Why is it either or? My boss got lucky when his grandmother left him a shitload of money. He bought the food joint I work with with that money. You know what he does all day when he is at work? He counts his money, plans on his computer, and mostly shmoozes with the customers and then usually leaves an hour to an hour and a half before we close. I wouldn't call that hard work. He may have mental stress from hard decisions, but he most certainly doesn't get his hands dirty like his workers do. He helps out sometimes. but he does not put in the physical labor we do.

NOW, having said that, does that mean because he is physically lazy he is bad? Or that he uses us to make his money, does that make him bad? No, in fact, he is one of the best bosses I have ever had. He is laid back, doesn't stand over us and micromanage us and treats us like humans, not robots.

NOW, on the other hand. Hard work is a bullshit myth being sold by itself. For our three class system to work there has to be a middle and even poor class. Hard work will not always get you up that ladder, otherwise there would be no middle or poor class and we would all be rich.

LUCK has as much to do with where you end up in life as much as the hard work you might put in. Competition is as much luck as it is skill. I keep my job, because I am good at it. But even that is not a garuntee because the owner could decide, beyond my own control, that he cant afford me. I do make more than most at my position. It would be economically better for him to fire me and hire someone at less cost.

I don't fault someone for getting lucky or having money handed down to them. But I also don't think the class you are in means you have to be a slave to work. It is not the amount of hours you put in, but the quality of the work you do.

"Hard work" is bullshit because if anyone of us got lucky, or worked to a point where we didn't have to, we wouldn't. Being a jaded desk jocky or jaded CEO who likes being a workoholic doesn't mean because they do it all the other classes should as well.

IT IS NOT EITHER OR. I don't fault all rich people for what they want. I just don't think the other two classes should be put in a lopsided economy where the highest paid make almost 500 times more than the lowest paid forcing them to work 24/7.

I have also seen lazy people who work 2 or 3 jobs but do nothing while they are there unless they are told. I myself work 1 job but do more in one day than most of my co-workers do in 2 or 3 days. I can do that because I was lucky enough to have my mom buy me a house. Because I didn't have rent or mortgage I could afford to be more productive on my job because I was not worn out having to pay rent and utilities.

MOST people are not that lucky. But just as I was lucky in having my mom by my house. My boss was lucky to have grandparents give him the money to buy the place I work at where he does not do much physical labor.

I think whatever job you have it is not about the amount of hours you put in, but the efficiency and quality of the work you do. My boss, in that same respect, has improved the place and made it better, not because of any physical labor he does, but the decisions he makes and the way he treats us.

BUT, again, even his ownership is not a given. We all could get wiped out by a hurricane. We could be out competed by another place (not likely, but still part of the free market). Or our entire economy could get so bad that the entire area dries up. It has happened and can happen.

In the end to me, it is not what someone's class is or what their title is. I think everyone on their death beds isn't going to be concerned (if moral) with what they owned or didn't own. I think most moral people are going to think about their families and how they treated others while alive. Material things come and go, but relationships are in the end, all we have.

Life is not a given or a script and a war between classes is not helping our economy and the class that has the most to improve it seems to be selfish. (not all rich people) just far too many in the corporate class.

  Ken G. 

I am not scared by Beck or his potential (pretty miserable) to become a political leader.  I am afraid of that enthusiasm of american people blindly supporting dangerous idiocracy.  

By the way, a few minutes ago, Michael Savage on air cited Deuteronomy ~11:9-15 about "land of milk and honey".

He said that US is the land of milk and honey, especially for immigrants.  But now many immigrants and americans are starting to believe "other gods", and so the america dies.  (?) In fact, he failed to cite the rest of the biblical story that says:    Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them.  Then the LORD's anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you.

(Deuter 11:16-17)

And then 

If you carefully observe all these commands I am giving you to follow--to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways and to hold fast to him--then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you.  Every place where you set your foot will be yours: Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the western sea.

(Deuter 11:22-25)

I wonder,  is Savage going to invade U.K. or what?

Savage might.

You want less taxes and fewer laws.  Right?  Think it might solve a lot of problems, right?

I don't know.  Literally.  I. don't. know.  The tax revenue in the US is a smaller percentage of GDP than many other industrial nations.  The income tax 1944-1945 was at 94% for incomes over $200,000.  Top bracket now - 35%.  So taxes have significantly reduced over the years and as near as I can tell it hasn't made a speck of difference for the general health of the economy.  But I freely admit, I wasn't around in 1945, not even a gleam in daddy's eye, so what the fuck do I know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

US 28%, UK 39%, Switzerland 30%, Sweden 49%, Australia 30%, etc.  Numbers are as of 2009.

Yup, US Capitol fire maybe .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Actually when it comes to the actual tax rate I'm not so picky. I just want everyone to pay and I want substantially less government spending. Set the rate at 1% or 99% just tax everyone at the same rate or better yet ditch the income tax and go with a consumption tax. Tax rates actually have a much smaller effect on the economy than most politicians like to pretend. True, if you cut taxes you will see an increase in the economy at first but within a few years the effect wears off. The same is true of tax increases. At first it is a drag on the economy and then it adjusts and starts working like normal. If you set the tax rates at confiscatory levels (70%+) rich people will work really hard to hide their income. What we have now is a system where everyone pays a different rate. Those at the bottom pay nothing, those at the top hire lawyers to avoid paying (or only pay capital gains) and those of us who do fairly well but are not quite rich pay the tab for everyone. The poor get their social programs and the millionaires get their bailouts and everyone wonders why people making between 50 and 200k a year get so irritated. We make just enough not to qualify for any benefits but not enough to really get into the bribery game. I pay approximately 40% of my income in taxes when you add everything up. Do you think Bill Gates pays 40%? I'll pay 40% but Gates better as well and also the schmuck working at McDonalds. Set the tax rate at 40% for EVERYONE and see how fast people will want to ditch government programs. It would probably create a few more libertarians like me. 

I do not believe the government should be in the business of mass redistribution of wealth. If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't expect to get a bunch of freebies. The government shouldn't take money from one person and turn around to hand it to another. I find it morally repugnant for people to expect the government to take care of them for free. I have no problem with charity but don't come to my door with the force of the government to take it from me. 

From a purely economic standpoint we are spending our way into a hole with all of our social programs and bailouts. In the next few years our debt will be larger than GDP. That means if the government confiscated 100% of the income of everyone in the country we would still be in debt. We are doing absolutely nothing to even slow the growth of our debt. Instead we pile on healthcare which is somehow supposed to magically reduce the debt???? Ok, I know you might not be an economist but have you ever bought something with your credit card and thought the balance would go down? You can take it to the bank that healthcare reform will cost boatloads more than predicted just like every other government entitlement has because they never factor increasing costs, consistently underestimate how many people will use the program and always overestimate the tax revenue. Sooner or later we will have to pay off the debt or face an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like an economic boom. Since our economy is already in a decline the best way to reduce the debt is to cut spending because if we raise taxes the economy will get worse in the short run. And it isn't like there are not enough areas in our government that could use a spending cut.

And yes, in my little dream world there would be a lot fewer laws especially at the federal level.  

The most researched plan for a consumption tax is the "Fair Tax" http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/PlainEnglishSummary_TheFairTaxAct2007.pdf 

I support most of what is in it although it isn't perfect. I would certainly vote for it. It does not tax investments although any broker/adviser fees etc would be taxed.

Building a yacht (or anything else) would not be taxed when the raw materials are purchased but would be taxed when sold just like state sales taxes.

Paying a worker for you company would not be taxed although you would collect a tax for any services provided to the consumer. For example, an oil change place would not be taxed on what they pay the mechanic but there would be a tax on the bill to the consumer.

Medical services would be taxed like the mechanic or any other service.

In order to help the poor the Fair Tax offers a "prebate" so in effect no one pays taxes on any spending below poverty level but pays the full tax on everything above poverty level. Those who eat ramen noodles wouldn't be paying any tax while those who eat caviar would.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how much money you earn, it matters how much you spend. If you are a billionaire but live the lifestyle that is below poverty you pay no tax. If you are a movie star that buys everything you see you pay a lot of tax. It is your choice and how you live your life that determines how much tax you pay.

One are of the fair tax I do take exception with is the elimination of the estate tax. Unlike many on my side I think a large estate tax is healthy as large heir families tend to offer less to the economy than fresh entrepreneurs and we did fight a war to get away from aristocracy. I think it is wrong when one or two families basically own entire towns when the people who initially made the fortune are long dead. Although, the consumption tax does have the effect of decreasing the wealth of those families unless they actively produce enough to replace it.   

I agree with everything you said. 

Billionaires and millionaires don't actually bring in 100 million in income. Their status is measured by the value of their investments and is only subjected to tax when they realize a gain, which means actually selling the stock. Generally, the wealthy are going to keep their money in stocks until they take it out to spend it or switch from one investment to another. Generally they get their spending money through dividends which is only taxed at 15%. The system is designed to encourage investment both domestic and foreign. Where do you think companies get money to attempt new ventures and pay employees when moving into a venture that is not yet profitable and self-sustaining? What do you think stock is for? More investors means more jobs, more production and a better lifestyle for everyone. When a company needs more cash on hand they issue more stock then use that cash to develop more jobs, which right now we really need.

You can break people into whatever or however many groups you want. Right now we could break it into those who pay taxes and those who receive benefits. Generally economists break income groups into five quintiles and politicians break it into three groups, poor- middle class - rich. The advantage is someone close to the poverty line would pay little to no taxes (which right now they pay 15.3% social security and medicare even with no income tax obligation) if they live a minimalist lifestyle they have the option to invest their savings in their retirements or savings.  

This is the biggest misconception.  Most people work for small businesses, and stocks and investments have nothing to do with the cash flow for creating jobs.  Small businesses work off of borrowing mostly and the banks tightening up lending is their problem.

So what will get the economy going is loosening up loans to small businesses.  Forget the corps and stocks and investing arguments. 

hope you're not implying beck is a libertarian, because he isnt

A couple of reasons, first the benchmarks used to measure the stock market are don't measure every single stock. The Dow Jones only includes 30 companies. The Nasdaq includes 3000 companies and is not doing "fairly okay" its all time high was over 5000 back in 2000 and is now around 2200. The NYSE composite is similarly down to around 7000 from an all time high of around 10300. What this tells me is that investors are fairly confident in really big companies but scared of smaller companies. Which makes sense when you watch the actions of the government which has decided there is a thing as "too big to fail" why not invest in large companies? 

Large companies have been holding tight and building up cash reserves instead of using their excess cash to invest in new ventures. Now some smart economists would argue with me here but I believe the main reason is they don't know what the tax situation is going to be and they don't know the full extent of what the healthcare reform will mean for them. They are storing up cash so they have the funds on hand to pay for the increases in their medical expenses and deal with the Bush tax cuts expiring. Remember when I said a tax increase has the temporary effect of slowing down the economy? Well the threat of one has the same effect. Companies believe they will have a large tax increase combined with large increases in costs for medical expenses. Until those actually go into effect and they know what their expenses are going to be it is wise for them to avoid massive growth or branching out new companies right now. You can bet they are paying an army of CPA's to go over their books and calculate the worst case scenarios they might have to face next year. Personally, I believe it would be better if Congress either came out and said they were extending the tax cuts or announce that they will expire rather than keeping everyone in this "wait and see" mentality. Then they could at least do the math and make decisions. Although, the healthcare debacle remains. 

Not exactly. If a company purchases a jet for the purposes of leasing it out or reselling it the company would not pay tax. If it is purchasing it for purposes of consumption (using it for its own purposes such as to provide it as a benefit to the owner and/or employees) then it pays taxes. This really wouldn't be any different from today where a company can write off the purchase of a jet bought for business purposes but not if it is used for personal purposes. The bill is only in its infancy stages so there is no telling exactly what would come out in the end but I would support very severe penalties on anyone caught trying to use their business to provide themselves with untaxed toys.

I think we spend too much. 

Now I think your just trying to get my goat  

Never underestimate government bureaucrats, they can ALWAYS make it worse. Remember, this is the government that has blown $1 TRILLION dollars to "create jobs" and somehow has managed to make no noticeable change to the job market, ask CJ. They paid $18 million dollars for a website. Tell me that you couldn't find someone to make a kick ass website for $5 million in a job market where many web designers are out of work. Seriously, who gets the money? People who kiss politicians asses. I'm willing to bet the designers who actually made the site got more like $30-40 an hour and the rest went into someones pocket.

The collapse was not just the bankers fault. The government has been pushing banks for years to offer loans to poor people through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By guaranteeing the loans through Fannie and Freddie they encouraged bankers to offer loans to people who had no reasonable expectation to pay them back. Hey if you can sell loans and collect the closing costs then foist it off on someone else when the loan never gets paid back would you be picky who you gave it to? Well now everyone can get a loan to buy a house and the housing market booms. Prices are climbing faster than anyone can keep track of and even when a house goes into foreclosure you can turn around and resell it for a profit. Hey, throw your credit card debt on top of your house and pay us the interest, when you can't pay it anymore not our problem. Then when the shit hits the fan, the government does what everyone thought and bailed them out. Everyone involved walks away ridiculously rich, a handful of smaller banks in the middle get put out of business and a few mortgage traders got caught but for the most part the taxpayer is caught holding the bag. Why? Because of Fannie and Freddie government constructs.

Now in my little world every one of those jerks running the Ponzi scheme would have suffered the collapse themselves. The businesses involved should have been left to go out of business and the people who invested and turned a blind eye to their actions should have lost all of their money. If you have nothing to lose in an investment but get the full return you will happily gamble. Imagine you walk into a casino and you are told by someone that they will replace all of your money if you lose you are going to take a lot more risk than you would if you walk in with your own money and suffer the loss personally. Same principle. The government guaranteed protection, why wouldn't they gamble? I have no problem with them gambling, but when they lose the money they should suffer the loss. That way investors will keep a closer eye on what the company does. Government employees treat government money the same way. They don't care how much things cost, they are not paying for it.

As for the multi-million dollar bonuses, who cares? It only affects you if you are an investor. If the investors don't think the bonuses are appropriate they can go invest in a different company or if enough don't like it they can replace the CEO. If a large company is too wasteful with its money it will go out of business (unless the government bails them out). 

On a side note, if you do have a 401k or other retirement investments I strongly encourage you to be very involved in picking and choosing what you are invested in. It is against the law for me to suggest specific investments but educate yourself it is your money and operators of mutual funds do not always have your best interest in mind. If you do use a middle man get to know them VERY well and make sure you trust them. One of the reasons companies get away with being irresponsible is the increase in investors who have no clue what stocks they are invested in because of the increase in 401ks. The average 401k investor can't even tell you what types of funds they are invested in let alone which companies are in those funds. And stocks might be tempting because of the potential for growth but they can collapse rapidly too. Look into commodities, annuities, fixed investments, buying land etc. (Your 401k advisor generally makes more money on stocks and mutual funds so they tend to default to those unless you ask specifically) If you don't have the time or aren't confident enough to choose investments yourself at least educate yourself to the point you can ask specific questions of whoever is doing your investing. Ask them "Why did you invest in company X" and if they can't provide you with a good answer fire them.

For the more adventurous you can look into peer to peer lending in which you are basically acting like a bank and making a loan to an individual. It is a great way for people who have trouble getting loans to get loans from people who have extra money. It can be extremely risky as people often use it as a last resort but you get the pleasure of helping someone with a face. I have invested before and have had good experiences. It is also a great way to loan to family members or friends because you don't have to do the actual collecting which can be harry. Consider it charity with a chance for a return.  

Seems it's not just "big government" they don't like :

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_EmilyB/2010/9/4/Tea-Party-president-jokes-about-murdering-GLBTQ-people

http://mtcowgirl.com/2010/09/06/kristi-allen-gailushas-declares-war-on-the-gay-community/