Obama - Elitist Fuck

[Debaser]

It will not be invested forever.

[dudehitscar]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Most of the ultra-rich earn the majority of their money not by the sweat of their brow (but by the sweat of their great grandparents brow). They are ultra-rich because they were lucky enough be be born into wealth and they earn and increase their wealth -- not by working -- but by capital gains, rubbing their bills together to create more bills. Now that's capitalism and that's perfectly legal and that's great and all. But since inheritance and capital gains are their primary source of income, that should be taxed. And since we are talking about the top 1% of this country, they should be taxed accordingly. But already they are taxed at a lower effective rate than the average middle class person. And they've also managed to fool people into thinking that the ultra rich are taxed too high, on priniclple. Amazing. But in reality, you can stop losing sleep over the poor situation those ultra-rich people are stuck in. Trust me, they're doing OK.

[dudehitscar]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I don't see the problem with that - those people should have more disposable income. They've earned it.

.

They earned it?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

They earned it?

Yes. I fail to see how some of you only consider money "earned" if you work as a janitor in a janitor school

[beef curtains]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Yes. I fail to see how some of you only consider money "earned" if you work as a janitor in a janitor school

yes, only janitors who teach earn money... all those other ones, who aren't in janitor school teaching other students to become janitors clearly haven't earned money

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Yes. I fail to see how some of you only consider money "earned" if you work as a janitor in a janitor school

Yeah. And I'm really failing to see where this myth that the top 1 percent of the upper class are all just living off money that great-granddad made back in the 1800s came from. If you look at the top 10 richest people in the country, most of them are people who started more or less from the ground up and created juggernaut companies like Microsoft, Google, Dell, etc. This idea that you can make billions of dollars from nothing over the course of 5, 10, 20 years without "earning" it or paying tax on it just strikes me as almost patently ridiculous on its face. There are a lot more Bill Gates out there than there are Warren Buffetts.

[Debaser]

check out the famous annual Forbes 400 richest people list. the majority of them make their fortunes from "investments" or other form of capital gain.

[Debaser]

but seriously, i want to get off this "earn/deserve" track. it's irrelevant. I regret starting this meme. I only brought it up to counter what seems to be a fanboy worship of rich people and the false assumption that if somebody is rich then they must have worked super hard for it and therefore somehow deserves their lot in life more than somebody less fortunate. Just being rich is not a moral virtue. I will gladly concede there are plenty of self made millionaires if its also acknowledged that there are plenty of Paris Hiltons (probably more so, but I digress).

The substantive point is that these top 1% legitimately earn their money via capital gains and thus it their "real" income (as opposed to their relatively minor salaried income progressively taxed at +35%). It seems like the only reason to draw a difference between capital gains and "regular" income is to segregate how we tax the rich and the poor to the advantage of the rich.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

check out the famous annual Forbes 400 richest people list. the majority of them make their fortunes from "investments" or other form of capital gain.

Just based on a quick glance at the list, I think our definition of "majority" doesn't quite match. I think it'd be quite generous to say that maybe, just maybe, a little less than half of those on the list have fortunes mostly attributable to investments/inheritance/buyouts etc.

That's not to say that most of them don't make a lot of money on capital gains now...but that's just a consequence of having tons of capital that you have to do something with. But again, it seems to me that in most cases the capital that most of these guys are investing was earned (and taxed) during the person's lifetime through entrepreneurial success, not "rubbing bills together" and creating capital from the ether like you make it out.

but seriously, i want to get off this "earn/deserve" track. it's irrelevant. I regret starting this meme. I only brought it up to counter what seems to be a fanboy worship of rich people and the false assumption that if somebody is rich then they must have worked super hard for it and therefore somehow deserves their lot in life more than somebody less fortunate. Just being rich is not a moral virtue.

But it's not a vice either. The only reason anyone ever goes to bat for the rich is to defend them from being unfairly caricatured as these cartoon villains who twirl their mustache and adjust their monocle as they light their cigars with hundred dollar bills. I hardly think that saying "hold on a sec, they're not all the scum of the earth. Maybe we can be a little even handed with them," is the stuff of starry eyed fanboy worship.

I will gladly concede there are plenty of self made millionaires if its also acknowledged that there are plenty of Paris Hiltons (probably more so, but I digress).

I don't see why it matters. If it's fair to punish someone for being somehow undeserving of their wealth, then why would that sort of mentality not seep into other areas...e.g., withholding government benefits from people deemed to be poor because they're dumb and irresponsible instead of just merely down on their luck? It doesn't seem to me like we need to begin putting any value on such distinctions.

[Gish08]

http://i30.tinypic.com/2rc4yl4.png

It starts

(actual sign)

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The substantive point is that these top 1% legitimately earn their money via capital gains and thus it their "real" income (as opposed to their relatively minor salaried income progressively taxed at +35%). It seems like the only reason to draw a difference between capital gains and "regular" income is to segregate how we tax the rich and the poor to the advantage of the rich.

Again, the rationale behind the capital gains tax is not hard to grasp. All you have to do is ask two questions:

1) Do we want rich people to invest their capital in the economy?

and

2) Do we want rich people to have incentive to cash out that capital so that it can be taxed at some point?

If your answer to both of those questions is "yes," then I don't see where your problem is.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Corganist

If it's fair to punish someone for being somehow undeserving of their wealth,

It's not. But they should be taxed fairly - that is not a punishment.


1) Will rich people stop investing their capital if the CGT is higher?

2) Will rich people never ever ever cash out that capital if the CGT is higher?

I think the answer to both those questions is "no", so I don't see where the problem is.

It still is besides the point. I'm arguing for economic tax justice, not incentive to grow the economy. Isn't the CGT been at an all time low for many, many years now? So how great has that been for the economy? So far it seems to have only benefited the rich and not the rest of the country. GDP growth has been not bad, but the gap between rich and poor has increased to historic levels. shocker.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Corganist

If you look at the top 10 richest people in the country, most of them are people who started more or less from the ground up and created juggernaut companies like Microsoft, Google, Dell, etc.

Criminals! Burn them!

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Gish08

It starts

(actual sign)

Dont interrupt the tax debate.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I will gladly concede there are plenty of self made millionaires if its also acknowledged that there are plenty of Paris Hiltons (probably more so, but I digress).

i'd love to see whatever sources are leading you to believe this. you keep saying you want to get off this track, but then you slip back on with subtle assertions like this.

[KnowingSheWould]

rich people who are undeserving of their wealth should have it taken away from them. try not to use ultra-simplifying analogies when explaining why they shouldnt

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i'd love to see whatever sources are leading you to believe this. you keep saying you want to get off this track, but then you slip back on with subtle assertions like this.

What's so hard to believe? Rich people can have children? They can have a lot of children (or they don't, but it's reasonable to assume that both cases happen). By definition every single person subject to the estate tax is a child of a multi-millionaire. There's also historic famous family dynasties like the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Kennedys, the Waltons, the Guggenheims, the Morgans, the Goulds, etc. There's also exceptional examples of Paris Hilton disturbing me on my tv along with those insufferable Gotti kids on that bravo show.

[beef curtains]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i'd love to see whatever sources are leading you to believe this. you keep saying you want to get off this track, but then you slip back on with subtle assertions like this.

hey, you're liberal, why are you getting all corganist in here?

[The Melty Man]

John Kerry - elitist toupé endorses elitist fuck

[Cup O Mercury]

[Gish08]

Cup O Mercury, you are like a chain letter brought to life.

[Nimrod's Son]

fwiw this is the obama video that's causing all the furor and anger by his camp:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

[Future Boy]

Theres a furor? Theyd be smarter to ignore tis stuff.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Theres a furor? Theyd be smarter to ignore tis stuff.

The only reason I heard about it is on the news an Obama staffer was denouncing it, and then Wired picked up on it and linked it.

[Nimrod's Son]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/tra...ying-ties.aspx

Obama’s Lobbying Ties

Barack Obama stepped up his anti-lobbyist rhetoric yesterday after a fifth McCain staffer, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, resigned due to lobbying ties. Obama took the opportunity to reiterate his stance on lobbyists: “We're not gonna take money from PACs, we're not gonna take money from federally registered lobbyists, because we want to be accountable to the American people.”

But it’s almost impossible to get elected without relying to some degree on lobbyists, and the Obama campaign is no exception. Candidates need to know the best-connected people in Washington; and the best-connected people in Washington tend to lobby. So, naturally, any candidate needs to make some exceptions. Here’s a rundown of the campaign’s lobbying loopholes, from smallest to largest:

State and local lobbyists are OK. In January, former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges became Obama’s national co-chair, despite having founded the state-based lobbying firm Hodges Consulting Group in 2003. Likewise, his New Hampshire co-chair is a state lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries. Taking money and services from state lobbyists is fair game, Obama says, because he doesn’t have any influence on the state level. But that didn’t stop him from criticizing John Edwards in January when it was revealed that a contributor of his was a state lobbyist. So when you hear the candidates talk about rejecting “Washington lobbyists,” remember that “Washington” is a qualifier.

Employers of lobbyists are OK. Obama has taken $15 million from lawyers/law firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and many of those firms employ lobbyists. Clinton has taken slightly more from this group ($15.4 million) while McCain has taken less ($4.2 million).

Employees of firms that lobby are OK. Take Tom Daschle. The former senator was an early and avid Obama supporter and is now a national campaign co-chair. Daschle is not himself a federally registered lobbyist, but he works at Alston & Bird, a firm that employs federally registered lobbyists and raked in $2.6 million in lobbying fees in 2004.

Advice is OK. Obama does not ban even current lobbyists from lending advice to the campaign—which could be considered an “in kind” contribution. Moses Mercado, a former adviser to Dick Gephardt and a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations, volunteers his advice and time for the campaign but declined to be on payroll.

Spouses and family members are OK. Even if being a lobbyist makes you an untouchable scumbag, that doesn’t mean your spouse is. Back in December, The Hill reported that an Obama fundraiser had encouraged a lobbyist to have his wife contribute. “I was quite taken aback,” the lobbyist said. There’s currently no database of spouse contributions.

Former and future lobbyists are OK. The Obama campaign restricts current lobbyists from joining the campaign. But a bunch of former lobbyists have helped out—including deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand, Teal Baker, and Emmett Beliveau—who could easily slip back onto K Street once the campaign is over. Obama now has 14 bundlers who are also federally registered lobbyists, but they are currently inactive, according to Public Citizen. (Clinton has 22 lobbyist bundlers; McCain has 70.) However, campaign-finance reformers point out that no campaign has ever taken the step of banning current and former lobbyists. “It’s hard to come up with any stronger of a firewall,” says Craig Holman of Public Citizen.

That’s not to say there isn’t a distinction between Obama and McCain. “The McCain campaign, you can’t spit without hitting another lobbyist there,” says David Donnelly, director of the Public Campaign Action Fund.

Likewise, Obama has kept lobbyists at arm's length all along, while McCain’s campaign only instituted its ethics policy last week after two embarrassing departures. (Regional campaign manager Doug Davenport and Republican convention chief Doug Goodyear had both represented the military government in Burma.) “I believe he now understands that it is going to hurt him,” says Holman. “That’s why he’s taken this new ethics pledge. He recognizes Obama has gained the high road.”
Published Monday, May 19, 2008 5:31 PM by Christopher Beam

[Future Boy]

But but but he doesnt take money from them directly, so you know, its all good. Different kind of politics and whatnot.