Romney vs. Obama

[gamblor01]

lol now theyre abusing their "fair share" of leisure time too?

FFS

btw...... according to the standards used to measure "poverty".... Mitt Romney is below the poverty line... as are many other countless millionaires and billionaires.... all considered poor

Ha, I actually agree with most of TxGoat's philosophies but this is one that I even find funny. It is a known fact that the wealthy have several significant advantages over the poor. Leisure time might be one of them -- so what?

In any case, I think I have discovered one important thing from all of this discussion. That is, all of this business about progressive taxation really depends on how you define the word fair. For some it seems that fair is defined precisely as equal taxation, regardless of any other factors. For others, fairness is more defined by fairness of lifestyle, fairness to opportunity, etc. In other words, it's not fair to tax someone make $40,000/year at the same rate that you tax someone making $40 million -- if you were to take 20% for example, you would be leaving the first individual with $32,000 and the latter with $32 million. The wealthy person could just as easily survive with only $30 million (or even $20M or 10M is more than most people even come close to making in a year). So taxing them a bit more to give the less fortunate earners some extra money back (say $38,000 instead of $32,000) makes things more fair.

Thus, it all depends on what exactly you are talking about when you say the word "fair". Some people clearly have different definitions and it obviously winds up shaping our thoughts on politics, taxation, and fiscal policy. I'm rather intrigued by this one word causing so much tension now...

i don't see the word "illegal" used in that definition.

you lose again.

Basing all of your decisions and actions solely by what is legal is not a wise decision, and certainly does not mean that what you are doing is fair or right. The United States used to consider black people 3/5ths of a person. They also used to have separate restrooms, water fountains, etc. Black people were forced to sit in the back of the bus and couldn't attend the same schools that white people could. All of this segregation and racial discrimination was perfectly legal according to the strict letter of the law. But does that mean it was fair or that it was the right thing to do? Absolutely not.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I also have problems with the term "less fortunate". Makes it sound like the key component in success in life and career is luck. Bullcrap IMO. But that's just my opinion and they're like cowboy hats.

Personally, I favor a consumption tax. Issue a credit to everyone that covers the poverty level. In another words, figure out that if you live at the poverty level, you'll pay X in taxes. Give that to everyone every year. The feds cut everyone a check for the same ammount whether you earn $30k a year or $30 mil. Anything you pay over that in consumption tax, you pay. The theory being that the wealthy will consume more and thus pay more. Those living at the poverty level pay nothing. I'd apply the tax to just new items so individuals selling used items wouldn't have to collect it. It would thus not "punish" the poor who would buy things second hand. I'm not an economist so I have no idea if such a tax could generate even close to the revenue we need to run the ridiculously bloated programs we run though.

 

[gamblor01]

I also have problems with the term "less fortunate". Makes it sound like the key component in success in life and career is luck. Bullcrap IMO. But that's just my opinion and they're like cowboy hats.

Personally, I favor a consumption tax. Issue a credit to everyone that covers the poverty level. In another words, figure out that if you live at the poverty level, you'll pay X in taxes. Give that to everyone every year. The feds cut everyone a check for the same ammount whether you earn $30k a year or $30 mil. Anything you pay over that in consumption tax, you pay. The theory being that the wealthy will consume more and thus pay more. Those living at the poverty level pay nothing. I'd apply the tax to just new items so individuals selling used items wouldn't have to collect it. It would thus not "punish" the poor who would buy things second hand. I'm not an economist so I have no idea if such a tax could generate even close to the revenue we need to run the ridiculously bloated programs we run though.

There definitely is an element of luck, though I do not believe that it is the only factor that defines the path that your life ultimately takes. You cannot choose who you are born to, and therefore, some people get lucky and are born to loving parents. Some are born to loving parents that are already extremely wealthy. Those are both great things. Other people are born to extremely poor parents (which isn't necessarily bad), or even worse -- abusive and/or neglectful parents.

Really, I think if you have love and support at home you should be able to excel regardless of socio-economic status. Without good parents it is still not impossible, but it is orders of magnitude more difficult. Kids are kids and should live as such. They shouldn't have to see the crap in the world at early ages. It makes them jaded and distorts their views on what is acceptable and so on. They should also have family, friends, and teachers that care about them and push them to succeed.

Socio-economic status plays a role as well. Just look at the performance of inner city schools versus some blue ribbon school in a suburb or Dallas or something. The dropout rates, graduation rates, turnover rates of teachers, test scores, etc. are all facts and data points. Granted, I believe you have to take standardized test scores with a grain of salt, but all of that data says a lot about the performance of said school.

In any case, to say that luck doesn't have anything to do with your success in life is patently false. I will agree it is not the only factor, but it can certainly be a very large contributor.

I do however love your tax idea. It's basically the fair tax, which is a 23% sales tax but you get to keep your entire paycheck -- there is no income tax. I believe a 23% sales tax would overwhelm the poor, but if you gave everyone (or maybe just the poorest of people? I don't know) some X amount of dollars that would be awesome. Then agreed -- if you spend more money you pay more in taxes. Want a giant yacht? Expect to pay a giant tax bill.

It sounds amazing in theory. I have no idea how well it would work in practice either though.

 

[ylexot]

I also have problems with the term "less fortunate". Makes it sound like the key component in success in life and career is luck. Bullcrap IMO. But that's just my opinion and they're like cowboy hats.

Personally, I favor a consumption tax. Issue a credit to everyone that covers the poverty level. In another words, figure out that if you live at the poverty level, you'll pay X in taxes. Give that to everyone every year. The feds cut everyone a check for the same ammount whether you earn $30k a year or $30 mil. Anything you pay over that in consumption tax, you pay. The theory being that the wealthy will consume more and thus pay more. Those living at the poverty level pay nothing. I'd apply the tax to just new items so individuals selling used items wouldn't have to collect it. It would thus not "punish" the poor who would buy things second hand. I'm not an economist so I have no idea if such a tax could generate even close to the revenue we need to run the ridiculously bloated programs we run though.

AKA the FairTax. FairTax | American for Fair Taxation | Tax Reform Solutions | Consumption Tax - Americans For Fair Taxation

:thumbup:

 

[gamblor01]

Getting somewhat back on topic, Walker wins recall vote, also outspent opposition by 12-1 (including superpac).

Any application to the upcoming Nov. election ?

I really hope not. I think Romney is a phony that supports whatever position he believes will get him the most votes. He's a total hypocrite as well. He also constantly bashes Obama for failing to get anything down and spending money, but then fails to acknowledge that Obama has actually pushed quite a few different plans and the Republicans in the house have shot them all down because they include tax hikes for the wealthy. And his proposals for new spending were always supposed to be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. So it's not correct to say he hasn't done anything or that his policies hurt the country -- it's more correct to say that Congress hasn't passed any of the legislation he has been pushing for.

In any case, I was really hoping Walker would be thrown out. I'm not a huge fan of unions, but I do think that teachers are some of the most underpaid and under appreciated folks out there. Screwing with them isn't cool, but that's not really my main concern. My main concern is the fact that without a successful recall, it basically sends a message to politicians that they can do whatever they want and still keep their job. There were tens of thousands of people protesting the legislation to limit collective bargaining rights, but they passed the legislation anyway. Then on top of that the main guy pushing the legislation was able to keep his job, even after a recall vote.

What message does this send to politicians? If you ask me it tells them "Do whatever you want, even if thousands of voters are out there protesting your decision. Don't worry about what the people want. They are supposed to be able to vote you out of office if they don't like your policies and decisions, but clearly they can't do that. So do what you want because you will get to keep your job no matter what."

 

[A.Nonymous]

There definitely is an element of luck, though I do not believe that it is the only factor that defines the path that your life ultimately takes. You cannot choose who you are born to, and therefore, some people get lucky and are born to loving parents. Some are born to loving parents that are already extremely wealthy. Those are both great things. Other people are born to extremely poor parents (which isn't necessarily bad), or even worse -- abusive and/or neglectful parents.

Really, I think if you have love and support at home you should be able to excel regardless of socio-economic status. Without good parents it is still not impossible, but it is orders of magnitude more difficult. Kids are kids and should live as such. They shouldn't have to see the crap in the world at early ages. It makes them jaded and distorts their views on what is acceptable and so on. They should also have family, friends, and teachers that care about them and push them to succeed.

Socio-economic status plays a role as well. Just look at the performance of inner city schools versus some blue ribbon school in a suburb or Dallas or something. The dropout rates, graduation rates, turnover rates of teachers, test scores, etc. are all facts and data points. Granted, I believe you have to take standardized test scores with a grain of salt, but all of that data says a lot about the performance of said school.

In any case, to say that luck doesn't have anything to do with your success in life is patently false. I will agree it is not the only factor, but it can certainly be a very large contributor.

I do however love your tax idea. It's basically the fair tax, which is a 23% sales tax but you get to keep your entire paycheck -- there is no income tax. I believe a 23% sales tax would overwhelm the poor, but if you gave everyone (or maybe just the poorest of people? I don't know) some X amount of dollars that would be awesome. Then agreed -- if you spend more money you pay more in taxes. Want a giant yacht? Expect to pay a giant tax bill.

It sounds amazing in theory. I have no idea how well it would work in practice either though.

I disagree with the luck thing. Certainly some of us are dealt better hands in life to begin with, but I think that can be overcome by anyone. I think we make our own luck and I think everyone gets opportunities in life it's just that some take advantage of them and some don't. I am not an employee of Google. Is it that people who are employees of Google are just "lucky" and I'm not. No. I live in the mid-west, not the west coast and I don't have the training the average Google engineer is going to have as I didn't go to college in that field. It's luck that dictates that I'm not a googler it's my own choices.

Just look at the President. He was a black kid raised by a single mom without a father figure at or below the poverty line. Statistically speaking he's got a good chance of ending up in prison, doing drugs and working a series of dead end jobs that he's not going to be able to hold down well at all. Instead he's the leader of the free world. Why? Did he just pull the right numbers out of the lottery? Or did his choices and hard work put him there?

 

[ylexot]

And on the flip side, there are lots of people born into privilege who squander it and fail. Think Paris Hilton will still be rich when she dies? I doubt it. We seem to think that the rich and poor never switch places, but there is quite a bit of churn.

 

[A.Nonymous]

True. There are people who switch places multiple times too. I know of people who have been born poor, gotten rich, gone broke and gotten rich again.

 

[TxGoat]

Why? What is wrong with enjoying leisure time? I feel like I'm detecting notes of jealousy here. If you can earn more by working less isn't that the dream?

What I'm saying is if you pay yourself insane amounts of money then your leisure time should not also be practically unlimited. I remember when high paid executives actually worked the long hours. Now it seems like they're in the office maybe 20 hours out of the week on average. Like I said, I actually remember when the high powered high salary earners actually worked the long hard hours, they've done a masterful job of putting in less hours and earning much more. The again when you have people that are willing to accept that they must have worked hard in the past and are now enjoying the "fruits of their labor", I can see why they can get away with less hours and more pay, no one cares to hold them accountable..."Maybe one day that will be me!"....Nope it's not going to be you "some day" so stop defending it.

 

[TxGoat]

AKA the FairTax. FairTax | American for Fair Taxation | Tax Reform Solutions | Consumption Tax - Americans For Fair Taxation

:thumbup:

Too bad the GOP isn't as concerned with fair COMPENSATION as they are with fair taxation. Fair taxation doesn't happen if the compensation isn't fair.

 

[OutofDate1980]

It appears Adam Smith supported a progressive tax, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion."

The Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Book V: Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth

 

[ylexot]

Now it seems like they're in the office maybe 20 hours out of the week on average.

"Seems like"...got any evidence whatsoever to support it?

 

[OutofDate1980]

"Warren Buffett used to say that he could never have become a billionaire in Bangladesh. And he could only be one in the U.S. due to a whole network of conditions not of his making, and for which the government is largely to thank."

For progressive taxation, or against being against it | amerikanbeat

 

[gamblor01]

I disagree with the luck thing. Certainly some of us are dealt better hands in life to begin with, but I think that can be overcome by anyone. I think we make our own luck and I think everyone gets opportunities in life it's just that some take advantage of them and some don't. I am not an employee of Google. Is it that people who are employees of Google are just "lucky" and I'm not. No. I live in the mid-west, not the west coast and I don't have the training the average Google engineer is going to have as I didn't go to college in that field. It's luck that dictates that I'm not a googler it's my own choices.

Just look at the President. He was a black kid raised by a single mom without a father figure at or below the poverty line. Statistically speaking he's got a good chance of ending up in prison, doing drugs and working a series of dead end jobs that he's not going to be able to hold down well at all. Instead he's the leader of the free world. Why? Did he just pull the right numbers out of the lottery? Or did his choices and hard work put him there?

I'm not saying that it is impossible if you are born into unfortunate economic circumstances to overcome them. In fact, if you read my previous post you'll see that I say that simply being born to poor parents "isn't necessarily bad". Yes, Obama is an example of success but he is just one data point among a sea of others who fail. You can't use a single data point to prove a theory (though obviously a single counter-example will disprove a theory). There is absolutely an element of luck involved. Though it's obviously not the only determining factor, I think it's absolutely more significant than you are giving it credit though.

If "luck" (defined by socio-economic status) has nothing to do with success, then why do low performing schools continue to be low performing year after year? Why are they disproportionately located in financially disadvantaged areas? This doesn't happen by accident.

If wealth has nothing to do with it, then there should exist some sort of default distribution of dropouts and graduates at EVERY school, regardless of location or socio-economic status. In other words, take any school and you should see roughly the same distribution of graduation rates, dropouts, etc. Yet you don't. Go look at the data for schools in poor areas and you will see that they consistently produce lower rates of graduation, higher dropout rates, lower test scores, etc.

Research Center: Low-Performing Schools



Parental education levels often help children to succeed as well, though recent studies have suggested the levels of education have no direct impact on the children. Instead higher levels of education of influence many other intangibles that are indicative of success in their children. Here is some fun reading on these topics:

Long-term Effects of Parents

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf

Parenting: Influence of Parents' Level of Education: Information from Answers.com



Sorry, but I just see overwhelming evidence that being born into a wealthy family gives you significant advantages over not being born into one. Living in a wealthy family means higher rates of college educated, loving parents, who live in a good district and/or can afford to send their children to prestigious private schools.

There are certainly other forms of bad luck as well, or do you think that those born mentally handicapped are just lazy and simply aren't trying hard enough to succeed?

 

[A.Nonymous]

What I'm saying is if you pay yourself insane amounts of money then your leisure time should not also be practically unlimited.

Why?

 

[gamblor01]

Why?

I have to agree with A.Nonymous on this one. Leisure time might just be another perk of being enormously wealthy. But believe me, CEO's still invest a large amount of their time working. And even if they don't, they got where they are by being really good at certain things. Maybe one of their best skills was reading other people extremely well and thus they hired a reliable team of people to work for them, so they can delegate their responsibility and not worry about things going sour. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that.

Maybe at your company you have examples of people that "run" the company, make insane amounts of cash, and yet do not work. I think that is the exception and not the rule. Now if someone runs a company and then sells it and makes a ton of money off of the sale, why not live off that for a while and spend your time being leisurely. What's the point of living if you're not going to enjoy life? I have to imagine that most of these people that are rich and not doing anything probably made their millions, retired early, and now just do whatever they feel like. Sounds like a good goal if you ask me.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I have to agree with A.Nonymous on this one. Leisure time might just be another perk of being enormously wealthy. But believe me, CEO's still invest a large amount of their time working. And even if they don't, they got where they are by being really good at certain things. Maybe one of their best skills was reading other people extremely well and thus they hired a reliable team of people to work for them, so they can delegate their responsibility and not worry about things going sour. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that.

Maybe at your company you have examples of people that "run" the company, make insane amounts of cash, and yet do not work. I think that is the exception and not the rule. Now if someone runs a company and then sells it and makes a ton of money off of the sale, why not live off that for a while and spend your time being leisurely. What's the point of living if you're not going to enjoy life? I have to imagine that most of these people that are rich and not doing anything probably made their millions, retired early, and now just do whatever they feel like. Sounds like a good goal if you ask me.

By gosh, CEO's don't run a company, they hire underlings to do that, i.e. overseers, CEO's spend most of their time networking to insure control and over-the-top compensation for themselves, regardless of the companies performance.

 

[ylexot]

Really? How many CEOs do you know?

 

[A.Nonymous]

By gosh, CEO's don't run a company, they hire underlings to do that, i.e. overseers, CEO's spend most of their time networking to insure control and over-the-top compensation for themselves, regardless of the companies performance.

Again, I don't see the wrong in that. Assuming what you've said is 100% true, so what. Isn't the old adage to work smarter, not harder? Heck, my grandparents have been retired for 30 years or so. They earn more off their investments then I earn by actually working. They spend nearly 100% of their time on leisure and very little time actively managing those investments. They have people who do that for them. Is that wrong? Not to me. My goal is to get there myself one day.

I'm not saying that it is impossible if you are born into unfortunate economic circumstances to overcome them. In fact, if you read my previous post you'll see that I say that simply being born to poor parents "isn't necessarily bad". Yes, Obama is an example of success but he is just one data point among a sea of others who fail. You can't use a single data point to prove a theory (though obviously a single counter-example will disprove a theory). There is absolutely an element of luck involved. Though it's obviously not the only determining factor, I think it's absolutely more significant than you are giving it credit though.

If "luck" (defined by socio-economic status) has nothing to do with success, then why do low performing schools continue to be low performing year after year? Why are they disproportionately located in financially disadvantaged areas? This doesn't happen by accident.

If wealth has nothing to do with it, then there should exist some sort of default distribution of dropouts and graduates at EVERY school, regardless of location or socio-economic status. In other words, take any school and you should see roughly the same distribution of graduation rates, dropouts, etc. Yet you don't. Go look at the data for schools in poor areas and you will see that they consistently produce lower rates of graduation, higher dropout rates, lower test scores, etc.

Research Center: Low-Performing Schools



Parental education levels often help children to succeed as well, though recent studies have suggested the levels of education have no direct impact on the children. Instead higher levels of education of influence many other intangibles that are indicative of success in their children. Here is some fun reading on these topics:

Long-term Effects of Parents

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf

Parenting: Influence of Parents' Level of Education: Information from Answers.com



Sorry, but I just see overwhelming evidence that being born into a wealthy family gives you significant advantages over not being born into one. Living in a wealthy family means higher rates of college educated, loving parents, who live in a good district and/or can afford to send their children to prestigious private schools.

There are certainly other forms of bad luck as well, or do you think that those born mentally handicapped are just lazy and simply aren't trying hard enough to succeed?

I don't equate luck with wealth. I equate luck to random events that happen to all of us. A headhunter looks for you for a good job. A promotional opportunity at work comes along. A scholarship opens up at school, etc, etc..... You make those yourself by putting yourself in a position to take advantage of those opportunities.

 

[TxGoat]

"Seems like"...got any evidence whatsoever to support it?

Lets see, when I worked for Countrywide, I'd see the VIP parking empty when I'd get in to work at 7:00am, at 11:00am when I'd go to lunch, I'd see cars parked, then at 4:00pm when I'd leave for work, VIP parking empty again.....

Oh that's right, they all carpool because they're all "conservative"..... /sarcasm

 

[TxGoat]

Why?

A little something called work ethics maybe? Which to be quite honest, that's all it really boils down to, ethics. Sure you can cheat the system and massage all the rules in your favor. Assign board members that are your friends, have them over for social gatherings, convince them that you're worth this money and that in a few years you'll retire and will put in a letter of recommendation for them when the board elects another CEO.... Hell why stop there? Get yourself a lobbyist and write in loopholes that only apply to your status and per the written law (that your lobbyist helped shape btw) then you'd be "entitled" to those perks. I guess ethics is only for the "weak minded".....

 

[TxGoat]

Really? How many CEOs do you know?

I'm guessing probably the same number that you know, and no you can't claim that you know the CEO of your company who comes on the floor once every blue moon to stroke his ego and get everyone buzzing..."The CEO is coming, the CEO is coming" like a rooster in a hen house.

CEOs typically make themselves unavailable to anyone but their administrative assistant and a select few employees that report directly to them. Anyone that would spend their leisure time on this site (no offense to anyone that does) and not jet setting to some exotic destination or at some getaway does NOT have access to many CEOs (unless by chance you're related to one). And the CEOs like it that way, which I can't say I blame them since the general public is just generally annoying....

 

[ylexot]

Lets see, when I worked for Countrywide, I'd see the VIP parking empty when I'd get in to work at 7:00am, at 11:00am when I'd go to lunch, I'd see cars parked, then at 4:00pm when I'd leave for work, VIP parking empty again.....

Oh that's right, they all carpool because they're all "conservative"..... /sarcasm

Countrywide? Aren't they the ones that failed? Maybe it had to do with those VIPs not working the way most upper management does.

 

[ylexot]

I'm guessing probably the same number that you know,

I'm not the one claiming that CEOs don't run a company.

 

[gamblor01]

I'm guessing probably the same number that you know, and no you can't claim that you know the CEO of your company who comes on the floor once every blue moon to stroke his ego and get everyone buzzing..."The CEO is coming, the CEO is coming" like a rooster in a hen house.

CEOs typically make themselves unavailable to anyone but their administrative assistant and a select few employees that report directly to them. Anyone that would spend their leisure time on this site (no offense to anyone that does) and not jet setting to some exotic destination or at some getaway does NOT have access to many CEOs (unless by chance you're related to one). And the CEOs like it that way, which I can't say I blame them since the general public is just generally annoying....

This is one reason (of many!) why I left IBM after 5+ years of working there. I just didn't feel like my management chain cared about me at all. And the CEO? Yeah he was 8 levels of management above me. I didn't even know my 3rd or 4th line manager -- why would I know someone 8 levels higher?

My current company is about 70 people and our CEO works very hard. He isn't worth billions but he definitely make good money and lives in a very fancy area of town, has his own ranch outside of town, etc. He does quite well, but I guarantee you he puts in hours. I see him there every day (unless he's out at a conference or a sales trip), talk to him quite often in the halls, and see him in meetings and such all the time, planning new software sales, etc. Hell, we have a happy hour once/month in our kitchen and it's pretty cool to get to kick back and drink some beers with my CEO. That would have never happened at IBM -- Palmisano's secretary wouldn't have given me the time of day if I asked for it. I'm sure this all varies by company though.

I don't equate luck with wealth. I equate luck to random events that happen to all of us. A headhunter looks for you for a good job. A promotional opportunity at work comes along. A scholarship opens up at school, etc, etc..... You make those yourself by putting yourself in a position to take advantage of those opportunities.

I completely agree with you that people quite often squander opportunities, and that it's up to the individual to take advantage of them. The fact of the matter is that if you have low socio-economic status then those opportunities are few and far between. However, those born into wealth have significantly more opportunities and THAT is the main difference. Whether they chose to squander these opportunities or take advantage of them is irrelevant -- the deck is just stacked in their favor. The data coming from numerous studies on this topic can't be ignored.