how little they give to charity. Yet they are the ones who always want more charity and social programs (government charity). That just makes them hypocrites in my eyes. It also makes anyone else who says the same thing a hypocrite.
Unless your ready to loose large percentages of your own money while your alive stop telling other people how they shouldn't let their family have money they worked their ass for.
You also might want to realize that $1-$3 million in assets for a family business is absolutely nothing. Even $5 million in business assets isn't uncommon. If a business does $200,000 a year in sales regardless of overhead then it is easily worth at least $2 million or more, and that doesn't include any tangible assets that is just basically the customer list. It is very easy for a family farm to have $1-$2 million in farming equipment and land built up over the years. The value of the farm would be many times that amount. The days of the tiny family farms are mostly over. Family farms these days are typically thousands of acres. A family hardware store may have $1-$2 million in inventory built up over the years but only make a much lower amount because the markup on hardware supplies isn't all that great. If you throw in some land and a building it is instantly easy to hit the $2 million mark in just hard assets that the business owns. Your family own a single hotel franchise? Well that is $2-3 million just in the building alone. So the type of people being slammed by this death tax is a much lower type of individual than most people realize. Owning your own business it is easy to hit a $1 million value but it is easy to be far from that amount that you take home in paycheck for your family after all the expenses.
Something people need to think about and realize.
This is a total PR stunt. They have absolutely no plans to actually take real questions from real people. I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't already have lined up who they would take questions from and that they will be total softball or cream puff questions. There is no chance they will take any tough or difficult questions that require real thought and real committment to actually comment on an issue or make a real change. This is merely a stunt. They are only doing this so they can say in the mass media, see we are paying attention to the public, then go right back to doing whatever they want regardless of what the public actually wants.
Obama and the Democrats aren't about actual change for the better of the country. They are about change in the sense of getting them in office and letting them do whatever the hell they want. Like that is any different than any other President or Congress. Obama and his radical left would be more happy if everyone would just shut up and not bother them while they push more and more socialist crap down everyone's throat. They also don't want anyone to be rich, which is why they bash the rich. They want everyone to be poor but themselves. Obama doesn't talk about his net worth ever because he wants to seem like a common man, but that is crap. His net worth makes him a multi-millionaire but you won't ever see anyone talk about that. Nope he wants you to think he is just like everyone else in the middle class, which is a complete lie. Has the public ever looked at his actual IRS returns? He is no better than anyone else in Congress. They are all freaking wealthy beyond what the average American could ever hope to be. They fly private planes and chartered planes for god's sake. How many average American's do that?
Obama isn't the pocket of Corporations, but he is firmly in the pockets of the elite radical left. Groups like the Tides Foundation that sponsors ACORN. The people and groups that have sponsored ACORN and similar groups is absolutely who Obama serves. Some even say George Soros has put up big money for Obama. I do know that when Soros commented that unless Obama was going to rule by Executive Order, Soros said it was time to look for someone else to support to get their agenda served. It wasn't too long after that, that Obama started doing just that.
Just look at how he voted in Illinois and how he voted in the Senate. If that doesn't convince you then look at what he has done as President. If you still don't get it you never will. Look at some of the big donors he had when he was running for President. Don't let him fool you into thinking he just took grassroots small donations from average people that isn't the truth but he would like for people to believe it. Look at who Obama surrounds himself with and who he appoints to work in his White House. You have people like Bill Ayers, Van Jones and other similar radicals. That is where Obama's allegiance lays.
It's called voting. We don't have to run for office to effect change. Also what the hell do you think blogs and YouTube channels are, just distracting fun? They are also forms of media and commenting on public events and policy. You might want to look around more before you make such foolish comments.
Regan was great for this country. We had great economic growth which drove the Democrats crazy. We had low unemployment and nice growth of entrepreneurs. Everything after that was down hill. Some more downhill than others, but downhill not the less. Too bad Clinton didn't actually help with the Internet. We were just fortunate that he stayed the hell out of the way and let it happen. Now Obama and his Congress seem intent on putting a nice strangle hold on it with all their regulations and what not. So we can blame Obama's Presidency for putting a major damper on the Internet.