Extremely Rich People

[Melvyn]

Originally posted by m5lange1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (m5lange1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually just looking at how many rich (again we are talking BIG rich) there were last generation and the generation before.... I would guess the majority probably are not self made.

Thes Big Rich have had families making them even more numerous. Almost all of these carry on the family fortune. Just simple math will let you know that the self-made rich have to be lagging behind in population just a bit.[/b]

Again, just because you perhaps don&#39;t like the very rich doesn&#39;t mean you know how many of them achieved their wealth by what means. I&#39; was called for making an assumption (quite correctly), so I am calling you. although you might be right, I would like to see some resources on this.

<!--QuoteBegin-m5lange1,

If we are talking taxes, well I measure my concern in taxes according to how deep they cut into my own budget. Will a tax raise be so sever that I have trouble staying in the black or will I just eat meatloaf a bit more often?

From that prospective I really do not feel too bad about ANY of th Big Rich chunking in a little more. Because I cannot help but think they sacrifice a little less.

Tell me I have to give up 30% a year on &#036;30,000 dollars and I am going to squeak by on &#036;20,000.

Tell me I have to give up 50% on a four million a year salary and I still think I am going to do ok on two million.
Make sense?[/quote]

But what they do have in common with the rest of us is that they want to protect as much money as they can just as do you and I. So they are going to fight to protect what they have, even if you think they have so much more than the rest of us they can spare some more.

I don&#39;t know if you consider yourself a liberal, but one of the liberal failures of logic is their assumption that if they think something is fair, it is alright to force it upon others. It sounds like you are willing to do that.

But, the era of liberal domination is over. If you want to get the rich people to kick in a bigger share then you will have to make a political case for that policy which is more than whether you think it would be fair or not.

Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[m5lange1]

Hi there Mel,

First of all I have no sources for my statement regarding the origon of the rich and am not really concerned enough about it to do the research, so I will concede the point.

My (admittedly armchair) reasoning was that rich families go way back. You can go back to the Hapsburgs and Medichis or just to the Vanderbelts and in another generation to the Gates&#39; and the Trumps.

Their children will inherit their money as children of wealthy families have inhereited fortunes for years. There are cases where the fortunes have failed but still branched out families with muliti-billion dollar holdings continue to spread through generations.

Just simple reasoning would make the past 30 years pretty unique if such a large crop of ambitious business people made themselves rich that they outnumbered the families with generations behind them to proliferate and inherit money.

But hey... if you have gone through and counted... I will just say I am surprised I am wrong.

Actually my life has been as republican so I do consider myself an "old world" conservative but mostly based on individual/states rights over centralized government. (not sure how old you are but there was a time that it was the defining difference between the democrast and republicans).

However I have always been a bit liberal on my economic views (and have taken some heat for it I can tell you ).

I am going to try to answer your questions. I hope this does not come off as argumentative (not that that would be a bad thing on a debate site) but more just to let you know how our opinions differ.

Mel
But what they do have in common with the rest of us is that they want to protect as much money as they can just as do you and I. So they are going to fight to protect what they have, even if you think they have so much more than the rest of us they can spare some more.

Sure. People surely have a right to protect as much money as they can. Even if you and I think they have more to spare.
But people with less to spare are certaily under no obligation to agree with them.
And careful with that &#39;you and I&#39; analogy. I want enough to be comfortable, not to have to worry about medicines and be able to take a vacation occasionally but I personally have no desire for hoards of cash. I realize that may be unusual but "yes" I have been in a situation to prove my feelings on this.

There are degrees. Three people in a life raft for three with provisions for three are somewhat justified in pushing away a drowning man.
Three people in a life raft for 8 with plenty of rations are a bit less justified IMO. Although I do agree they are under no obligation to help him in.

I do believe there is such a thing as greed. And my personal beliefs see it as a sin when in extreme measures. IMO the Big Rich wanting to hold on to all they can smells more of greed than right of posession questions.

Mel
I don&#39;t know if you consider yourself a liberal, but one of the liberal failures of logic is their assumption that if they think something is fair, it is alright to force it upon others. It sounds like you are willing to do that.

By that definition you have not hit upon one of my liberal sympathies. In fact my anger at the republicans at the moment is this whole "forcing it on others" that has croppped up in the "new" republican party.
And regarding "fair"... well I have never believed that "fair" and "right" are necessarily all that strongly correlated.

Like most thinking beings on the conservative and liberal side, I see taxes as a necessary pain in the ass. It becomes a matter of degree as to what is too much naturally. And neitehr side is usually happy about WHAT all the taxes are used for, but lets be more specific.
Personally I would like us to tax like democrats (liberals if you will) but spend like republicans (or conservatives). At least until we get back on our feet and balance the budget. There that is out of the way.

Now lets look closely at "forcing it on others". Yes, unfortunately in our society, the way we are set up to function, taxes have to be "forced on people"

To me that is the forced part. No matter how you start slicing the pie now you can make a case that you are forcing YOUR or MY version of the proper way to tax on SOMEONE. Unavoidable.

So we decide what is fair? That seems important to you. That is ok I understand and do not deny that being fair is a lofty goal. But as I have said, being fair and being right, at least to me, are not necessarily the same thing.

Example (I know it is popular on this site to call any example a "straw man" if so please bear with this scarecrow ).
You and I are walking across the desert and getting close to dehydration. My coin sack has a hole and I have unknowingly left my money strewn across the sand. You do not have a hole in your sack (you may have bought a better bag). We meet a man who will only sell us water.

It is fair of you to say "too bad, so sad, this cash is mine? Absolutely&#33; In my opinion this is fair but not right.

Extreme example? Not if you are only talking Big Rich. Not in my opinion.

Mel
But, the era of liberal domination is over. If you want to get the rich people to kick in a bigger share then you will have to make a political case for that policy which is more than whether you think it would be fair or not.

I do not think the liberals nor the conservatives have ever had "fair" as one of their major considerations for policy.
For agenda based policies they may try to put a veil of fairness on it.
For honest polocies they are looking at what is best for the country, not necessarily what is fair.

Anyway I am admitting my response is opinion. It sort of seemed like what you were asking for.

If it comes to actually making a political case for any policy I concede to you. I think policy usually will go with the bucks.

[Melvyn]

Wow&#33; Actual fun.

I don&#39;t care if you only give opinion and don&#39;t want to do any research. I think you can state quite a lot of truth without scholarly references. I don&#39;t do all that much research myself. I write as someone who has read the media all his life (63 years). I try to only state accepted fact and work my opinions from there. Sometimes I get it wrong and someone from the forum corrects me immediately. Of course we can say anything we want about the economy because no one really knows how to run it. And for me that is accepted fact. Now I&#39;ll work on your post

Originally posted by m5lange1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (m5lange1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hi there Mel,

First of all I have no sources for my statement regarding the origon of the rich and am not really concerned enough about it to do the research, so I will concede the point.

My (admittedly armchair) reasoning was that rich families go way back. You can go back to the Hapsburgs and Medichis or just to the Vanderbelts and in another generation to the Gates&#39; and the Trumps.

Their children will inherit their money as children of wealthy families have inhereited fortunes for years. There are cases where the fortunes have failed but still branched out families with muliti-billion dollar holdings continue to spread through generations.
[/b]

So we can at least say that some rich people inherited their wealth, some rich people are self made, some rich people were just really lucky in business and some were crooks. We probably can&#39;t get percentages of who were honest and who were crooks, but we probably can get an idea of how much wealth was inherited.

I don&#39;t actually resent inherited wealth. Somebody earned it at some point and again we are unlikely to prove which inherited fortunes were come by honestly and which were not. I still hope to make enough money to make life easier for my children. I don&#39;t even know if that is a good thing, but I believe it is very human.

Originally posted by m5lange1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (m5lange1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Just simple reasoning would make the past 30 years pretty unique if such a large crop of ambitious business people made themselves rich that they outnumbered the families with generations behind them to proliferate and inherit money.

But hey... if you have gone through and counted... I will just say I am surprised I am wrong.

Actually my life has been as republican so I do consider myself an "old world" conservative but mostly based on individual/states rights over centralized government. (not sure how old you are but there was a time that it was the defining difference between the democrast and republicans).
[/b]

I don&#39;t remember a time in history when those were the differences between the two parties. My political memory goes back before I was born to the great depression when Hoover refused to try anything. Roosevelt came in and everything he tried was fought tooth and nail by republicans. I don&#39;t remember that anyone called themselves conservatives in those days, but maybe I could be corrected.

I do remember that republicans and southern conservatives hid behind states rights in order to fight the civils rights movement. I remember that medicare and medicaid and the voting rights act were all initiatives of the democrats and the republicans stonewalled those bills.

I remember that the republicans were isolationists while President Roosevelt got us ready for a war that everyone knew was coming and which saved western civilization.

I do remember that democratic presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson were aggresive cold warriors while the republicans spent their time carping the mythology that democrats were soft on communism.

Sorry to get on the soapbox, there have traditionally been many more differences between the major parties.

Originally posted by m5lange1,

However I have always been a bit liberal on my economic views (and have taken some heat for it I can tell you ).

I am going to try to answer your questions. I hope this does not come off as argumentative (not that that would be a bad thing on a debate site) but more just to let you know how our opinions differ.

Mel
But what they do have in common with the rest of us is that they want to protect as much money as they can just as do you and I. So they are going to fight to protect what they have, even if you think they have so much more than the rest of us they can spare some more.

Sure. People surely have a right to protect as much money as they can. Even if you and I think they have more to spare.
But people with less to spare are certaily under no obligation to agree with them.
And careful with that &#39;you and I&#39; analogy. I want enough to be comfortable, not to have to worry about medicines and be able to take a vacation occasionally but I personally have no desire for hoards of cash. I realize that may be unusual but "yes" I have been in a situation to prove my feelings on this.

If you add in the cost of educating your children, you are talking about an income well into 6 figures, not the superrich, but very, very successful

Originally posted by m5lange1,

There are degrees. Three people in a life raft for three with provisions for three are somewhat justified in pushing away a drowning man.
Three people in a life raft for 8 with plenty of rations are a bit less justified IMO. Although I do agree they are under no obligation to help him in.

Pushing away a drowning man is always murder. Probably just a bad example to make your point

Originally posted by m5lange1,

I do believe there is such a thing as greed. And my personal beliefs see it as a sin when in extreme measures. IMO the Big Rich wanting to hold on to all they can smells more of greed than right of posession questions.

IMO greed is almost a mental disease. It is related to sociopathic behavior. Accumulating wealth alone is not greed, no matter the level. Also remember that all wealth is invested so that it is actually working in the marketplace. Capital stimulates creativity regardless of the mentality of the owner.

Originally posted by m5lange1,

Mel
I don&#39;t know if you consider yourself a liberal, but one of the liberal failures of logic is their assumption that if they think something is fair, it is alright to force it upon others. It sounds like you are willing to do that.

By that definition you have not hit upon one of my liberal sympathies. In fact my anger at the republicans at the moment is this whole "forcing it on others" that has croppped up in the "new" republican party.
And regarding "fair"... well I have never believed that "fair" and "right" are necessarily all that strongly correlated.

I used the word "fair", I could have used the word "just" or "moral", my point was the assumption of righteousness.

Originally posted by m5lange1,

Like most thinking beings on the conservative and liberal side, I see taxes as a necessary pain in the ass. It becomes a matter of degree as to what is too much naturally. And neitehr side is usually happy about WHAT all the taxes are used for, but lets be more specific.
Personally I would like us to tax like democrats (liberals if you will) but spend like republicans (or conservatives). At least until we get back on our feet and balance the budget. There that is out of the way.

Now lets look closely at "forcing it on others". Yes, unfortunately in our society, the way we are set up to function, taxes have to be "forced on people"

To me that is the forced part. No matter how you start slicing the pie now you can make a case that you are forcing YOUR or MY version of the proper way to tax on SOMEONE. Unavoidable.

So we decide what is fair? That seems important to you. That is ok I understand and do not deny that being fair is a lofty goal. But as I have said, being fair and being right, at least to me, are not necessarily the same thing.

You really need to define "fair" and "right"

Originally posted by m5lange1,

Example (I know it is popular on this site to call any example a "straw man" if so please bear with this scarecrow ).
You and I are walking across the desert and getting close to dehydration. My coin sack has a hole and I have unknowingly left my money strewn across the sand. You do not have a hole in your sack (you may have bought a better bag). We meet a man who will only sell us water.

It is fair of you to say "too bad, so sad, this cash is mine? Absolutely&#33; In my opinion this is fair but not right.

Extreme example? Not if you are only talking Big Rich. Not in my opinion.

I don&#39;t mind those kind of examples at all. One of the ways the "Big" rich avoid having to face the man who has been beggared by misfortune is to contribute reguarly to charity and the well-off and the rich and the super rich are always trying to buy erespectability ith good works. And remember they never travel in circles where someones misfortune is going to interfere with the evening.

But the rest of us are faced with these people all the time. Just visit a large American city and see if you can avoid getting panhandled. It is legal to avoid them. Whether it is "right" is a moral choice.

<!--QuoteBegin-m5lange1,@

Mel
But, the era of liberal domination is over. If you want to get the rich people to kick in a bigger share then you will have to make a political case for that policy which is more than whether you think it would be fair or not.

I do not think the liberals nor the conservatives have ever had "fair" as one of their major considerations for policy.
For agenda based policies they may try to put a veil of fairness on it.
For honest polocies they are looking at what is best for the country, not necessarily what is fair.
[/quote]
The democrats are always talking about fair taxation and unfair loopholes that only the rich can take advantge of. I&#39;m sure that is simply a rhetorical device to stimulate the constituency and on this I&#39;m sure you are right, fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

<!--QuoteBegin-m5lange1,

Anyway I am admitting my response is opinion. It sort of seemed like what you were asking for.

If it comes to actually making a political case for any policy I concede to you. I think policy usually will go with the bucks.[/quote]

In terms of taxation policy is always a cover for the battle of the spoils. It is more relevant on other issues.

Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[Gorgo]

Define self-made. No one does it alone.

[m5lange1]

Mel and Gorg,

This is sort of a fun topic.
However I feel we go down a very diversionary road if we start arguing semantics.

Mel,
Like you, the method of acquisition of wealth is a minor point to me. I would squeak a bit about someones "moral right" to a pile of drug money but truthfully .... once you got it, it is yours.

Since you have clarified "fair" in this case as right and just then that becomes the question.
IMO Big rich wanting to keep stacks in their vaults while others have trouble making ends meet to pay their taxes is "greedy" and not "righteous/fair/just".
This may illustrate my point better. I have always liked the phrase "tax burdon". That sums it up for me.

A tax "burdon" should be shared. Compared to a family of 3 with an annual income of &#036;40,000 what would constitute a "burdon" for them as opposed to a "burdon" for Bill Gates?

My refferenc to conservative/liberal democrat/republican goes back to the 50s and 60&#39;s. (being 54 that is "old conservatism" to me).
I have even read that states rights vs. centralized government is the defining difference in reps and dems,
I will see if I can did up a source or two on that.

You are right, pushing away a drowning may probably is murder. Lets say then just refusing to help him onto the raft.
Still murder? Maybe, but to me it is an accurate (some what exagerated I grant you) analogy.
People have space and food that, for whatever reason, is theirs so they have the right to keep and defend it regardless of the burdon it puts on someone else.
People have BIG BUCKS that (again we are talking about Big Rich here), for whatever reason, is theirs so they have a right to keep and defend it regardless of the burdon it puts on someone else.

And please do not misunderstand. I do believe in both cases they have the "RIGHT" to defend what is theirs, I just do not believe it is the "RIGHT" thing to do.

By the way this has nothing to do with the "RIGHT" wing.

[Melvyn]

I would still like you define for me your standard of "right", all joking aside. Do you mean before God or before the law? There is quite a difference. The law recognizes private property. I don&#39;t believe God does. (Regardless of what John Calvin might say)(Of course, I expect God frowns on the taking of property by force or guile)

If you mean before God then I would go so far as to say, uneven distribution of wealth is not "right" no matter how the wealth was achieved. I don&#39;t believe God cares whether wealth was achieved honestly or not. I do believe He cares that there are those that are well off and those that can barely cope with life (materially) and those that actually starve to death.

The genius and glory of our capitalist system is that it allows us very imperfect and unevenly endowed human beings to move forward and in limited cases prosper. That some of those who prosper share some of their good fortune voluntarily is extraordinary. But that sharing is nowhere enough for justice. (By God&#39;s standard not any human standard.)

We have not achieved(or even tried for) distributed economic justice. However, the capitalist system unlike all others is flexible enough to approach economic distributive justice if people ever want it.(Which would mean we had put aside all differences and decided to live by the standards of God. I don&#39;t expect it to happen in my lifetime.)

For now, knowing what I know about human beings, I am willing to praise this system which so accurately mirrors human potential and which, therefore, fails so miserably.

Mel

[m5lange1]

In the interest of a good discussion I will try to get in to some semantics (it always just seems to lead in a circle)but lets give it a shot.

Let us, for the sake of our discussion use the word "right", OK?
That will sort of stop us from having to split hairs over "fair", "just", "correct" etc.
So, If I am understanding this correctly our question (at the moment) is whether or not it is "right" for the Big Rich to be required to pay a higher percentage rate of taxes than those of lesser wealth. OK?

I suppose I should also define what I mean by the "Big Rich".
(I will say to me that means people with accessable assets in excess of one hundred million dollars and/or four million per year personal income. For me qualifies as Big Rich. Those numbers are somewhat arbetrary but I want to be clear that I mean people so well off that they can supply themselves with lavishness and only work if they so desire.

OK defining "right". Well to keep it all looking sharp and neat lets start out with this...(lifeted directly from a dictionary)
1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality:
2. In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct:
3. Fitting, proper, or appropriate:
4. Most favorable, desirable, or convenient:

I don&#39;t know about you but I could change my whole position on this question just by picking different options from those definitions.

&#39;Before the law&#39; is definately not what I am saying, since that is what we are trying to do here. Decide if a law of flat vs. fluid tax is "right", yes?

I consider myself a religious man but I do not want to lay every decision at the feet of the Lord, before His morality. Especially political questions like this.
"Render unto Cesar what is Cesar&#39;s" sort of tells me God is out of the tax debates :) .

But when asking me "right" by what yardstick? I would still have to say morality. Especially since this is a subjective question as to what we "think" is right.
Now please lets not get sidetracked into the "You cannot have morality without religion" argument. I will be happy to go there on another thread but not here.

I mean personal morality. What seems morally "good" to an individual. Realizing full well that culture and religion, and family upbrining have probably shaded morality decisions.

So my yardstick in this case is compassion for all involved and my favorite yardstick (immature or not it is still how I like to live my life) the golden rule.

Sorry if that is murky but it expresses my belief of right in this case.

Now....
I think capitalism is the best form of government out there so far. I do not think it is perfect. I think it is imperfect enough to need some augmentation from some other "isms" from time to time to keep it running on a practical as well as moral basis.
Because capitalism is the best, does not mean it HAS to be kept pure just to keep it capitalism.

As I said, I believe in the term "tax burden". That is very important to me. I see a GREAT burden on some families and see NO burden on others regardless of the dollar amount.

For the sake of my own morality and compassion I think need over greed.
Please remember what I mean by Big Rich, so I do think "greed" appllies.

I also think "need" applies in many cases at the other end of the spectrum.

The "right" that is evident in "what is mine is mine" is out-weighed by the "right" of sharing the "Burden" not just some rate of cash.

How much should be taxed overall and what it should be spent on is a whole different ballgame and definitely a real free for all of opinions I am sure.

BUT if our government has decided it needs to come up with X number of dollars in taxes, and we are going to pay them, then "Yes" I think it is "right" that those who are able chip in more.

If we gotta move 3 tons of rock up a hill, and you are a 20 year old body builder and I am a 60 year old coot with arthritus I am gunna be real pissed if you sit down and watch me after you carried your 1.5 tons.

[Melvyn]

I suppose I should also define what I mean by the "Big Rich".
(I will say to me that means people with accessable assets in excess of one hundred million dollars and/or four million per year personal income. For me qualifies as Big Rich. Those numbers are somewhat arbetrary but I want to be clear that I mean people so well off that they can supply themselves with lavishness and only work if they so desire.

OK defining "right". Well to keep it all looking sharp and neat lets start out with this...(lifeted directly from a dictionary)
1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality:
2. In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct:
3. Fitting, proper, or appropriate:
4. Most favorable, desirable, or convenient:

I don&#39;t know about you but I could change my whole position on this question just by picking different options from those definitions.

&#39;Before the law&#39; is definately not what I am saying, since that is what we are trying to do here. Decide if a law of flat vs. fluid tax is "right", yes?

I consider myself a religious man but I do not want to lay every decision at the feet of the Lord, before His morality. Especially political questions like this.
"Render unto Cesar what is Cesar&#39;s" sort of tells me God is out of the tax debates :) .

But when asking me "right" by what yardstick? I would still have to say morality. Especially since this is a subjective question as to what we "think" is right.
Now please lets not get sidetracked into the "You cannot have morality without religion" argument. I will be happy to go there on another thread but not here.

I mean personal morality. What seems morally "good" to an individual. Realizing full well that culture and religion, and family upbrining have probably shaded morality decisions.

So my yardstick in this case is compassion for all involved and my favorite yardstick (immature or not it is still how I like to live my life) the golden rule.

Sorry if that is murky but it expresses my belief of right in this case.

I get all that and it is what I was after. I didn&#39;t think it was a simple answer. But that is precisley my problem with what comes after. What is "right" is so complex, that I worry when you, the government, one party or another wants to change what is the status quo, because the givernment only acts by coercion and there fore cannot really ever be an agent of "right"

Now....
I think capitalism is the best form of government out there so far. I do not think it is perfect. I think it is imperfect enough to need some augmentation from some other "isms" from time to time to keep it running on a practical as well as moral basis.
Because capitalism is the best, does not mean it HAS to be kept pure just to keep it capitalism.

Our form of government is a republic, meaning we elect representatives to make macro-decisions for us. Capitalism is the economic system under which we live, but the republic could decide otherwise. More likely the republic will continue to make ameliorating adjustments. Most of their adjustments in my lifetime have not let to economic justice. For instance up until Reagan, the tax rates on the rich could go up to nearly 90% of income and yet there was still not justice. Those who are not wealthy saw their tax loability as a burden and thse who were superrich saw it as a pain in the ass. But were not oppressed and managed to find ways to stay ahead of the rest of us.

For the sake of my own morality and compassion I think need over greed.
Please remember what I mean by Big Rich, so I do think "greed" appllies.
I also think "need" applies in many cases at the other end of the spectrum.

The "right" that is evident in "what is mine is mine" is out-weighed by the "right" of sharing the "Burden" not just some rate of cash.

I think that is socialism which is the most regressive system ever developed.
How much should be taxed overall and what it should be spent on is a whole different ballgame and definitely a real free for all of opinions I am sure.

BUT if our government has decided it needs to come up with X number of dollars in taxes, and we are going to pay them, then "Yes" I think it is "right" that those who are able chip in more.

If we gotta move 3 tons of rock up a hill, and you are a 20 year old body builder and I am a 60 year old coot with arthritus I am gunna be real pissed if you sit down and watch me after you carried your 1.5 tons.

[/QUOTE]

The poor may be pissed and I don&#39;t blame them, but no system has ever ended poverty. We went through the while routine of discussing how the rich and the big rich might have gotten that way. The reason no one has ever been able to begin to eliminate poverty is that every attempts has been based on the assumption that the poor have been somewhat vitimized. So we pay off the victims. We give them some some subsidies and still they are poor. We give them tax credits and food stamps, but still they are poor. We have free public education and while it has deteriorated, even in its glory days we still had the poor. We gave them welfare and medicaid and still they remained poor. The only thing we have not done is distribute all the accumulated wealth among the poor. I suppose we sonehow are not insane enough to do that. erhaps the example of the Russian revolution was instructive.

We threw them off welfare and they did not starve en masse as we had feared. It turned out that they would find a way to take car of themselves if they stopped worrying about those who had it better and just take care of the burden they&#39;ve got.

So maybe the whole system will work better if the rates on the rich are somewhat higher and maybe it will work worse if that money is pulled out of the pool of private investment. No one knows. I truly believe the economists just make educated guesses. Those who are making a political case one way or another surely don&#39;t know. We will just get what we get. And most of us will go forward with our lives even if the tax rate is unfair and even if the terrorists attack again and even if the economy never bounces back and even if the rich seem to have it easier.

So who is the conservative and who is the liberal?

Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[castille]

As a side question:

Why is it in Europe, the rich people are usually from "old aristocratic families", and companies are usually old?

Whereas in US/Asia, most of the wealthiest people are either from middle class families, or even in the case of Asia, penniless immigrants?

Is there strong discrimination in Europe against those without "noble blood"? Or do factors such as high taxes contribute to a lack of self-made wealth?


(By "self-made" wealth, I refer to wealth that did not exist in the person&#39;s possession at the start of his life)

[m5lange1]

Mel

For just short clarifications....

I would honestly never expect tax laws to eliminate poverty. Since we are talking about the taking of taxes as opposed to the distribution of taxes the TRULY poor don&#39;t pay any anyway.
Still I have never believed the "inability to eliminate" ever excused "not helping".

The reference to socialism. I know it is a failed form of government when it is the &#39;whole&#39; government, and has an especially negative connotation here due to the cold war, but...
I do not think everything about socialism was bad or evil. In fact, as with most "isms" there may even be a gem or two in there that "in and of themselves" are not bad things.

Actually when disected into its smaller parts "which in the modern USA seem to carry the whole weight of the socialistic failure" we find that most were present clear back to ancient Egypt. And certainly ancient Rome.

Sorry, a very wordy way to say that if a method of tax collection may be comprable to a socialistic model will not make it less "right" to me.


Cas.

I really cannot respond to Asia since I was under the impression that economic pattern changed more from country to country. That is distribution of wealth in Japan is more like USA where as China is more like Europe and Mongolia is just like most third world.

The Europe compared to USA I think has a lot to do with the age of the cultures. Europe was established from old Royalties and wealthy families. OLD world money.
That generational proliferation I referred to earlier has had centuries longer to grow.

USA was established by the wealthy in colonies. Money was there to be sure but not nearly the vast fortunes of the European royalties and nobilites.

[Melvyn]

Originally posted by castille,
As a side question:

Why is it in Europe, the rich people are usually from "old aristocratic families", and companies are usually old?

Whereas in US/Asia, most of the wealthiest people are either from middle class families, or even in the case of Asia, penniless immigrants?

Is there strong discrimination in Europe against those without "noble blood"? Or do factors such as high taxes contribute to a lack of self-made wealth?


(By "self-made" wealth, I refer to wealth that did not exist in the person&#39;s possession at the start of his life)

I would guess that the tax structures in Europe impede the growth of new fortunes made from new enterprise. But I don&#39;t have any specific references for that assumption. I do know that here, new businesses, even small ones are encouraged by the government. A new business doesn&#39;t have to make any money in the beginning. It can write off many legitimate expenses. Then, if it starts to make money, there are still many legitimate expenses which can be written off. So I would say it is a lot easier to attempt to build wealth in America. But, again I don&#39;t have specific references that tell us whether any of these benefits are available in the various European countries. Perhaps someone more familiar with Europe can tell us.

Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[The Fyrdman]

Generally in Britain at least, new industries are already dominated by foreign companies. Some new companies have sprung up and expanded, Dyson for example. But many of our leading areas are things that people don&#39;t really look into unles they specialise, for example we are world leaders in sports car tuning and modification. We also, it appears from todays news on C4, that we are leaders in building helicopters.

But most rich people, as far as I&#39;m aware, arn&#39;t exactley old aristocratic familys, but from the richer middle class. The aristocrats judged wealth differently, placing far more emphasis on asset wealth, rather than cash. So the aristocrats cling onto their 40 room estates, but can&#39;t afford to do much more than keep the houses running, and even that usually slips bit by bit.