Profits – How much is too much?

[rbaker]

Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????

If you will allow me to simplify your query into a single question:

Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?

I think I can take a shot at it.

Businesses hire people. Poor people don’t.
Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people don’t.
Businesses generate wealth. Poor people don’t.
Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people don’t.
Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people don’t.
Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people don’t.
Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people don’t.
Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people don’t.
Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people don’t.
Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people don’t.
Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people don’t.

[For-Life]

Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?

How is this an either/or thread? The real question is if the nation is better have a large seperation of rich and poor or a smaller. Honestly, a large and a small one are both bad situations. You need a seperation, but once it gets too big you are in trouble. Why?

I think I can take a shot at it.

• Businesses hire people. Poor people don’t.
• Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people don’t.
• Businesses generate wealth. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people don’t.
• Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people don’t.

[spartus]

Businesses hire people. Poor people don’t.
Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people don’t.
Businesses generate wealth. Poor people don’t.
Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people don’t.
Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people don’t.
Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people don’t.
Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people don’t.
Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people don’t.
Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people don’t.
Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people don’t.
Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people don’t.

Same planet, different worlds.

[Jubilee]

Have any of you been "poor?" or Spent time with and or studied "the poor?"

While I am not for socialism in its purest form, I do think that there need to be changes to the welfare system to encourage people to get out! When people WHO WANT TO WORK can't because it means they loose health care coverage for their children, food stamps, and any money there were receiving from state.. which is better for the family? Working a minimum wage job or two when you can't spend any time with your kids and are paying half of your income to day care providers... or taking the state/federal assistance and be called a dead beat, but you can provide, food, clothing, shelter, and medical care while staying at home and raising the children! If the system actually scaled worth a hoot, then the more people could get out.

My son used to attend a school that had 80% of the children on free lunch programs. That means that the people were poor. When volunteering as an aid to the school, it was rough to see what some of these kids were having to deal with. Some of them never saw one or both of their parents. Some of them had parents who wanted to be involved, but couldn't due to work. Work that bearly provided enough for them to have school supplies and dinner at home. I worked with one family that was homeless, mom was sick, and daddy left..couldn't stay with her sister who lived on the other side of town.. it was a heartwrenching.

The rich can afford to buy quailty. They can purchase the Toyota, Chrysler, etc that is a car that will last. The poor buy used or Cheap (Kia) that cost more for repairs and the like. Clothing, do you think that clothes from Walmart last just as long as something from Sears or Nordstrom? Shoes? Do those 4/$100 tires come with the same warranty and mileage as the Goodyear Radials? When you have to replace items quicker, due to wear, over time it costs more than buying the intially more expensive items that last years...

When it comes to being poor in America, a mindset comes in. I don't have money, I will never have money, so what is the point of saving? Inheritances, tax refunds, etc are all "found money" that is meant to be uesd to buy happiness. Cars, TVs, Stereos, Games etc give that fix and are bought instead. Money buys happiness and gets rid of the depression...

When I have more time, I will go through my sociology text books and my own personal experience...

Cassandra

[Judy Canty]

Have any of you been "poor?"

Yes, I have and while the system is a mess and difficult to navigate, much less control, it's the system that's in place. Getting rid of it isn't the solution, nor is privatizing. Having the will and compassion to change mindsets is the real solution.

People who have spent a lifetime in that system, or families who have spent generations in that system simply see it as a way of life. Not a future, because there is no future, just the same thing every day. Do some break out of it? Sure, but not often and certainly not without the support of someone who can afford the time, patience and expense.

My stay in the system was blessedly short, about 5 years, and I moved forward because I knew I could.

[chip anderson]

I've been very poor but I have never accepted or asked for a handout from the taxpayers or anyone else.


Chip

[Judy Canty]

Good for you Chip. I didn't have that luxury. My first job at a wholsale optical lab, netted me $69.02 per week. I had to lie to qualifiy for a federally assisted apartment for me and my 2 year old daughter, but my portion of the rent was still $112 per month. I hated food stamps, because it usually cost me a day from work to sit and wait to get them. I needed the daycare assistance to get to work and medicaid to pay for our very basic medical needs. (My ex-husband, from a fairly wealthy California family managed to avoid the $100 per month support by moving in with his parents and remaining unemployed.) The state of Virginia didn't allow me to have a car, but a social worker friend from my church simply ignored what was in my parking space when she made her visits. I survived because I was not raised in poverty and because I had a good education and a few people along the way who cared.

[rep]

Rep, were you to actually read the GAO report (which you can find here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...raud&Abuse.pdf) you might realize that while it's yet another compelling and sweeping indictment of the incompetence of the Bush administration, it says absolutely nothing about the poor. Perhaps you were confusing "the poor" with "the victims (real and fraudulent) of Hurricane Katrina".

Those wealthy, working?, but living in government housing, former residents of New Orleanes who spent their disaster assistance money on booze, condoms and adult entertainment.

These individuals will remain in their current financial status because they continue to do the things that keep them in their current financial status.
No amount of "assistance" will ever change that status. The "rich" will continue to remian in their current financial status because they continue to do the things that keep them in their current financial status.

Yes I did read the report and it lays the blame exactly where it should be blamed - state and local officials. Here is one summary that is right on point by Neal Boortz

"According to the report, Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin waited until too late to evacuate the city. They had warnings 56 hours before landfall of what might happen, yet chose to wait until 19 hours before the hurricane hit to tell everybody to get out. So who deserves most of the blame?

Blanco and Nagin. Why? First of all, because disaster response has traditionally been a state, not a federal matter. In 2004 there were about four hurricanes that hit Florida. Florida responded. That is as it should have been in Louisiana. Question: Did the failure to move trailers into the area immediately cause deaths? No. Did the failure to get food and supplies into the survivors within hours cause deaths? There's no evidence of that. The deaths were caused because people didn't get out. That's a local issue, not a federal one. Had the governor and mayor ordered the evacuation much earlier, many more people would have lived. Did anyone die because it took supplies longer to get there than it should have? Maybe a few. But nothing like the more than 1,300 people who are dead...mostly because they didn't leave the city."

But you and your liberal buddy's had rather "Blame Bush" than make an honest evaluation of where the real problems existed in N. O.

Granted the follow up was lousy, but the real problem started locally long before the storm hit. The Democratically run administration of New Orleans and LA failed totally.

Rep

[rep]

I'm sorry? You're sorry I chose to work? What would the Opti-world have been without me?

I am sorry you chose to allow the government to have your money for a year and then received a refund instead of claiming the maximum number of deductions you were entitled.

Congratulations Judy you made it out. But your inferrence that you made it out because you came from a wealth family, in my opinion, is bogus.

Many people come to this country with nothing and accumulate wealth through hard work, education and dedication and they have for years. I laugh ever time I hear the left moanin that the American dream is dead. Look around, it's as alive as it has ever been, but fewer are taking advantage of it and had rather receive Democratically supported handouts.


Rep

[shanbaum]

With these, you confuse "businesses" and "poor people":

Businesses hire people. Poor people don’t.
Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people don’t. (OK, this one's just false as well. Of course poor people purchase goods and services).
Businesses generate wealth. Poor people don’t.

These can all be summed up as, "rich people have money, and poor people don't":

Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people don’t.
Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people don’t.
Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people don’t.
Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people don’t.

This one is laughable (the rich avoid social welfare programs? Oh, you mean, paying for them?):

Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people don’t.

This one is demonstrably false (see Chip's mention above of which state is the most charitable. Hint: the poorest):

Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people don’t.

And these are examples of ignorance and prejudice (I'll wager that you have no knowledge of the first, assuming that it actually means something, and if the second were true, how would you explain George Bush and Dick Cheney?):

Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people don’t.
Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people don’t.

[shanbaum]

But you and your liberal buddy's had rather "Blame Bush" than make an honest evaluation of where the real problems existed in N. O.

Is there something about being a Republican that prevents one from reading the cover pages of reports? (You know, like "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.")?

This one read, "FEMA's Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government To Significant Fraud and Abuse."

I suggest you actually read the report - you obviously haven't; your rightist news source to the contrary, the report says nothing about the local response to the disaster.

What the response to Katrina demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) is the extent to which the Bush administration is like a Potemkin village - while marketing itself as the protector of American security, it is vacuous; it does nothing. Had those levees been bombed by terrorists, the federal response would have been no different (Brownie's protestations to the contrary), because it had no capacity to be different. It still has none. Feel safer?

What is perfectly clear is that these people could commit no feat of sufficient incompetence that you would not excuse them. Honest evaluation, indeed.

[Judy Canty]

Congratulations Judy you made it out. But your inferrence that you made it out because you came from a wealth family, in my opinion, is bogus.
Rep

My wealthy family? You mean the school teachers in Portsmouth, VA? Whose combined salaries when I graduated from high school in 1968 was $17,000? That wealthy family? They must have been holding out on me.

My late ex-husband's family was wealthy enough to help him elude child support payments for 10 years until I remarried and Keith adopted Heather.

[Jubilee]

Rep,

I may not be "poor" now, but we certainly aren't rich either. I have a family of three, and take 4 federal exemptions. Know what? I still get a refund every year federal, but I OWE on state taxes.

The poor don't have the luxury of putting money into 401ks, IRAs, Health Savings accounts, etc.. to avoid taxes!

The poor are a target market. Come on, I don't know where you all live, but we have PayDay loan places on just about every corner. Have you ever had need of these services? I unfortunately have, and it is highway robbery. Your car breaks down. With out your car, and having no real public transportation in this town, you have to have a car to get to work. To fix it takes more money than you have by $200-300 bucks. You go to a place, and they loan you the $300 for 2 weeks, and you pay them $360 on payday! If you can't pay it all back, you have to pay the $60 "service fee" and take out another loan for that $300, and pay that fee again. So to borrow $300 for a month till you costs $120 in fees. Plus you are short everywhere else do to the initial costs of repairs anyway.

Predatory lending. I had a friend who's car was beyond repair, and she had to buy another. She could only qualify for new (car value worth more, high risk) and they charged her 21% interest! She was paying over $350 a month on a Kia Rio. For a car that costs less than 12 thousand doallars!

Property taxes were reconfigured here in Indiana, and now instead of it being based on how much the property was purchased for, it is based upon how much it is worth. More equitable.. yes, but for the seniors who bought that property in the 40's and 50's when they were working and the cost of living was much less, and now finding out their homes bought are worth 10-20 times the amount they initially paid for when they are living on fixed incomes makes it really difficult to stay in the homes they have lived in for 60 years...

There are young families that get taken in by the easy financing of homes. Sure, we can qualifiy you, charge you a billion in points for a buy down, take advantage of zero down loans, charge you only interest up front.. and you can move in this 1800sq ft home for $545/month. Wow, that's cheaper than rent! Till next year when the interest rate goes up, along with property values, so it is $800 a month, then the next year, goes to $1200/month... and the homes get forclosed on.

Pay off your credit cards! Get a home equity loan and we will give you up to 125% of your homes worth to use to pay down your debts! Till the person doesn't control their spending habits anyway, and they can take your home...

It is insane the number of businesses there are out there to take advantage of the poor....

Cassandra

[chip anderson]

ShameBum: Many nationally published studies show Mississippians to contribute more of thier income (per-centage basis) toward charity than any other state. Other states contribute more money but less on a pre-centage basis. This is TRUE!I never knowingly lie. Many of the things I say obviously are not the answer you want to hear, and on others I may be missinformed, but I do not lie. .

[Spexvet]

Spex: What is taxing and "redistributing wealth" other than forced donation?

Why wait until your "company income" is $500, 000? This sounds like a lot of church people I know that put off titheing until "my income is high enough". Of course it is never high enough. If sure if you and all those who claim to be like minded would start contributing half your income (or even half after taxes) reguardless of how low your present income, you could bring complete relief to the improverished of the nation, perhaps the world. Start today, the problem won't go away without immediate help.

Chip

As usual, you are missing the point. :hammer:

Just answer the question.

[Jubilee]

Lets think about this...

$10/hr is a "great" wage. Its almost 2x the amount of minimum wage. But how far does it really go?

$10/hr x 40hrs x 52weeks a year = $20,800

for a family of 2 this is more than what you can make to qualify for any assistance! (except maybe WIC for a child under 5)

15% of that is the bare minimun to be taken out for taxes, unless you get jeapordize having to pay state and local taxes.

Leaving $17680 - $1800 benefits (health, disability, dental) = $15,880

$15,880 - $6600 ($550/month) for an apartment. (Based upon cost of "cheap" 1 large bedroom or 2 small bedroom apt in this city.)

$8980 - $5200 daycare (avg cost of $100/wk for kindergarten or younger non-corp provider or summer) = $3780

$3780 - $1800 food ($150/mo) = $1980

$1980 - $1800 utilities (phone, Gas, Electric) = $180

We are already broke, and haven't even taken care of the car (gas, insurance, maintenance) and medical costs (copays, deductibles, etc)

This is the scenario for a single parent working a "decent" job that pays more than minimum wage! And doesn't qualify for assistance in my fine city...

You tell me who's crazier, the person working, or the one staying at home?

Cassandra

[Spexvet]

Those wealthy, working?, but living in government housing, former residents of New Orleanes who spent their disaster assistance money on booze, condoms and adult entertainment.
...
Rep

Please post anything that supports that the abuse was by poor people and ONLY poor people.

[rbaker]

Jubilee – One thing is missing from your scenario. Where is tuition and books at your local state college? Without that vital education your scenario will be your biography.

[chm2023]

Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????

If you will allow me to simplify your query into a single question:

Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?

.

Well if it were so, maybe. There are very few who are truly rich--let's say net worth in excess of $10Million; lots more who are poor--zero or negative net worth.

[shanbaum]

ShameBum: Many nationally published studies show Mississippians to contribute more of thier income (per-centage basis) toward charity than any other state. Other states contribute more money but less on a pre-centage basis. This is TRUE!I never knowingly lie. Many of the things I say obviously are not the answer you want to hear, and on others I may be missinformed, but I do not lie. .

Uh, Chip, I know; I was defending your statement. And I'm sure you don't lie; lying requires the intent to misstate facts.

[chm2023]

Spex: It would make me very, very happy to have you donate half your income to some worth cause to alieviate the problem. If all liberals did this perhaps the problem would go away.

It's odd though the leading state on charitable donations per captita per income is poor old impoverished Mississippi.

If you would check the charitable donations of the leading democrats, Hillary, Al Gore, Teddy Kennedy, and the other screamers you will find them to be almost non-existant.
Bleeding hearts bleed for other people to finance thier endevors

.

Mississippi is also the state with highest percent of Afro-Americans if I am not mistaken.

[Spexvet]

Chip has hijacked this thread into a welfare thread. It isn't. My idea is that when a wealthy person has an opulent standard of living, they should voluntarily, as a moral obligation (the Christian thing to do) stop accepting additional income and do something with the income they don't accept. They could pay their employees more or increase their employee's benefits, they could improve the quality of their product or service, but not raise the price to the consumer, the could reduce the price of their product or service, etc.

I agree with Jubilee that it is disgusting that an American can work a full-time job at $10.00/hr and only have a subsitence standard of living. Conservatives talk about family values and the moral high ground, yet here is an example that our minimum wage interferes with family life.

Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????

If you will allow me to simplify your query into a single question:

Why is our country better having more rich people than poor people?

That is absolutely not a simplification of the question, so I will not allow you to do it. Oops, too late, I guess. Your "simplification" assumes that the wealthy lose their money, but that it doesn't go anywhere. That's not the case. Any wealth lost by the rich will be gained by the middle class or lower class. Like the law of conservation of matter and energy, wealth doesn't disappear, it merely changes state or hands.

Businesses hire people. Poor people don’t.

If poor people had more money, they would be the ones who hire people, or they would buy more products/services, causing a demand for others to hire people.

Businesses purchase goods and services. Poor people don’t.

Sure they do. As much as they can afford. If poor people didn't buy goods and services, why would businesses need to buy goods and services?

Businesses generate wealth. Poor people don’t.

Sure they do. Sometime it's only $5.15 /hr, but they do the work that generates the wealth for the business. Let's see the COE of McDonalds generate wealth without teenagers to work the counter and fry cooker.

Rich people start and own businesses. Poor people don’t.

If poor people had more money...

Rich people invest in other businesses. Poor people don’t.

If poor people had more money...

Rich people purchase lots of stuff and use lots of services. Poor people don’t.

They don't buy lots of stuff because they don't have lots of money.

Rich people pay lots of taxes. Poor people don’t.

Poor people don't have the money to pay lots of taxes. I assert that rich people avoid paying their share. Please show me evidence that this is not true.

Rich people avoid social welfare programs. Poor people don’t.

Social welfare programs like the Chrysler bail-out and the airline industry bail-out. Or the ones like the oil industry and tobacco subsidies? How about the pension programs that the government has had to take over because business SCREWED its employees?

Rich people and businesses endow charities. Poor people don’t.

So it's businesses who send those checks to Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson, and that ilk? It's business that supports my children's PTA? I'll bet that if business paid the working poor enough that they had some disposable income, business would find that its employees would endow charities. Right Chip? Kinda like "if you didn't tax me so much, I could use the money to feed the poor".

Rich people stand on their own two feet. Poor people don’t.

That sounds bigoted to me. And most rich people are rich because they come from rich. Their family can afford to send them to best schools, so they get the best education ( a competitive edge against the poor community-college-educated person) and has clear skin, straight teeth, expensive clothing, a $100 haircut, etc., that makes them more attractive in the job market. They also associate with rich people who own businesses and have an "in" with those who hire people "oh, you went to Yale, too? You must be smart and gotten a great education"..."no, I got in because my Daddy and his Daddy were US senators, and my Daddy was willing to pay full price. My grades show that I didn't get a great education, but I sure did party alot"

Rich people take responsibility for their actions. Poor people don’t.

Sure, Ken Lay pled guilty in the Enron case, didn't he? Ted Kennedy took responsibility, as did OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake. All innocent. Their wealth did not allow them to shirk responsibility for their actions, did it?

[Spexvet]

Jubilee – One thing is missing from your scenario. Where is tuition and books at your local state college? ...

She couldn't afford them.

[Jubilee]

Jubilee – One thing is missing from your scenario. Where is tuition and books at your local state college? Without that vital education your scenario will be your biography.

Close!

I did manage to go to college, and amassed a huge debt doing so. I do believe it was well worth it though. Obviously since I am acquiring more to finish my MBA so hopefully I can afford to pay off those loans!

I admit I had to have help though. During my first marriage, my husband was also in school, and I got pregnant. We had a major medical policy, but pregnancy wasn't covered. Out of pocket costs would have been over 8 grand. I also had to reduce my workload. So I had to go on Medicaid. After having the baby, it didn't pay to have my husband work, due to daycare expenses and the toll it took on his classwork. (yes he was a wuss!) So I worked full time, went to school, and tried to provide for my family and still had to take max student loans so I could pay for it all.

After the divorce, I had to pay him support during the months he would have our son, and I still had to provide everything for him while he was with me (Shared custody)

Thankfully I met a man who helped me get on my feet, and loves both me and my son. While my ex isn't completely out of the picture, even now that he has a job, he isn't in a position to pay support or anything.. except the grandparents do pay for some clothing, and school things.

I just wished that before peope criticize the "poor" and lump them all into being freeloaders and criminals, that they take a look at what it really costs to live here, and how blessed they are...

I don't know of one single person who is happy that they are on welfare.

Cassandra

[Spexvet]

Ok. I think we all understand conservatives, now. You don't want to pay taxes to support lazy, deadbeat welfare cheats, the sick, infirm and mentally ill, or our retirees. We get that.

Now, would anyone care to answer the question without changing its meaning?

Why is our country better having more very, very rich people and very, very poor people, with a smaller middle class, rather than having a much larger middle class, and fewer very, very rich and very, very poor people??????

I'm patient. I can wait. ;)