PH primitive writes letter to the rich

[USA4ME]

Political Heretic  
 
An Open Letter to Rich People  

Disclaimer: I wanted to write in this "style" simply for effect. I acknowledge that I am making a broad generalization with the term "rich people." It's not my attempt to imply that all persons of great wealth think or act exactly alike. However, when we think about public policy, we can note with substantial evidential backing that wealthy Americans tend to support every tax cut they can find, along with a wide range of conservative economic ideas. This is particularly true when thinking of wealthy individuals actively working in corporate America, and especially in the financial sector (among others.) My "letter" is directed at these particular rich folk.


Dear Rich People,

I'll never understand why, when I talk about the need for wealthy Americans to shoulder a greater burden in taxes, or the need to close loopholes so that corporations pay more substantively toward the cost of keeping America afloat, you always think I'm asking you to do something for charity.

Charity is the furthest thing from my mind! I'm not asking you to be benevolent. Indeed many of you give millions or billions of dollars to various charities. And yet that doesn't change the need for you society to shoulder more of the tax burden than you do. Donating to charity does not guarantee that sufficient funds go to the key infrastructure areas necessary to keep our society healthy.

I cannot figure out why it is so difficult for you to understand that what I am asking you to do is in you own best interests.

Consider these issues from the perspective of what is most beneficial to your sustained and increasing wealth. Right now we have an economy in crisis, and I don't just mean from the most immediate round of recession, more severe than anything most of us have faced in our lifetimes. We have debt spiraling out of control, and we are spending more money than we take in on federal programs. We are on a course that is unsustainable, and leads to economic collapse.

As a rich person, economic collapse would most certainly not be something you would desire, anymore than anyone else would desire it. Economic collapse devalues your wealth and prevents that wealth from growing. But we can't fix our economic problems by simply "ending" all federal spending. Many of you already do not want us to stop spending money on the military, or on our assistance to our international economic or military allies. Which means you look to domestic social spending as the area to cut.

This is absurd, and goes completely against your own best interests! If you are seriously concerned about continuing to make more money and generate more wealth, then a society with unchecked poverty actively impedes that goal. If we end spending designed to create a social safety net for lower-income Americans in various situations, then more people collapse under the weight of debt, more people go bankrupt, more people lose their homes in foreclosure, and more people become dependent on whatever state assistance is left.

All of these outcomes cost money.

And as people become poorer, their ability to function as consumers is diminished. Quite literally, they can't afford to buy your shit anymore. This hits you, dear rich person, right in your pocketbook (or offshore account,) and you thus move to "cut costs" in your businesses. But cutting cost means laying off workers, which throws more people into poverty, creating more people who can't afford to consume.

This cycle impedes the growth of the economy, and also means the that government takes in less revenue to support even the most modest of spending. There is insufficient money for sustaining our countries infrastructure - infrastructure you depend on to do business - which continues to erode. This effects your business' efficiency, and thus profitability. There is insufficient money to support quality education, which means less Americans are getting the training they need to work for you, which contributes to escalating poverty, which impedes their ability to consume.

Collapsing infrastructure, escalating poverty, declining education and a low consumer base makes your society less attractive to investors - domestic and foreign - and impedes your ability to complete effectively on the global stage. In other words, your unwillingness to invest back into the social structure in which you attempt to do business results in the collapse of that structure. And if the structure collapses, so does your business, and so does the value of your assets and wealth.

Alternatively, should you chose to support public policy aimed at strengthening the social infrastructure of your society, you then help create enough revenue for the government to achieve social sustainability - a sustainable society in which you can continue to generate wealth over the long term rather than face economic collapse in the long run. This protects your interests, and the interests of your children and their children's children. Not to mention that it also protects the legacy and success of the companies that you've built and to which you have devoted so much of your life.

Social sustainability requires you to shoulder a substantial portion of the cost of that sustainability. You can't expect the poor to shoulder the bulk of that cost, because they cannot afford to do so. You can't expect the middle-class to shoulder the bulk of that cost, because you will push them into poverty. And either of those choices would lead to the same cycle escalating poverty and decreasing profits previously described.

Which means that there is literally no one else but you who can shoulder the lion's share of the burden for keeping this society running, and running in a sustainable way where you can continue to do business and generate wealth over the long term.

Granted, doing this would require that you "bend" your wealth curve a little bit. In order to create social sustainability, you would have to spend a bit more money on social investment programs (and the easiest way to do this is by paying substantive taxes to the government, high enough that they will adequately fund necessary social investments in infrastructure and elevated quality of life for people in poverty.) And that would mean making a little less money annually.

But doing so would mean that you would still be making profit each year, and you would be doing so while supporting a sustainable market society in which you could be secure in your long term future. You would keep society well-functioning, so that your children would have an excellent chance at matching or exceeding your success. If you don't choose to do this, you will be able to make more money immediately. This is true. But it will be unsustainable, and ultimately you will lose everything, or your children will inherit a failed market and lose everything, and the legacy of the businesses you worked so hard to make successful will be destroyed.

I recommended that you support high enough taxes to adequately fund necessary social investments, and I said that included investments that would elevate quality of life for people in poverty. This is what I think you don't understand: I'm not asking you to do this out of the kindness of your heart. You could believe that all poor people are lazy and stupid and that it is entirely their own fault that they are poor. But guess what? It would still be in your best interest to support (through adequate taxation) social investment programs designed to lift people out of poverty. Why? Simple: so that they can buy your shit.

You have to decide what is more important to you. Is it more important for you to be morally self-righteous and refuse support social investment programs on principle, because you think poor people are lazy? Or is it more important for you to make money in a sustainable way, so that the economy does not collapse, so that you continue to create more wealth for yourself, so that you can pass on wealth to your children as well as a society that is still healthy enough to allow them to succeed?

Let me repeat that: you have to decide what is more important to you. Is it more important to you to make exponentially more money in the short run by demanding tax cuts and corporate giveaways and by opposing all social spending and regulation, even though that choice will lead ultimately to economic ruin and eventually end your ability to make money? Or, is it more important for you to bend your wealth creation curve downward a little bit, and spend a little money now on social sustainability so that you can continue to make money over the long run?

The choice is yours, but it would really be nice if you'd stop making idiotic decisions that actively undermine your own best interests and think about the big picture - for your own sake, and the sake of your future generations.

Love,
PH

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7684291

What a mental midget!  Reading this was like reading the economic viewpoint of someone in Junior High, at best.  Nothing but a bunch of "gimme, gimme, gimme" from the crowd that wants all the benefits without any sacrifice.

PH primitive, the wealthy have forgotten more about economics and how it works than you could ever hope to learn in a lifetime.  Are you actually so stupid you believe you could say anything to them they don't already understand in ways you never will?  It's seems the answer is "Yes."

The foolish PH primitive automatically loses the argument when he says things like "I cannot figure out why it is so difficult for you to understand that what I am asking you to do is in you own best interests" and "it would really be nice if you'd stop making idiotic decisions that actively undermine your own best interests."  PH primitive, you are not now, nor will you ever be, in a position to decide what is and isn't in someone else's best interest.  To claim you do is childish, but it's what we've all come to expect from the primitives on Skin's island.

.

[jukin]

That's why the DUmbass does not run a business.

Just as Obama thinks that what small business needs is more credit this asshole has no idea what goes on. If we pay more taxes there is less money for employees, assets, and inventory. Contrary to what the noted small businessman, Obama, thinks what we need is less expenses (taxes, regulations, and mandated employee benefits) and some demand. We have not had one Request For Quote (RFQ) in the last year. The average cycle between RFQ and order is usually 6 months. I think the thing that the noted small businessman, Obama, does not understand is that loans have to be repaid (of course Obama is not into that so much) and I'm on the hook for that. The only conclusion is that Obama expects me to liquidate my ill gotten gains from years of hard work to pay people that i do not need nor want. The noted small businessman, Obama, having never worked in the private sector and only the government thinks that the loan is FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE monay.

[Wineslob]

Seriously, the DUmpmonkiees still continue to surprise me with the soaring heights their stupidity can reach.


Political Heretic, watch the pavement when you hit ground zero.

[The Village Idiot]

I think I could support a Hollywood/Media Tax of 90%.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I cannot figure out why it is so difficult for you to understand that what I am asking you to do is in you own best interests.

Hmmm, why do you idiots always say that?  The "rich" already pay a lot in taxes, and they should just volunteer to pay more...in their "best interests"?

[AllosaursRus]

Hmmm, why do you idiots always say that?  The "rich" already pay a lot in taxes, and they should just volunteer to pay more...in their "best interests"?

It's the same as them saying "trickle down" never works. We're all just supposed to look to our fairy godmothers, (read gubmint), in order to get to the ball.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Time is money, bitch.  Nobody who's making money is going to waste their precious time reading that repetitive and ill-conceived pile of crap.

[Chris_]

MEMO TO:  Leftist Class Pimps

MEMO FROM:  The Rich

SUBJECT:  Money

Just a reminder......money is quite portable......it can be moved in an electronic instant.  Cut the crap, or we will move our money, jobs, goods, businesses, ideas, and creativity elsewhere, and you can try to build your "social utopia" on the backs of those too stupid (or lazy) to leave........that is why we are rich, and you aren't. 

Have a nice day.......

doc

[BEG]

I think I could support a Hollywood/Media Tax of 90%.

They would find a way around it.  The truly wealthy can move money offshore and find ways around paying taxes.  Like the ones who live in California, they buy a house in another state and claim the other state as their primary residence to avoid paying higher taxes.  Those are the kind who support Obama, hypocrites. 

The regular people who will have to pay are the "rich" who aren't quite "rich" enough to do the "creative accounting" and hide money or able to have a 2nd home in a cheaper state.  Obama always says he doesn't want to give Buffett a tax break.  How ridiculous, how many "Buffett's" are there in the US?  How many people make the amount that Buffett makes?  It is a total sham of a talking point.  How many small business owners make $200k (if single $250k is married)?  They can't afford to pass the increase in taxes on to the consumer like big corporations do,  they will just have a hiring freeze and let some go. 

Forbes

For the vast majority of Americans, the biggest change is the Making Work Pay tax credit, included in the stimulus. Individuals earning up to $75,000 will receive $400 back from the government. Families earning up to $150,000 will get $800 back. (For individuals earning between $75,000 and $95,000 and couples earning between $150,000 to $190,000, the credit will gradually phase out.)

I know that $400-$800 is a lot of money but do those of you who will receive that money want to do it at the expense of others who pay your paycheck?  You want to have a job next year?  I'm sure everyone on DU would answer yes.  Heck they think $75k is RICH (don't get me wrong $75k a year is nothing to sneeze at but RICH?)

This is almost exactly the tax cut Obama promised on the campaign trail--the size of the cut was reduced by Congress to $400 from the $500 Obama had wanted. The tax cut is structured so that families that already pay no income tax still receive the credit. A family earning $35,000 with two children would owe no income tax and would, in fact, receive $4,100 in refundable tax credits under the administration proposal. Under prior law--before the stimulus--they would have received just $2,900 from the government.

THIS DRIVES ME ****ING CRAZY.  They would have received "JUST" $2,900 from the GOVERNMENT?  Don't they mean from YOU and ME?!?  I actually don't have a problem with a family making $35k to pay little to no taxes but to get money back that they never paid in really pisses me off.  I am sorry if you are one in the category but how much sense does it make to give people $4,100k every year and tax those that actually pay taxes or those that create jobs?  IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY.

At higher income levels, however, taxes will get complicated quickly. Many of the specific tax breaks in the stimulus package phase out at different tax levels (see "So What's in the Stimulus for You? Nothing!"). The stimulus also includes a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax--without the fix, millions of middle income taxpayers would have been hit by the AMT and forced to pay a higher tax bill.

But for high-earners, the biggest change will come from the tax increases the president proposed as part of his budget. (See "Who Will Pay for Obama's Plans?") Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. If Obama gets Congress to cooperate, then beginning in 2011 single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 (more than $250,000 for couples) would see the top ordinary income tax rate rise to 39.6% from 35%.

Another tax code tweak unveiled in Obama's budget is a change to itemized deductions. Families earning more than $250,000 would take deductions against a 28% tax rate, instead of the tax rate they're actually paying. For many upper-income tax payers, this not only increases their tax burden but reduces their incentive to give to charities (see "Short-Changing Charities"). These changes too would require Congress to go along with it, something it might be less than thrilled to do if it hurts charities.

Soak the "rich".  $250k in California isn't the same as $250k in Oklahoma.  **** off DU

[USA4ME]

RaleighNCDUer

14. Charities give people fish. Government programs teach people to fish.

 

Just think about how stupid you'd have to be to actually believe something like that.

.

[The Village Idiot]

Okay. No more food stamps but we will have fishing classes. Next door to the fisting classes for the 10 years olds.

[Ralph Wiggum]

It's the same as them saying "trickle down" never works. We're all just supposed to look to our fairy godmothers, (read gubmint), in order to get to the ball.

I know.  I momentarily forgot that we're talking about true DUmmies for a second.

[Chris]

Okay. No more food stamps but we will have fishing classes. Next door to the fisting classes for the 10 years olds.

And all hospitals will have white light, good thoughts, and burning sage for DUmmies in lieu of actual health care.

[delilahmused]

Dear Rich People (and Corporations):

Please continue to make money. The more money you make the  more my stock in your company increases, increasing my personal wealth. When your business grows you hire more people. The more people with jobs, the more disposable income people have to buy my fresh, free-range eggs, which also increases my personal wealth. Your success insures my success!

Cindie

[The Village Idiot]

And all hospitals will have white light, good thoughts, and burning sage for DUmmies in lieu of actual health care.

And they will all have red lights flashing. blink blink blink blink.

[Specbid]

Social sustainability requires you to shoulder a substantial portion of the cost of that sustainability.

Sheesh, DUmmie. The rich already DO SHOULDER the cost of "social sustainability." They pay the vast majority of taxes.

STOP spending someone else's money.

[Specbid]

We have debt spiraling out of control, and we are spending more money than we take in on federal programs. We are on a course that is unsustainable, and leads to economic collapse...

This quote from DUmmie asshat, political heretic cracks me up. Wake up asshole...the solution starts with STOP SPENDING.

[thundley4]

This quote from DUmmie asshat, political heretic cracks me up. Wake up asshole...the solution starts with STOP SPENDING.

You have to remember that this comes from DUmmies. They also believe that too much credit card debt is the fault of the credit card company and not their own spending habits.

[Specbid]

You have to remember that this comes from DUmmies. They also believe that too much credit card debt is the fault of the credit card company and not their own spending habits.

I hear ya. Don't know why I try to talk sense. Wouldn't work even if said DUmmie would read it. :clueless:

[Carl]

With their grasp of economics they will never get beyond the level of poverty.

[notaDUmmie]

Just think about how stupid you'd have to be to actually believe something like that.

.

Not to mention that by the time the government bureaucrats are done, the fish will have feet and won't be able to swim.

[USA4ME]

Went looking at the Political Heretic primitives DUmmie journal and figured out who this idiot is.  His former primitive name was Selwynn, he's a tinkerbelle, and he's dumber than a bag of hammers.  I ran into this dolt a few years back when I was trolling some lib site, called him out on a bunch of non-sense about economics, and he put forth the most simple-minded arguments that could possibly be imagined.  I see nothing has changed and he's as worthless and stupid as he ever was.

.

[The Village Idiot]

Went looking at the Political Heretic primitives DUmmie journal and figured out who this idiot is.  His former primitive name was Selwynn, he's a tinkerbelle, and he's dumber than a bag of hammers.  I ran into this dolt a few years back when I was trolling some lib site, called him out on a bunch of non-sense about economics, and he put forth the most simple-minded arguments that could possibly be imagined.  I see nothing has changed and he's as worthless and stupid as he ever was.

I would tend to think someone as barely literate and with such a brain damaged view of the world is going to spend their spare time reading Hayek or Von Mises.