Why Should I Worship the Rich?

Exactly my point.

Income is income. Unearned income favors investment. Investment has a capital barrier to entry.

Hence, class warfare.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it does not.

Mitt Romney's tax favoritism has NOTHING to do with Obamacare.

 

Seems like the thing to do then is better oneself and become an executive as opposed to just another chimp with a wrench. We've known the global market in labor was becoming more and more competitive for a long, long time now. That fact didn't sneak up on anyone. People who choose the lazy way of merely selling their undifferentiated labor into markets for such get exactly what they deserve, a living wage they can then spend on all the wonderful innovations those who took risk and worked harder and smarter created in the process of becoming rich.

@thread, Only to the left does anything other than stealing from people and vilifying them equate to "worship."

 

you can still shoot them, regardless of what money they have. Don't give up that final 'veto" power!

 

Ok, so you see nothing wrong with this?

 

"OK you see nothing wrong with this?"

Not a thing. While all those people got richer and richer, my life got better due to their efforts. They can sit on gem encrusted toilets wearing gold crowns and waving scepters for all I care so long as they keep making my life longer and better due to innovation. The graphs you post over and over as if they say anything meaningful of themselves (they don't) merely document what happens during a technological boom of innovation via computers and telecomm the likes the world has never seen before. Some get monstrously rich while the rest of us benefit from whatever made them rich that we choose to keep buying voluntarily. Money from all over the world is pouring into the American tech industry (and into other tech innovating economies as well). What you think you see based on those propaganda graphs is not the reality in any proper context. The person who invented Pandora can spend their money on platinum goat collars for all I care, just keep on doing what they do best is all I ask. Every dollar diverted from those folks into government hands is a dollar wasted that could have allowed me to print out my fully functional sex robot on a 3d printer that much sooner.

 

It's Dems who "worship" the rich. MOST of the richest Congressmen and women AND Senators are Democrats....and you guys keep them in office.

Here are the seven Democrats in the top 10 Richest list:

Mark Warner

Mark WarnerMark Warner / AP
Mark Warner, the senior senator from Virginia, is the richest member of the Senate. CRP estimates his net worth at up to $418,742,000. Warner used his political connections to make his millions, according to the 2014 Almanac of American Politics.

Warner worked as a fundraiser at the Democratic National Convention after graduating from law school. While there, he made some crucial connections that would allow him to become a successful venture capitalist.

Warner served as chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party from 1993-1995. He was elected governor of Virginia in 2000.

Jared Polis

Jared PolisJared Polis / AP
Jared Polis, who serves as representative to Colorado’s 2nd District, has a net worth of up to $326,099,998, according to CRP.

Polis made his fortune as an entrepreneur, launching popular sites such as electronic greeting card site bluemountainarts.com and fresh flower delivery site proflowers.com.

The retired florist (Polis still hands out business cards with that title) came to Washington in 2008 and is currently serving his third term.

Polis criticized the Citizens United case on the House floor in 2010, saying corporations are using their money to “confuse and trick people” with “massive and misleading public relations attacks.” He made no mention of how he uses his own money, Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post noted.

His political committee, for example, gave out more than $400,000 to other members of Congress and national campaign groups in 2010 alone.

John K. Delaney

John DelaneyJohn Delaney / AP
The net worth of John K. Delaney of Maryland’s 6th District is up to $244,051,998.

Delaney founded Healthcare Financial Partners, a company that offered financing to healthcare providers, in 1993 and served as the company’s CEO until 2000 when he founded a new company, CapitalSource, another commercial lender for small and middle-market companies.

Delaney is serving his first term in Congress. Two high-powered friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton, helped Delaney win his seat. Delaney donated to Hillary’s 2008 campaign and also bundled contributions for her campaign. Bill Clinton then endorsed Delaney in his primary.

Scott Peters

Scott PetersScott Peters / Wikimedia Commons
Scott Peters, of California’s 2nd District has a net worth of up to $197,415,991.

Peters was a successful lawyer for 16 years, eventually opening his own practice. His wife was successful in private equity.

He was elected to San Diego City Council in 2000 and became the city’s port commissioner in 2009.

The self-proclaimed environmentalist became embroiled in controversy when it was revealed that his personal water consumption was eight times higher than the average consumer. Peters defended his consumption, arguing his property is much larger than the average consumer.

Richard Blumenthal

Richard BlumenthalRichard Blumenthal / AP
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s senior senator, has a net worth of up to $121,299,056.

The second-richest man in the Senate was born to wealthy parents in New York. He held a number of political positions, including U.S. attorney in Connecticut, administrative assistant to a Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, and a staff assistant to the White House Office of Economic Opportunity, before running for Senate in 2010. Much of his wealth comes from his wife, Cynthia, who is the daughter of real estate tycoon Peter Malkin.

Jay Rockefeller

Jay RockefellerJay Rockefeller / AP
Jay Rockefeller, senior senator from West Virginia, has an estimated net worth of up to $139,312,004.

Rockefeller is currently serving his fifth term in the Senate. He was elected in 1984 after serving in the West Virginia House, as West Virginia secretary of state, and as the state’s governor.

Rocherfeller’s great-grandfather was oil billionaire John D. Rockefeller, who was at one time America’s richest man.

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi / AP
CRP estimates the net worth of Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California’s 12th District to be up to $174,947,989.

Pelosi’s husband is a successful real estate investor. The couple also made up to $5 million in offshore investments in Asia.

Pelosi was elected to the House of Representatives in 1987. Prior to her time in the House, she served as the California Democratic Party northern chairman, the state chairman of California, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman.

The former House Speaker, who often claims to be a champion for the poor, spends her money on lavish vacations. She spent Christmas 2011 at a Four Seasons Hotel in Hawaii, where rooms run up to $10,000 per night.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/more...s-sit-on-10-richest-members-of-congress-list/

 

That's a distinction without a difference.

Wages have not been flat, and neither are the benefits.

If you don't believe it happens, then you should take the time to read income statements more.

 

Wages and Salaries cannot be measured on the same merit as Capital Gains.

Really, it can't.

They do?

 

Money is how unattractive men leverage women into sex.

That is all.

 

It's the repubs who are "owned" by the sociopathic rich. They fall all over themselves for their money. Check out The Adelson Primary where the repubs kissed Adelson's ring.

 

Now....granted, there are rich Republicans in Congress as well. BUT they aren't the ones going around demonizing others for being rich all the time. THEY aren't they hypocrites.

 

Not true. It's the Dems who are "owned" by the rich. All those Congressmen/women I listed? They are not only the richest top 7 out of 10 in Congress.....they represent THE RICHEST districts as well. Hear again: they represent THE RICHEST districts. Those are the people who keep voting them in office. Now....do you think those RICH Democrat would keep voting for these RICH Democrats IF they were trying to take their money from them.....and/or NOT representing their best interests?

 

Yes, they can. Capital gains are income.

 

They're a different type of income. Even the IRS acknowledges this. Wages and Salaries are considered ordinary income, while Capital Gains are, well, Capital Gains.

Along with this distinction, there are many reasons why we tax both differently

 

So you are saying that individual rich people, who possess a social sense of responsibility support democrats? And rich corporations who have no sense of social conscience represent the GOP?

That sounds about right.

Playing team blue against team red, is like choosing between the "Ministry of Truth" and the "Ministry of Love".

Did anyone read 1984?

 

Nor does it have anything to do with your tax rate so I am glad to see you at least recognize part of the fallacy in your position.

 

....yea, to enrich the investment class.

There is no logical reason as to why capital gains shall be taxed at a lower rate. Income is income. Capital gains just defer consumption in our economy. How useful

 

Nope. Didn't say that at all.
Oh....and BTW, do you honestly believe there are NO corporations run by Democrats? No Democrat rich Congressmen/women on that list making money off of RICH corporations run by Democrats?

Yes. Read it. Resembles what's happening today with this regime that is in power. Scary stuff.....

 

What about the Dems who kiss the rings of their rich fat cats?
I'm betting those don't bother ya so much, eh?

 

Ordinary income are the wages people receive for the services they provide firms and establishments. Wages and Salaries increase relatively each month and are essentially low risk.

Capital Gains do not come attached with the same low risk. If Capital Gains provided an equitable return of 100% each time, then I would agree that there would be no logical reason to tax Gains differently. However, Capital Gains do not yield a return of 100% each time, or even 50% each time.

Some Capital Gains yield something we like to call "Losses." These IRS also allows investors to offset their other taxable income from these losses, but only up to $3,000 a year.

It really goes to show that Ordinary Income and Capital Gains cannot be compared. It makes no logical sense to do so. In essences, when you consider an investment, it must be considered based on its after-tax return.

Capital gains helps towards investment, which is needed more than ever in the current economic climate. An economy must continuously invest in new capital goods and structures in order to grow, become more productive and raise citizens' living standards over time.

Investments are important to the economy too, provided that it is driven by fundaments, which it currently isn't.

 

You are only taxed on the GAIN so the entire point of "risk" is moot. Income is income. You have said nothing to address this simple fact. If you lose money on your investment, it is a loss not a GAIN.

People will invest regardless of the tax rates. Unearned income is simply better than earned income.

 

Since you made the comparison, you're agreeing the repubs scampered to Las Vegas and kissed the ring of Adelson at The Adelson Primary.

 

I share your concerns, although after seeing what happened with the last round of bailouts, I don't see much difference between the parties when it comes to cronyism.

Both parties supported the bank bailouts, for example.

 

Which completely misses the point that the wealth is being unjustly divided in favor of the wealthy. That's evident by wages that have not increased for the same job for decades, and in many cases has dropped and failed to keep up with inflation. Effectively, we've all lost over the decades and you justify it by claiming everyone should fight for the few executive jobs instead of taking the "lazy way" of being a working class person. But the top earners in our corporations are exorbitantly wealthy as a result. And you justify it how?

 

You do realise that the rate of return matters significantly when it comes to investing, correct? As well as the risk. Both the Risk and the Rate of Return are very important, as it what determines what your GAIN will be.

Inability to understand this breeds the 'income is income' dogma that we now have to see.

Never in history has that ever been true.