<p>Well…I am sure sewhappy is a very nice person…and If she wants to run…she should…</p>
<p>But I am not going to vote for her. Lol</p>
<p>Thank you, ProudMomofS (I’m a proud mom of a son, too, btw):</p>
<p>Run for public office? Heck no. You’d have to be crazy. !</p>
<p>It is a good thread.</p>
<p>Everyone take a bow.</p>
<p>"“I saw a study somewhere which shows that every time we sign a “free trade agreement” with another country, we lose jobs… as a country, we do this too, based on some ideal of 'free trade” which has allowed us to be exploited by nearly every other country in the world.""</p>
<p>Pursuing free trade has been a political tool for the US to access foreign markets. But it is a double-edged sword. It has also allowed the larger corporations to source foreign labor markets. Because US wages are more expensive as compared to most of the world, so any labor that is feasible to be exported, would be exported under free trade. The US is simply out-competed in its own game, since Commodore Perry opened trade with Japan in the 1800’s. Even to introduce protectionism for domestic labor in the US, not only that many consumer items would become more expensive, with imports replaced by domestic production, but higher labor costs would make many of the exports uncompetitive. This would cut into the profits of the larger corporations which would lobby hard against such policies. If the US dollar were to be devalued by a wide margin, to promote exports and lure the larger corporations into supporting protectionism, price inflation would also be imported as well. And then, trade wars may also be ignited… Together with the already rising prices due to increased domestic production, real wages (inflation-adjusted) may still be stagnant or even dropping further. No matter going through which avenue, an adjustment to more frugal life-styles is inevitable and necessary.</p>
<p>I am sorry this is long…</p>
<p>If you start on page 8 and read a couple of pages you can get the idea…
The table of contents and appendix A have good info too…</p>
<p>We can see who has a lot of power in this country</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf[/url]”>http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf</a></p>
<p>When one group saves 70 billion in taxes…a pretty, pretty small group…the money is going to have to come somewhere else…</p>
<p>Sorry dstark … Im voting for SewHappy and its a good thing you arent running. Wouldnt vote for you as you dont represent my views. You’ll have your own constituency no doubt. And she’ll have hers. Ah diversity. It makes the world go round. </p>
<p>Candidly I think serious tax reform is needed. Yep I’m one of those “fair tax” people. I’d be happy with a flat percentage tax that applies to everyone(individuals and corporations) consistently–no loopholes, no deductions. No differentiation for types of earnings … dont care if it is investment income vs. ordinary income. Tax all dollars the same. But just tax them one time for goodness sake. (Dont get me started on estate tax. )</p>
<p>I dont want to get into repeating what has already been said upthread. And there’s a difference between Warren Buffett and SewHappy and ProudMomofS. Despite by some stupid label we are all three 1%ers. So dont lump us together. But I have nothing in common with Buffett other than a stupid label that lumps a lot of vary disparate people together.</p>
<p>But dont think we are so anxous to fund the rest of humanity either at the cost of compromising what we have spent a lifetime attempting to build for ourselves and our families. You take care of you and yours; I’m taking care of me and mine. And the best of good effort, good luck, good choices, and good freedom to all of us in that endeavor. </p>
<p>Life isnt fair. Some things are inexplicable. Yet good luck does seem to be often made not merely stumbled upon.</p>
<p>“But dont think we are so anxous to fund the rest of humanity either at the cost of compromising what we have spent a lifetime attempting to build for ourselves and our families. You take care of you and yours; I’m taking care of me and mine”</p>
<p>…and part of your luck is that you have benefited from living here in the US, where most of the expenses of paying for your access to clean H20, garbage delivery, local schools, police and fire protection, local streets, the bridges and freeways that bring the workers to your factories or the customers to your business, etc etc were and are paid for by your fellow citizens, not just by the 1%‘s. Those lucky enough to be among the 1%’ s here in the US cant pretend to be living on their own private island. </p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll disagree with these statements recently made by bill Clinton , but here they are anyway:</p>
<p>“You can’t preserve a wealthy island amid a sea of declining prosperity. You can’t. Everyone worth a couple million or more should want the middle class to start rising again, people in poverty to move in the middle class; that’s the best protection for my daughter’s generation and the future. You can’t maintain a democracy where virtually all the gains go to just a few people.”</p>
<p>“My taxes were cut a lot in the last decade and my income went up a lot. I believe people like me should pay, not because it’s a bad thing to be successful, but because the country’s made us successful and we’re in the best position to help do something about the debt and invest in the future of the young people to give them a better future.”</p>
<p>“My argument is it’s not class warfare for asking for higher revenues to deal with the debt and to invest in what we need to. It is that we’re about the only people whose incomes have gone up in last 30 years and we’re in the best position to pay a little more so that America can get its books in order. The middle class has already paid and paid and paid in terms of stagnant income, losing healthcare coverage.”</p>
<p>[Bill</a> Clinton Q&A: Taxing the Rich Is Not ?Anti-Wealth, It?s Pro-Fairness? | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance](<a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/bill-clinton-q-taxing-rich-not-anti-wealth-222914518.html]Bill”>Bill Clinton Q&A: Taxing the Rich Is Not ‘Anti-Wealth, It’s Pro-Fairness’)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I often wonder if what we’ve done is transfer our middle class to China. But perhaps we are better off in the long run, as the rise of the middle class in China has led to reforms-albeit tenuous. </p>
<p>$8M now? Back to the 99%…</p>
<p>I think we did transfer our middle class to China, what was left of it after giving some if it to Japan in the 80’s.</p>
<p>I think there are big tensions between the individualists and the collectivists. The 1% tends to think of themselves, the 99% think of society as a whole.</p>
<p>Why don’t Bill Clinton and Warren Buffett just send in a percentage of their wealth to the US government, then?</p>
<p>Yes, Menloparkmom, I already stated quite clearly upthread that it takes luck too. And that parts of it are inexplicable. But nonetheless, life isn’t fair, no one on this earth really gets to decide what fair is or isn’t…except for each of us in our own ways and in our own lives and our own mores. You see, that’s what I belive freedom is all about. The right to choose for me what’s right for me, without unnecessary interference or influence from others. (Yes Im one of those pesky Liberterian types.)</p>
<p>I just dont accept the concept that “society” defines anything as it relates to expectations for “society”. Yes, there are laws. I am a big believer in abiding by laws (even those I disagree with). Thought that ole Abe Lincoln was right in the Lyceum Address on that one. (Work to change bad laws, but obey them while they are laws.) </p>
<p>But beyond that, just because someone elses’ value system thinks its ok to place demands or expectations on me doesnt mean I agree or accept them. Sorry the Liberterian in me scoffs at that. And I’m not guilted into it either. ;-)</p>
<p>Doesnt mean I’m not charitable or giving. Just that I dont believe my charity or giving should be mandated through social policy. And its a private matter … a private matter between me, my higher being whomever I define that to be, and whomever I choose to gift with my giving. And since Bill Clinton said it and you felt moved to quote him: By the way my charity has definitely included educational institutions and investing in the next generation’s education. I believe the last statistic I read said that $42 billion is charitably donated annually to education in the USA, and 80% of that is from individuals. Count me among those. Don’t assume because I have a different political and economic belief system than Bill means I am absent a moral compass. But dont assume I should have one either. Either way–my charity should be my choice and my business. Not someone elses.I thank Bill for his interest in mind, but I’ll give it the consideration it deserves. </p>
<p>When it comes to these personal matters of belief, your mileage may certainly vary and thats OK. I wouldnt dare dream to impose my value system on anyone else. And I simply ask the same in return.</p>
<p>One more thing about Bill Clinton–He’s also in a stratosphere of income I’m not in. But if he hasn’t paid enough in income taxes in his opinion in the last few years, he’s certainly free to write an additional check to Uncle Sam or anyone else he chooses. Is anyone stopping him from ponying up if he feels so guilt ridden? </p>
<p>He is not however free to dip his hand in my pocket, and while he may have an opinion about what I should do, I’ll give his opinion of what I should do about as much consideration as he once upon a time gave to my opinion about appropriate behavior in the White House for a President as it relates to relationships with 20-something female interns. </p>
<p>Meaning he and I have very very different value systems it appears. So it is.</p>
<p>“But just tax them one time for goodness sake. (Dont get me started on estate tax. )”</p>
<p>:) I would settle for once. On some of these estates…especially the largest ones…Most …almost all the assets have never been taxed.</p>
<p>By the way…for workers…their income is taxed many times…</p>
<p>For those with capital gains…sometimes…never…</p>
<h1>264 - thanks for link and for the names</h1>
<p>dstark: do you think the country will fail? hit bottom? what percent chance? </p>
<p>sewhappy, proudmomofS: Did you read the link? What about those guys? Do you support them having no estate taxes?</p>
<p>I don’t think the country will fail…</p>
<p>To keep with the topic…</p>
<p>There is an ebb and flow between the upper class and the rest of society…sometimes…the upper class owns too many resources and sometimes they are getting squeezed and it becomes more difficult for them to do well…</p>
<p>In the 20’s the upper class did very well…and then we got the 30’s which obviously wasn’t good…</p>
<p>In the 50’s and 60’s the middle class did very well…</p>
<p>In the 90’s and most of the 00s the upper class did very well…</p>
<p>I think we are going to come to a turning point and the upper class is going to get squeezed again…</p>
<p>Why alh? Do you think the country is going to fail?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^That is why I am asking you. When I read sewhappy and proudmom I feel pretty panicky.</p>
<p>I like your statement posts:) very very clear</p>
<p>Alb, I already commented that I’m all for a simplified tax code. Flat percentage. No deductions / loopholes. Same tax rate on ordinary income and capital games. Once every dollar is taxed ( and it should be) then taxing that dollar again when passed to heirs ish oils be off the table. I’m not a fan of loopholes on either end of the economic spectrum (ans they exist today in both places). 40 of the US pays no FIT at end of day And to that I call bs. Everyone who earns a $1 should pay something. </p>
<p>My opinion and plenty of others will disagree.</p>
<p>I like reading the fact that most of the people with large inheritances did not work hard for the money. I have to repeat that. Most of the people with large inheritances did not work hard for the money.</p>
<p>And double taxation is a lie in most cases of the largest estates…</p>
<p>And very few small businesses are affected by the inheritance tax.</p>
<p>And very few farms are lost and low interest rate loans are available to farmers to help pay the tax…if there is any…</p>
<p>These are facts…</p>
<p>I guess one thing I want to know is…for those who believe in the idea of people who work hard for their money should be able to keep their money… How can you sit there and say that laborers, secretaries, dept
Store managers…should pay higher tax rates than those that never worked hard for their inheritance? These inheritors were just born lucky.</p>
<p>ProudMom: did you read the link? It’s pretty incredible. The money spent on lobbying alone…</p>
<p>“I like your statement posts very very clear”</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>“ProudMom: did you read the link? It’s pretty incredible. The money spent on lobbying alone…”</p>
<p>Talk about crony capitalism…</p>
<p>These guys…</p>
<p>I may have to give up Milky Ways…(owned by the Mars Family).</p>
<p>Some of those people I never even heard of before. They do a good job of staying under the radar.</p>
<p>One of my friends worked for the Mars family…they were nice…they didn’t want to pay any inheritance taxes. Lol</p>
<p>Maybe you know this family…but if you google Koch…they are under the radar and pretty involved…</p>
<p>I don’t want to get into politics. ;)</p>