Math isn't your strong suit is it Ken? Of course 50% is greater than 60%
but just because I have an IQ 50% higher than you doesn't mean that you can
bench press 60% more than me.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "owning 60% of the
wealth" and "paying 50% of the income tax." The two are barely related.
Many of those 5% paying 50% of the taxes have very little "wealth" ie
assets. Most of them are doctors, lawyers and business owners that blow
every penny they make just like the poor guy does. They just blow it on
more expensive things like European vacations and cars and "stuff."
Is this an "accident?" Or the result of a "silver spoon" being in their
mouths when born? I think not.
I have bought two books because they had a handful of paragraphs. From ISBN
1-56052-078-7 page 9,
Here's proof that planning works. Back in the 1950s, a behavioral research
team from the Harvard Business School took a random sample of 100 members of
the senior class and asked them what they would like to be doing 10 years
from graduation. All 100 said they would like to be wealthy, successful,
and significant forces in the business world.
The researchers noted that of the 100 seniors, only 10 had drawn up specific
goals and put them in writing.
Ten years later, the research team paid a follow-up visit to the 100
subjects. They found that the 10 graduates who had written down their goals
*owned 96 percent of the total wealth* of the 100-student sample.
Planning *does* pay off.
I know people who are millionaires. I have met a billionaire. I am still a
hundred-aire or thousand-aire.
IMO the people I know who MADE IT, actually MADE IT by hard work, multiple
failures, sacrifice, etc. They have already paid more than their "fair
share" of taxes (*) They furthered their education when others of their
generation were watching TV. They contemplated their futures while others
were contemplating their navels. Why punish those who chose to succeed?
Why reward those (like me) who tried to do as little as they could and still
(*) I am in favor of a 100% flat tax at some certain rate. People making
$100/month pay X%. People making $1,000,000 / month pay X%.
BTW, I know I'll pay more taxes under the flat rate plan. That's fine with
I had an email conversation with this person in January 2004. In the 45
years it has taken this billionaire to amass his fortune he has read over
6,500 biographies. It was his desire to emulate the things others found
sucessful and avoid the things others found fruitless. Using the yardstick
of $$, IMO he has been successful. I have many books, but I'm no where
close to having read 6500 biographies!
Many of us (myself included) have spent 40 +/- years with items of little
import. IMO the tiny few who focused on the important things should not be
taxed on their foresight, especially when they have already paid on the
order of 2x their "fair share" of the taxes!
Will someone *PLEASE* take issue with this? <g> 45 years ago this guy
couldn't really read a newspaper. 40 years later he's selling videos to
people like me for $1k.
Yes, he's read over six thousand, five hundred biographies. No sense
replicating the mistakes of others. Only fools don't learn from history.
I meant, they (the more well to do) got more stuff that needs
protectin', for example. They're much more interested in order and
law, for example. Versus a bum on the street, or even a step or two
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:27:30 GMT, Mark & Juanita
Now, who has the mansion that needs protectin' from burglars? The
lovely Porsche? Who has loads of dough that needs protectin'? If you
ain't got nothing, what the heck do you need to protect? OTOH, you
might be a tad jealous that some folks just get all the breaks and try
to even things out by takin's a bit from the richer folk.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:54:48 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
You sort of missed the point.
Firstly, there's much less crime in wealthy areas - in large part
because it takes a lot of effort for criminals to move from where
they're at to where the rich folk live, and criminals tend to be
lazy. So the guy with the Porsche is at less risk of it being
stolen than the guy with the beatup 79 Cutlass.
Secondly, if the Porsche is stolen, the owner calls the insurance,
goes to work in his other car, and goes out & buys a new Porsche
when the insurance pays off. The guy with the 79 Cutlass, on the
otherhand, is screwed if it's stolen - no insurance, no money to
replace it, and how's he going to get to work today?
You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't people on the left who
don't want to take money away from the wealthy and distribute it "more
fairly". As for paying their fair share, it has been pointed out about two
dozen times in this thread that the top 5% of wage earners earn about 35% of
all income, but pay 56% of all income tax. Conversely, the bottom 50% of
wage earners earned about 14% of all income, but paid 4% of all income tax.
If you want a progressive tax system, it looks like we've got it.
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
wrote in message
I know it doesn't sound as good in a sound bite as "we want these rich
people to pay their fair share". I think a lot of people would be surprised
to find out that they are, in fact, rich by the definition of many on the
left. I also enjoy listening to people like Warren Buffet who think the
rich are undertaxed. With a net worth of 30 billion or so, if he thinks
he's undertaxed, he should send a few billion extra to the Treasury
He could really show the strength of his convictions by emulating the old
Millionaire TV show with about 10 or 20 of his 30 billion and create
10,000 or 20,000 new millionaires from the available pool of poor people.
That way, he'd eliminate the big scrape off of government. But can you
imagine the chorous of wailing when all those new millionaires saw over
half of their new found wealth disappearing down the gullet of the
Not only that but many of those new millionaires will be broke
again in no time. I don't envy the rich, I just don't want to do
what it takes to get there. Often the rich kids squander
inherited money by not having the personal makeup of the
overacheiver that got it in the first place. I suppose that's
true redistribution of wealth in action.
Something I have found that helps with the mental gymnastics when
encountering statements from such as Mr Buffet who say the rich need to
pay their fair share, or Barbra Streisand who say we must protect the
environment (while living in a mansion and being driven around in limos)
is you need to add the things they fail to add to their statements that
provide what they really mean. In Buffet's case it is something on the
order of "The other rich need to pay their fair share", or Barbra, "We
[you] need to preserve the environment for me" HTH
Is that a little bit like the "Don't eat animals" guy who wears leather shoes
"Character is much easier kept than recovered." Thomas Paine
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.