Forum Post: "There is nobody in this country that got rich on their own"
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 19, 2011, 11:39 p.m. EST by thenewgreen
(170)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 2 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 7 months ago by gsw
2 comments 11 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 2 years ago by grapes
15 comments 2 years ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
[Removed]
"This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for". -Absolutely spot on. No one wants to help the lazy, the uninspired. We want to make sure that hard work is rewarded and that there is a fair and equitable tax code that isn't written by the rich for the rich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
It's true. They had friends and family help them. The public also chipped in. Some lose their way, while others were crooked from the start.
I come from a family that owns a large business. My grandfather started it and is still the CEO. He grew up in WWII Germany and is familiar with hardships I can't even fathom. He is about as far left as you can get. When the GOP says, if the rich want to give more they can... -well, he does. He is absolutely okay with paying a higher tax bracket than he currently does. He pays profit sharing to every single one of his employees from the janitors on up. They all have health insurance and receive holiday bonuses. He has had families that have worked for him (2 generations). He has been very successful and it's not because he hordes his wealth, it's because he shares it.
Our tax code is broken, it needs to be fixed. Most of the people like my grandfather out there realize this. You would be hard pressed to find a millionaire that would put up a big stink over paying higher taxes. It's usually the middle class GOP'ers. Why? I'll quote Steinbeck again here: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
Some large businesses just sell while they're ahead and all hell breaks loose, since the buyers are temporary, and cut out the large payroll, to sell it again.
I have enough faith in the American people that they know how to properly handle their money. some may lose their way, but many Americans are quite generous, and our government is incompetent.
The basic statement is undeniable. What gets messy is the details. Just how much should this entrepreneur pay percentage wise? What is considered fair. I do not think that anyone rich or otherwise thinks that the successful entrepreneur should not pay taxes. Some say the the wealthy should pay more, some say less. Most of the time, I see the opinion based on that individuals current condition. What if...."FAIR" was defined before we started to put numbers to it? What if...."RICH" and "POOR" were defined, so that we had a benchmark to work with? What if....the style of "TAXING" could be discussed without applying emotion to the topic. WHAT IS FAIR?
I think you hit the nail on the head when you write "without applying emotion to it". The reason the topic becomes so hyperbolic is because it has become partisan fodder. Take out the us vs. them mentality and create a fair tax code that works in the best interest of our nation. Again, I think there is very little debate amongst economists regarding what our nation needs to climb out of our enormous debt: We need decreased spending and increased revenues. Unfortuantely, the GOP has taken 1/2 of that equation of the table, no matter what.
and unfortunately, so have the Democrats. This should not spin back into partisan squabbling. The only reason the Dems are addressing spending and tax cuts is because of the "Tea Party" and Repubs insistence. Just like the only reason that tax hikes are on the table is because of the Dems insistence. In this case it takes two to tango and neither party wants to dance with the other for fear of having to admit errors and show weakness. They both base their decision on two things. Gaining power and keeping it.
Now if you want to take the blame game out of this, we can discuss fair approaches to what I believe you are absolutely correct on. Lower fiscal spending and come up with a viable tax plan.
What if, taxes were increased on higher income earners with a sunset clause. It is my belief that we could correct our deficit with this approach, but eventually head to a more fair flat tax once the sunset is reached. The flat tax would follow the same guideline as the healthcare insurance mandate. 1.5 x higher than the federal agreed on poverty level. Anyone below that line is tax exempt.
Then, research our current spending. Picking the priority items that should remain untouched or only slightly modified (medicare, unemployment, welfare, infrastructure etc.) Then create second tier items that can be cut severely or outright removed. This is when things get real dirty and my hope is to find a way to deal with these things in a way that keeps the Dems and Repubs in check. After all, all they care about is power and keeping it.
This is the tip of the iceberg, but again, name calling, blame game and outright unreasonable emotions are gumming up the works.
In other forums I too have argued for the "sunset clause" (though I didn't term it as such). It makes sense to have taxes raised on capital gains and income until our defect is paid down. Then, if we begin to run a surplus we can "click down" the tax rate appropriately. But a surplus should never mean an open season for spending. I agree that the Dem are only entertaining cuts because of pressure from the right however, there is a difference between begrudgingly saying "okay, we'll cut spending" and signing a document that swears an allegiance to never raise taxes. I'm not playing a "blame game" but simply recognizing that no matter how great of a solution we were able to come up with, it would fall on deaf ears. We need to vote the old guard out. Boehner, Pelosi, Reed... all of them. -Sorry got emotional there :)
Hey, we are on the same page. At least for awhile, we need to skew things in the other direction to compensate for years of deficit spending. This means that everyone will hurt with hopes that all can have it a bit easier down the line. In our personal households, we do without and find new ways to earn more income just so that we can get to better times. When we have a surplus in our own homes, we should save for that rainy day, not spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave. As far as Repubs swearing to never raise taxes is about as stupid and dangerous as Dems swearing allegiance to unions when pensions will bankrupt the companies that pay into them. (By the way, my dad was union for 35 years. After he died one year after his retirement from ailments that stem from that dedication, my mom got 4 years of pension pay and then done....nothing more). That is another topic. Change of the guard would be refreshing and hopefully positive.
Change of the guard, for real this time though. The last "change" I voted for left me completely disillusioned. If you have a moment, please check this out, I posted it months ago but it sums up how I feel pretty well: http://hubski.com/pub?id=3162
I believe most of us are really on the same page. Good job, guys! (or gals!)
Thanks for sharing.
Absolutely. I appreciate you taking the time to check it out. 2012 is going to be a year worth remembering. I have a feeling my grandkids will one day ask me about it. OWS, global protests, elections, the euro etc, etc. Should be interesting (already is)
what do you think? You need other people work for you to make you rich
It's certainly never a singular effort, is it!
Definition of "Fair Share"
So, just what is "Fair Share"? I think I have finally figured it out based, upon the defnitiions given in "Blacks Law Dicrionary"
Fair: Having the qualities of impartiality and honesty: free from prejudice, favortism and "self-interest". Just; equitable, even-handed; equal.
Share: A part or definite portion of a thing owned by a number of persons in common and contemplates something owned in common by two or more persons and has reference to that part of the undivided interest which belongs to some one of them.
So, for those of you who like to use the word "fair share" when it comes to "evil rich corporations" I ask you this:
Do you have the qualities of being impartial and honest, free from prejudice with regard to the "evil rich corporations" profits when it comes to wanting them to pay more in taxes?,
Do you have an ownership in the "evil rich corporations profits" whereas it gives you a right or "partial ownership" to what they own and as such it gives you a right to demand more in taxes from them?
Here is an example:
If you make $100,000 and only pay $12,000 in taxes and I am not satisfied with that and I want you to pay more - What gives me ownership in demanding more in taxes from you?.
The point is - it has nothing to do with ownership and all to do with me being envious of you and how much you make.
Well said! I asked someone the other day what they have against the rich. Their reply? "I'm not one of them!"
Say, "thenewgreen", please explain how someone got rich with YOUR help.
I pay taxes, my taxes support the infrastructure for commerce, the education system for the intellect used to create innovation etc that leads to wealth. You also helped with your tax dollars. We collectively as a society create the environment in which success is possible. Without us, there is no wealth.
Question is, why do some take full advantage of the tools to be a success and others simply founder?
Example: i have a couple nephews in Florida that work as Starbucks baristas. I told them to at least look at North Dakota and the oil fields as a possible place to work hard and get some capital. Answer: "No thanks, too cold and I don't want towork that hard." how do you battle that mindset?
I don't think it needs "battling". If they are happy working at starbucks and aren't asking for handouts etc, let them be. I wouldn't want to work in N. Dakota either. I know nothing of your nephews, but it's important to remember that our society needs baristas, we need artists and musicians, writers, waiters, bartenders as much as we need oil field employees. It's important to realize that YOUR path isn't the ONLY path. The key in life is to chose a path though and not just haplessly let life happen to you. But as my grandfather said to me as I left for college, "I don't care if someday you are a trash collector, just be the best trash collector... be a professional". Hopefully, your nephews are "professionals".
The thing is, they are only making maybe $10.00 hour and they could be making $100,000 a year. Its not reasonable to expect to live exactly where you prefer AND expect a high salary. If that is what OWS is all about then its doomed to failure.
Maybe they are happy making 10$ an hour? Are they? Maybe they have aspirations beyond the oil fields? My advice is to focus on you, they'll figure it out.
The problem with that mentality is when they get laid off they are going to complain and blame someone because of their stupid "financial decisions"
All too often people are fat and happy doing the same thing over and over every day for 40 years. Making enough money to get buy, pay their bills and have some left over for their entertainment.
When they get laid off after of 40 years they think it's unfair and start pointing fingers. But the blame rests on their shoulders.
They never though about that happening all they were concerned about is that had a job and their bills were paid - life was good, so they thought.
Jealous dirty filthy hippie losers. That's YOU!
Is it? You know nothing of my situation. I earn a very good living, very good. I just have enough sense to recognize that our system is broken. There is no reason that there should be such a disparity in wealth in our country. There is no reason that the capital gains tax should be at 15% while middle class tax payers see a 30% tax bracket. -It's crazy.
Sounds like you have a lot of anger in your life. I'm sorry, I hope that changes for you. Good luck.
Wrong. I responded to your anger and hatred for high achievers and high earners. Tax the rich more is a tired song. It's not going to happen. We should cap taxes not wealth. No one gets rich alone. They need help (employees). Do you work for a poor person? Capital gains are based on investments. What if investment money was cut in half in our country? Banks aren't lending right? So OPM is the only source for a new entrepreneur. We need capital investments more than ever. Hell, someone should consider lowering the capital gains tax to intice investors! Why discourage them?
My "anger and hatred for high achievers and high earners". -I am a high achiever and high earner, I'm not in the "1%" but I'm certainly in the top 5% in earners and I have no problem paying a higher tax rate. I also have no problem paying appropriate capital gains tax. If you look at the Clintonian capital gains rates they were at 28%. We had substantial investment during that period (I admit we were also in a tech bubble) but still, people invest when there is something worth investing in. 15% is laughable. What the country needs is decreased spending and increased revenues. It's that simple. When the GOP takes half of that equation off the table because they signed some Grover Norq. pledge, the country suffers.
Here's the thing; I'm pretty much on the same track as you are; I came from a working poor family in the Bronx and through the support of my family and my community I made it to MIT. On a personal level I don't have much patience for people who want to be rewarded for screwing around, smoking weed, and expecting a week's wages without doing a week's work. On that I'm pretty sure we agree.
That said, the people I described above tend to be the canaries in the coal mine; generally when they start protesting there actually is something wrong. The first thing that got me when I went down to Zuccotti was the number of people there who weren't the stereotypical stinky hippies. Many were unemployed teachers, nurses, blue-collar workers, etc. who lost their jobs due to outsourcing and other such corrosive action by big business. That for me was what lends OWS its legitimacy.
Why? Because I look at people like that and I look at what's happened to our economy and our middle class and our manufacturing sector and my first thought was "That could have been me." My whole family, myself included, worked our asses off to get my sister and I ahead (I'm at MIT, she's an honors student at Bronx Science), and even then there were discrete factors outside of our hard work that made our ascent possible.
First off, my father was lucky enough to still have a union job, and this meant that we all had the option of living off the one income, as tough as that was, so that my mom could homeschool us. If his union had been broken much earlier than it was, my sister and I would have wound up in an inner-city school where neither of us would have had much of a shot. When the plant he worked at finally did close, a combination of private help from the community and government aid in the form of Food Stamps gave us enough money to cover the rent and keep my sister and I at Bronx Science.
Looking back at that, what strikes me is that many of the policies that OWS is protesting are policies that cost people like you and I vital opportunities to move up. Yes, we made it up anyway, but depending on where America goes from here stories like ours may get rarer and rarer. By attacking bastions of the working class and working poor like unions, government aid, and the minimum wage, many of the corporate policies OWS is protesting actually make it harder for the children of these groups to become self-made men. These policies also weaken and corrode entire communities, meaning that the safety net we so desperately needed for those few months when things were bad may not be there for the next guy. Like I said, I do what I do based on policy rather than people; if what the people in Zuccotti are fighting is bad policy I don't care what they smoke or how often they do or don't wash; they and I have a common goal and I'll stand with them until that goal is achieved. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he's sure as hell my ally.
Hi Arod. Thank you for your support! You post is quite complicated, but I think I get it. There are quite a few double negatives in it...
You are saying that the Occupy Movement supports the groups and systems that help poor people succeed, like unions, government help and a minimum wage. At the same time, many corporations are trying to kill off these helpers, effectively keeping the poor down.
I am glad to see you and your sister are doing well, and hope that you will enjoy being a member of the Movement (which you are, when you support us so unequivicably).
Cheers :)
Hey Arod, thanks for the reply. I think what Elizabeth Warren is getting at in the quote has to do with a reciprocal society where ideally, you get what you put in. The problem I see with our current system is that so many people put in for years and then when the collapse came, they received ZERO help from their government, while the banking system was not just helped but were rewarded for their carelessness and in some cases down right illegalities.
The irony is that many of the wealthy people I know have no problem paying a higher tax bracket (say clintonian levels). It's the middle class republicans that have the problem with it. Why? Here's a great quote from Steinbeck (i believe) that I think sums it up:
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires". -And there you have it.
It's nice that your success story will have a happy ending, we hope. You are likely aware that any position can be outsourced. With the help of the right think tank and financial incentives, we might even be recruited to train our replacements. BTW the bootstrap argument has been that every American can be a superhero. The disabled can also be seen in these "feel good articles" defeating every obstacle, yada yada. The ones who don't "do their best" are implied to be losers. Pride of success shouldn't be sold as the only virtue to be desired, and employment for all should not require superhero efforts, risk taking, good families in a good community and a union. You could perhaps use your writing skills to not only "That could have been me" folks, but also those that couldn't have been you. Unless you think they should not be employed.
That's why I'm here; I'm fully pro-OWS because for every one person who makes that kind of jump there are a hundred that try but can't make it for reasons that aren't their fault and still hundreds more for whom that model wouldn't work anyway and those people need a dignified, stable way to make a living too. The current deregulated environment is not sustainable; the hoops you have to jump through to better yourself get tighter and tighter and the people without a seat at the table get more and more numerous unless someone or something reverses the trend. OWS is the first stage of a collective effort in that direction, and I personally hope to be a part of the next stages in a more active capacity.
I start with that story because it's the one that the most people will be willing to hear, in large part because it's a "feel-good" story when you get to the end. Many of the people who are most angry about OWS (if you discount the Grover Norquists of this world) appear to be middle-class Americans who see this as a zero-sum game. They truly believe that the only gains people like us will be able to make will be at their expense, and they hate us for trying to take something from them that they haven't actually had since the mid-1990s (maybe even earlier): economic security and open opportunities.
You can only beat that if your story is presented a certain way. I tell them, "I bootstrapped my way up from the Bronx to MIT. I did what you all either did or want to protect your chance to do. The things OWS is fighting for will make it easier for you to better yourself, not more difficult. I don't want to bury you in red tape, I want to make sure that you don't wind up on the street thanks to someone else's mess like many people already had. Siding with OWS is about protecting your right to move up the food chain (right alongside everyone else's)." It's the only way I've found to make this argument without getting automatically tuned out.
Thank you, I appreciate your candor. The pecking order of winners and losers depends on each person's values. It's an extra drag on those falling behind in the race and it's an all to common opinion that they deserve to be penalized for it. I hate that some have decided to love success enough to destroy others for their own self interest and it's easy to see that they think OWS folks would be the same, given any power. They are not as unaware of the price of poverty as they pretend.
RobinHood, maybe you could try some of those gel inserts for your shoes. Then maybe you woudn't waste so much of your life judging and Hatin'. Get gellin' man.
There is more hatred here? Did you read the post title? Broad brush stroke? Kinda like every OWS supporter is a loser.
You're blithering now. Did you intend that first sentence as a declarative or interrogative? (statement or question). The post title states that no one got rich by themselves. How does that translate to ows supporters are losers? Finally maybe YOU should read the posts and not just the titles. Click the link the author gave for Elizabeth Warren's statement about no one getting rich by themselves and read that.