weekend4trvl wrote:What he meant was "you've made enough money to be put into a higher tax bracket ". He speaks for the majority. The Obama's and the Clinton's make lot's of money and pay lot's of taxes. King George I and II make lot's , but hide it through legal loopholes. Two families that pay their freight and two others that play us for fools.
A distinction without a difference. He means at some point you've made enough that you shouldn't be allowed to keep it; that he and his cronies know how to spend it better, know who is more deserving of it. Since money is the root of all evil, and if those who seek it are bad, greedy people, has it ever occurred to you to ask why it is that money (and lots of it) is invariably the solution for every "problem" that the libs gin up?
Anyone who spouts the "at some point you've made enough" line simply has NO CLUE about how an economy works, or how wealth is created. Over time, the stock market produces a reasonable rate of return for investors. But most companies fail, and most are never listed on any exchange. Most that don't fail plod along making a modest return for their owners. And all of them employ people who then house and feed their families, and spend money on goods and services, making the wheels of our economy go around. So it is PRECISELY the fantastic successes of companies like Google, MS, eBay, Starbucks, etc., that produce the overall reasonable rate of return in the stock market. Since most companies lose money, break even, or produce a nominal return on investment, there MUST be some chance of fantastic success in order to warrant any investment at all. Nobody knows in advance which companies are going to make or lose money, and nobody in their right mind would invest if they were only allowed to own the full results of their bad and mediocre investment choices.
And, contrary to your ridiculous assertion that Obama "speaks for the majority," most people in this country would prefer when their pensions and 401k's are invested in a company's stock that the large stakeholders in that company are highly incentivized to continue to try to make high profits. Unlike any other country (with the possible exception of Australia), the United States was founded on the principles of individual freedom and self-determination. Which means we don't resent another person's success. We admire it, and we seek to emulate it...or hitch our wagon to it if we can. We don't care about equality of outcomes, only equality of opportunity. We understand that our only gifts are life and the freedom to do with it what we choose. So we don't expect other people to take care of us, or pay for our mistakes. We understand that if we choose to live a more leisurely life, or to raise kids, or not spend years in college, etc., that we probably won't achieve the same financial success as people who make those sacrifices. But we accept that trade and don't expect those people to give up the benefit of their bargain. Because expecting that is pathetic, and, unlike the mewling Europeans rioting in the streets for their government handouts, we are not a pathetic people.
Or at least that's the majority position today. When half the country already pays no income tax, and our leadership is growing entitlement programs as fast as it possibly can (while railing incessantly against sucess), it's only a matter of time before the culture of entitlement and
ressentiment become entrenched here, like it already is in places like Greece and the other failing Western democracies. The left has a two-pronged strategy; 1) create as many government dependants as possible, and 2) import and naturalize as many people with third-world values and expectations as possible. Homegrown socialism and imported Marxism: unless we take a stand, the combination will eventually send this country to the scrap heap.
For your edification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s
