When members of a board or owners overpay to the tune of $250 million for a soccer player or give someone $33 million as a bonus for one year's work, it is a fundamental injustice to the society in general.
Not its not. Its not "society in general's" money. Its the owners or the companies.
In some cases, the average joe is getting screwed directly as is the case with the overpaid soccer player
The fact that some soccer player gets overpaid doesn't screw you directly.
as excessive as was the congressional pork we saw over the past six years.
Much lower than the amount of pork. More importantly the pork is government spending. If I own a team and decide to pay a player a lot of money I'm not screwing you. If I'm a congressman and I pass a lot of useless (or useful only to special interests, that don't include you) pork spending, I'm screwing the taxpayer.
The majority of the wealthy in this country didn't earn their wealth, they inherited it.
That isn't true.
Of course, its true. How frequently do you think people go from zero assets to $100 million+ in one lifetime without some inherited advantages?
The question isn't relevant to your statement. You said that the majority of the wealthy in this country inherited their wealth. You can have a lot less then $100million and still be wealthy.
It just not true that most of the super wealthy make their own money
I'm not sure that statement is correct either, but even if it is, it doesn't make your original statement correct.
In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions.
That's still not inherited wealth. Your original statement said they didn't earn the money. Even if they had superior schooling and connections that not everyone has access to that doesn't mean they didn't earn it.
Please stop using terms like "confiscate" or "stealing"......not only are those terms grossly inaccurate but they make you sound hysterical.
Your taking it by force or threat of force. If people stop doing that, I'll stop using the term.
No, I said preserving it.
And I asked what you meant, by that term, now you finally seem to answer - "trying to minimize her tax payments", in others words don't take as much of her money. That's a rather odd thing to call perserving her money. Refrainign from foribly confiscating it isn't the same thing as taking active steps to preservie it.
Why are you so concerned for Paris Hilton?
If the unpopular can be trampled on, than others can also be trampled on.
Why are you so concerned about her. You want to make every discussion about her, but she isn't the issue. As I pointed out raising her taxes won't effect her much. But it will effect lots of hard working wealthy but not super wealthy people.
They pay a larger share now than they did then.
Link please.
I've already provided it for you earlier in the conversation. It only goes out to 2004, but the percentage paid by the wealthy increased. There is no evidence that the trend has reversed for 2005 or 2006.
That's right.........it doesn't imply you are not screwing them, its states very emphatically that they are getting screwed period.
It does nothing of the sort. If the mafia makes you provide protection money that's a cost of doing business as well, but it doesn't mean your not getting screwed.
In fact, under the current tax structure, this country has considerable instability.....at least once or twice a year, the poor riot or demonstrate in at least one of our cities.
An occasional demonstration or even riot doesn't indicate considerable instability in a country of 300 million people. Also most countries with higher tax rates also have such demonstrations and riots, unless they also have effective draconian control over the country. Personally I'll take an occasional riot over totalitarianism. |
