Is it worth making "the rich" pay for everything if that means?

Question

sharply reducing the chances that people in the middle class can BECOME rich?

Wherever you draw the line to define "rich" - some economists use $1MM liquid net worth, constant dollars - the shift is more and more households crossing above it. Right now it's between 500,000 and a million households per year, usually about 3/4 of a million. If you drew a similar line to define "comfortable" say a household between $100K and $500K liquid net worth, that's about 1 in 4 of us, versus about 1 in 10 twenty five years ago. In another generation it could be 50/50.

YES the households already above those lines have really done well, even by a greater degree than the rest of us, in most cases.

But in absolute terms there has been a dramatic increase in the proportion of this country that "lives the life" - - - why throw the baby out with the bathwater????

Even if you hate the folks who are already rich, don't you love yourself more?

And yes, there are more poor people too - - - - but the increase is the result of poor immigrants, legal and illegal combined totaling about a million per year, every year, coming here, mostly to take jobs the rest of us don't want - - - - jobs that didn't even exist 25 years ago but were CREATED by the emergence of this new comfortable 25 percent of us - all those new rich people don't want or don't have time to cut their own grass, build their own additions, babysit the kids after school or clean the bathrooms.

Yes 25 percent is still a minority but it used to be 10. There is no reason to argue with the notion that if we just keep doing it the way we've been doing it for 25 years, in another 25 years it will be 50/50 or even 60/40.

Does the potential for that 50 or 60 percent to not include you, and your envy of those whom it includes, inspire you to shut the whole thing down?

Do we want to achieve equality by keeping everyone down?

Gee oohbother your prior posts contradict this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6214022/site/newsweek/

honestamerican you're not being honest - http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/26/PM200604264.html

Abby unemployment is at the same level now, at the peak of the interest rate cycle, as it was in the late 1990s - when Fed policy was accomodating.

Answer 1

If we could magically redistribute all wealth so everybody had the same amount, in a very short time it would all gravitate back to the people that had it in the first place.
They tried that in the former USSR. You see how well it worked out for them.

Answer 2

In the ninties until 2,000 when the Republicans took over.Life was good!We had a 400 billion dollar surplus,we were still respected by the rest of the world.The biggest concern was if bill got a b.j. or not.The tax breaks for the rich are not fair!Now under The Republicans once again we're about bankrupt!The rich don't pay their share and the gap keeps widening.All the breaks are for the wealthy.Since 2,000 so many of the Good jobs,(union) have been broken or the companies seeking cheaper labor or tax incentives for leaving the U.S. have relocated.Thanks to George and Dick.The rich love the illegals to use for cheap labor.

Answer 3

The rich do ALL they can to get their taxes reduced as much as possible.Which means shifting it to the middle class sharply reducing their chances of getting rich.Just as the rich have been pushing for the end of the estate(death) tax.So that they can leave their wealth to their children unencumbered!So their children who only earned the right of wealth through birth can live the life without having to do anything except enjoy it!

Answer 4

Why not ask Ken Lay?

He seems to be one of those who didn't mind how many millions of Americans were bent over by his energy price plans. His business model cared nothing for who was affected, nor did his company make the world a better place.

Oh, we can't ask him. He's dead.

Granted not all capitalists are evil at their core. It's the ones who refuse to play fair that poison the rest of the environment.

Answer 5

I don't begrudge those that have made themselves well off. I also believe it is not the right of the government to tax them more for making a better life for themselves and then redistribute their wealth. They are responsible for themselves and their families, the same as I am responsible for myself and my family. Redistribution is not the answer. Education, the drive and ambitions to make ones self better off should not be restricted by disporportionate taxing. We need to encourage wealth building not discourage it.

Answer 6

i think you are plain wrong in your assesment.

there are billionaires out there who have stepped forward and said that the current system is unfair to everyone but the super wealthy.

Answer 7

That question sounds like a child.
"clean my room? Why do I have to do everything around here?"

Nobody wants the rich to pay for everything, so the whole basis of your question is broken.

Answer 8

The thing that should be a matter is: why don't the stinkin' rich pay?

Answer 9

Democrats don't care about the middle class. their main interests are rewarding the lazy and punishing the successful..............