At some point, you have enough money

  • Follow Letters

In what twisted reality does the worker become the enemy of freedom? How is it that the needs of the working man have turned into "socialism?" Why is it that the huge majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest and all they ask for is more, more, more?

When you have $10 million or $100 million a year and you're taxed at, say, 35 percent, that's not huge. When you're a working-class person, that's the difference between having a roof over your head and living under a bridge.

The theory of "trickle-down" economics has not really worked out; it's more "trickle-up" or "trickle-parallel." There is only so much a person can consume. There is so much they can lend to the economy before they plateau, and that money piles up in bank accounts somewhere just collecting interest.

I'm not saying seize money from the rich. I'm saying that, at some point, you have enough money, and you have a moral responsibility to start spreading the wealth around.

When I see the wealthiest people, their lobbyists and political puppets asking us to give more and accept slashes to public education or other programs that provide for the common welfare and allow a chance at upward mobility, righteous indignation sets in. You can only push people so far down before they rise up and demand change.

I always hear people bust out the examples of unionized auto workers who make six figures a year assembling cars, and say that's not right. How is that wrong when that person has worked decades to achieve that seniority and pay grade, yet someone who has never gotten their hands dirty can make millions a year sitting in a board room?

People say the executives earned it. Really? So when did learning to game the system and negotiate your way to the top become more honorable than an honest day's labor?

Shayne Felberg

Augusta

Comments (59) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 04/28/11 - 02:20 am
0
0
Since when has success become

Since when has success become a crime?

Since when is working in the board room a bad thing?

Are we going to appoint a czar to be the arbiter of who has too much money and who doesn't have enough, who earned it and who gamed the system, who deserves it and who doesn't?

Would you say Bill Gates "gamed" the system by being smart? Or would you say that auto worker "gamed" the system by demaning higher wages and Viagra?

onlysane1left
216
Points
onlysane1left 04/28/11 - 06:04 am
0
0
Amen Shayne. I will never

Amen Shayne. I will never advocate for forcing people to fund less fortunate, but the rich always get their way in government and always before the rest of the "common" people. They are afforded opportunies most will never get, they can divert funds and pay what they wish in taxes, while the rest of us can not even think of doing that. We have a governmental spending problem, and increasing the revenue wouldn't gurt, but the rich are crying they will not hire and share if the government raise their taxes. (Just to show you how powerful this fascist state that we live in is going, the taxes won't be raised because the politicians don't want to make the rich mad.) The wishes of the people are suppose run the government, but from where I stand, only the wishes of the affluent get what they want while the rest of us take the scraps we can get.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 04/28/11 - 06:34 am
0
0
our captilistic system has

our captilistic system has given us the highest standard of living ever..i'LL bet that our poor would be considered rich in most countries..tv cars ipods and cell phones are not just the domain of the rich and the middle class, our poor have these too.. 47 percent of households dont even pay income taxes so you want more of that 53 percent who do pay taxes.. what a person earns legally is none of my businesss or yours to be honest..there is too much give away by our govt that 40 percent of the households get refund checks without paying a dime..no if you are jealous of the rich that the moral issue..and the attitue of those who want to tax more is that anyone who makes a dollar more than me is rich..the rich owes nothing more to the country that played by the game than pay their taxes. but most of them give far more but its not to the govt.. its charities and in many ways they have contributed more than you can fathom..they create jobs bying hiring for their buisness or simply by what they buy..you want to be rich ..work hard and take advantage of the oppurtunities that our country provides to its citizens..this you owe me mentality has got to stop..BE A GROWN UP

copperhead
1035
Points
copperhead 04/28/11 - 06:50 am
0
0
WHO decides when a person has

WHO decides when a person has enough money? If it were me,when a person earns $50,000,the rest should be given to the government to cover their expenses. NOBODY needs more than $50,000 a year no matter how long or hard they work. If anyone has more than $100,000 in assets,it should be taken and redistributed amoung welfare recipients.

rubyjean
0
Points
rubyjean 04/28/11 - 07:32 am
0
0
My comment is ment with

My comment is ment with upmost respect...the writer sounds like a union Gov. employee.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 04/28/11 - 07:44 am
0
0
copperhead-if you serious i

copperhead-if you serious i feel very sad for our country and you. our standard of living would be equal to north korea if you had your way...how sad

faithson
5134
Points
faithson 04/28/11 - 08:23 am
0
0
what profit a man if he gains

what profit a man if he gains a fortune and losses his soul ? Pray tell how a man can have enormous amounts of money and 'not' be compelled to put this 'material achievement' above all else (become selfish). It is a unique soul who can balance this equation, not your average over compensated banker, insurance man, lawyer or politician. Senator Wellstone said it best: When promoting legislation, remember: the rich and the corporations will 'always' take care of themselves. ALWAYS

citizen7
49
Points
citizen7 04/28/11 - 08:44 am
0
0
..."a moral responsibility to

..."a moral responsibility to start spreading the weath around" ? Really?The fact is, you will NEVER be able to legislate morality. Unless our goverment becomes a kind of communist society that dictates what your values should be, this will never happen. That is not to say that rich people are stingy. I donate over 15% to worthy charities. I would rather be in control of where my donations go that let the goverment, that supports causes I do not agree with (ie. abortion), do so. Also, government has proven itself to be horrible at money management anyhow. You look at any state with these socialist mentalities and they are in the crapper. Very simple to understand.

Dudeness
1543
Points
Dudeness 04/28/11 - 09:12 am
0
0
The more I work, the more

The more I work, the more money I can make. The day that I have made enough money is the day I stop working. Charity is a personal choice that should be made by each person. Once money is taken from someone to give to another, it is theft no matter how you spin it. That is not charity and is not moral. Coveting another person's possessions is not good for the soul if you are not willing to work to attain those things yourself. It is American to view what another person has and say to yourself that you want to work your butt off to do as well as they have, but not to take it from them for yourself. The more you subsidize something, the more of that something you will have. Please do not kid yourself. The "poor" work the system as well or better than the "rich". The difference is that the "poor" are gaining things they never had or worked for while the "rich" are trying to hold on to a little more of what they have earned. I notice that Obama took tax deductions for charitable donations among other items in 2010 to help lower his taxable rate by approximately 10%. Did he "game the system"?

dani
12
Points
dani 04/28/11 - 10:03 am
0
0
Is the letter writer saying

Is the letter writer saying that the employer of the person making in the 6 figures should be a poor man?
Copperhead, you are on today LOL

TheFederalist
1
Points
TheFederalist 04/28/11 - 10:25 am
0
0
Sorry Shayne, but your

Sorry Shayne, but your deluded premise is about a wrong as most liberal rhetoric gets these days. You don't cast haughty moral condemnation on someone just because they earned more money than the average bear. Especially when the top 50% pay almost all of the taxes in this country, which means the other 50% pay nothing. The wealthy worked to get their wealth, and it is theirs to give away if they so choose, or to horde it and slobber over every legally gained cent. Your childish wealth envy is way out of bounds, and if you would just stop drinking the liberal cool-aid, you might just develop an understanding of how the free market system really works. Your kind of bleeding heart, progressive liberal thinking created the entitlement sub-culture in the first place, and someday when reality finally takes hold, these will be the first to riot in the streets when the freebies stop, making the austerity riots in Europe look tame by comparison.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 04/28/11 - 10:25 am
0
0
Individual wealth is a result

Individual wealth is a result of national wealth as well as individual motivation. Take a man that made his fortune in America, have him born in North Korea instead, and I guarantee he would be dirt-poor. If the "job creators" reinvested their gains into the very society that enabled them in the first place, increased taxation of wealth would probably be a non-issue. However, the past decade clearly shows that this wealth is increasingly being sent to create jobs overseas while the very source of this wealth is being bled dry.

Those that argue this is a good thing are bequeathing their children a nation of bones picked clean by blind obeisance to capital.

dichotomy
32081
Points
dichotomy 04/28/11 - 10:30 am
0
0
Wealthy people MAY have a

Wealthy people MAY have a moral obligation to help others but the government should not have the LEGAL right to tax one man at a higher percentage than another. The "soak the rich" advocates talk about people who "need" the money but "need" is subjective. The liberals feel like anyone who doesn't want to work "needs" federal dollars.....dollars stolen from people who work, invest, take risks, and are successful.

The ability to make money and become "more wealthy" by working and investing is what makes this economy work. Those of you that want to take most of what people make will eventually pull the plug on the merrygoround and we will all be equally poor. And THAT "poor" will be even more poor than the "poor" we have today. Take a look around folks. Even the Russians and the Chinese have discovered that capitalism and having some wealthy people is the ONLY thing that works. I applaud the rich folks because I know that when they quit making, and keeping, their money the whole machine stops. No jobs, no taxes, and NO WELFARE for anyone. Why invest and take risks if some communist is going to take everything you make?

Personally, I would like to see the "poor" people a little poorer.......like poor enough to be hungry. When our "poor" get hungry they will actually get off of their butts and go to work. Instead of soaking the rich, the best thing we could do is zero out all welfare programs except for the elderly and the 100% physically disabled. They are the only ones we have a "moral responsibility" to help. The rest are just leeches.

Now, can the rich pay more taxes without being crippled? Probably. And I would support taxing them another 5% or 10%......temporarily. But ONLY if every penny of that tax went to pay down the outstanding DEBT. Notice I said DEBT, not the deficit. The spending should be cut today to where we are only spending what we take in each year so the DEFICIT should be ZERO....immediately. Any extra taxation of the rich should only be used to pay down our DEBT.

Deficit and debt are two different things and the "soak the rich" liberals want to take more money from people who make a lot of money and keep spending it on welfare programs and union giveaways. They never want to pay off the debt. They want MORE money to spend on more welfare. The spending has to stop......now. Cut government to the bone until we are only spending what we make. THEN, and only then, would I consider supporting a few extra percentage points of tax on people making $500,000 or more to be used ONLY toward paying off our outstanding DEBT. When the DEBT is paid off tax rates should return to the same flat rate for everyone and paid on every dollar that moves in the economy from capital gains and corporate income to drug dealers and welfare checks. Every person getting a dollar from anywhere should put some skin in the tax game.

kmb413
533
Points
kmb413 04/28/11 - 10:38 am
0
0
LOL copperhead! This is a

LOL copperhead!

This is a typical give me attitude letter.

Darby
25053
Points
Darby 04/28/11 - 11:04 am
0
0
"(F)rom where I stand, only

"(F)rom where I stand, only the wishes of the affluent get what they want while the rest of us take the scraps we can get." Now that's really funny. Of course if it were really true, we wouldn't have the world's greatest loser in the White House now, would we? A man who never held a real job, dictating economic policies while destroying our country.

Getting back to the author of today's letter. What person making $10 to one hundred million a year only pays 35 percent in taxes? That letter is so weak and so devoid of fact that I'm surprised that it was even published.

Who decides when someone else has "enough" money? The letter writer must feel qualified. By that same standard, I'm more than qualified to decide when he, or others, can or can't father children, where he can establish residence, whether or not he can buy that car, computer or TV he's been looking at, whether or not he must (or not) take a second job or put his wife to work to help the government meet it's "needs". Needs created by decades and decades of reckless governmental conduct.

You want to talk "trickle down economics"? What do you call it when about seventy percent of the tax dollars extorted by the government is lost in the morass of bureaucracy and inefficiency and about thirty percent gets back into the hands of the people? It should be called a crime. Progressives and liberals call it good and "fair" government.

I'd love that job since running other people's lives is so easy. It's a snap and you can't deny it worked exceedingly well for the former Soviet Union, for China before they started experimenting with capitalism. (Now they're beating us at our own game.) and most of all for North Korea. Shayne's "system" works really great doesn't it?

If you subsidize failure, all you get for your efforts is more and greater failure. "(F)rom where I stand, only the wishes of the affluent get what they want while the rest of us take the scraps we can get." Face it, you and those like you who embrace the politics of envy don't even deserve those scraps.

follower
59
Points
follower 04/28/11 - 11:14 am
0
0
Typical from both sides are

Typical from both sides are the answers to the issues of taxation. For every opinion there is an opposite opinion. It's the same blather day after day and it seems no one will change their position. And so it goes...

But the last two paragraphs of the letter are concerning. Since when is working with your hands more respected than working with your mind? It's an insult to engineers, psychologist, many physicians, scientist, and of course, the businessperson. [certainly there are more, but you get the gist]

The laborer is to be applauded, but not the one that designed the machinery? The lineman is to be held in high esteem, but the nuclear scientist that designed the entire system to flow electricity through those lines is denigrated?

Are so many under the illusion that decision making on so many levels that affects thousands of people is a walk in the park? If you're working with your mind, you're not really working?

Class warfare comes from the perception that one person is more integral to an operation than another and that he/she "deserves" more than what they are being compensated. But perception is NOT reality, but only perception.

It's relatively easy to replace a line worker. CEO's that can run billion dollar companies don't grow on trees. Why is it that we don't seem to have a problem with million dollar athletes, but balk at million dollar CEO's? There's only so many of each. Compensation will always depend on supply and demand. Everyone can't be the CEO of IBM. Everyone has
equal rights, but not equal ability.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 04/28/11 - 11:37 am
0
0
Maybe we should take Ayn

Maybe we should take Ayn Rand's stance on this, who believed that inherited wealth was a societal evil. Keep the fruit of your labor while your alive, but prevent a system that concentrates 40% of our nation's wealth in the hands of 1% of the population, creating a de facto oligarchy on par with that which Rand railed against.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 04/28/11 - 11:42 am
0
0
*you're

*you're

Asitisinaug
3
Points
Asitisinaug 04/28/11 - 11:46 am
0
0
Shayne, most wealthy spread

Shayne, most wealthy spread the wealth around just fine. Bottom line should be that it belongs to them to decide how to spread it or spend it, not the government.

Anyways, I assume you are a decent individual and probably donate to a charity each year of some sort. Do you do this because this is how you best feel you can make a positive difference in the world? Or, maybe you actually donate to the federal government each year although it is very doubtful. You see, rich or not, most people would agree that the federal government does a pathetic job of managing our money so why would anyone of any amount of wealth wish to provide them with more money to waste.

And, who exactly thinks that giving 35% of every penny they make to the government isn't huge no matter what your are making? 35% to the feds, 6% or more to the state, property taxes, a minimum of 7% on all purchases, gas taxes, etc. are all on top of this 35% number you are throwing out there meaning someone is paying more that 50% of every penny they earn so that non-productive Americans can sit at home and draw a check as well as be provided food, housing and many other services.

Sounds like you have some righteous indignation yourslef and if you think providing more money to schools makes them better then look at the resluts of our current public education system compared to our private schools that operate at 50% less on average. How about school vouchers at least?

The government needs to stick to the basics, period. People should be able to keep what THEY earn with the exception of a fair amount that everyone should pay to support our country.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruit of their labor.”

Darby
25053
Points
Darby 04/28/11 - 11:57 am
0
0
Burninator - You're

Burninator - You're serious???? You would trust the government to decide what (if anything) you are allowed to leave to your heirs?? Just what does the election or appointment to office do to create this new found wisdom in our "leaders". Where does it start and where does it end? Who decides? No system is going to be "fair" but one administered through a governmental bureaucracy is assured to be the least efficient and least "fair" of all.

Some would say that government applied and enforced morality is worse than no morality at all. In most cases they would be correct...

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 04/28/11 - 12:09 pm
0
0
Darby, first off, the myth of

Darby, first off, the myth of private firms being more efficient than public entities -- do you have any evidence supporting this? Those that HAVE looked at the evidence find that this is not actually the case:

"However, the empirical evidence and the theoretical debates do not support this assumption. There is a consistent stream of empirical evidence consistently and repeatedly showing that there is no systematic significant difference between public and private operators in terms of efficiency or other performance measures. The theory behind the assumption of private sector superiority is also being shown to have serious flaws."

http://www.psiru.org/reports/2005-10-W-effic.doc

The link has the entire report text.

Secondly, estate taxation already exists -- we don't need to assemble a new structure to handle it. Simply return taxation levels to where they have been for the past three generations -- you know, that golden America that people are mourning? -- and curb the trend towards oligarchy that is destroying the American middle class.

Dixieland4
0
Points
Dixieland4 04/28/11 - 12:50 pm
0
0
Ain't that special. They

Ain't that special. They deleted my post. I still say let Mr. Felburg set the example as he would be considered rich by the poorest of poor's standards.

Darby
25053
Points
Darby 04/28/11 - 12:58 pm
0
0
"Darby, first off, the myth

"Darby, first off, the myth of private firms being more efficient than public entities -- do you have any evidence supporting this? Those that HAVE looked at the evidence find that this is not actually the case:"

First of all, I never said anything about comparative efficiency. However, if I had, it would have been to refute your position. You can believe what you like. We all have different opinions, some based in fact, others in ideology. I have a degree in economics and that colors my opinion.

My position is influenced heavily by a strong distrust in government, much like the views of our founding fathers which served us so well for more than two hundred years.

You take the arrogant and incorrect position that I don't know where of l speak. "Those that HAVE looked at the evidence find that this is not actually the case"...

Actually, I have looked, studied and accumulated as much data as I need to form my conclusions.. Long story short, driven by the profit motive, private enterprise is better at almost everything. Government does a pretty fair job of military defense because money is of no concern when faced with annihilation.

Unfortunately, the bureaucrats take the same view regarding money with everything else they attempt. Don't even get me started on how internal budgets are justified to congress every fiscal year. TTFN

Blue in Red State
0
Points
Blue in Red State 04/28/11 - 12:59 pm
0
0
You all seem to think

You all seem to think everyone whose wealthy earned it - not true, most inherited. Bill Gates is leaving almost all of his wealth to his foundation, not his kids. I have always believed this to be true, that at some point you have enough and by law, should have to pay taxes at a higher rate than the working class. Or eliminate income taxes & charge a national sales tax, paid on everything purchased. If you buy a $20,000 car you pay the same percentage as someone who pays for a $250,000 car. Same with houses - $100,000 pays the same percentage as $1,000,000. That's fair - but to allow them to pay less because they "create jobs" has been a falacy since Ronald Regan.

JesusSavesAtCitiBank
2
Points
JesusSavesAtCitiBank 04/28/11 - 02:27 pm
0
0
People are constantly in fear

People are constantly in fear of countries like Sweden, the Netherlands and other places like that and call them socialist when they are really not. They are constantly voted the best places to live in places such as the Netherlands are constantly voted as having the best healthcare systems in the world. Why anyone would shun things like that is totally beyond me. what the GOP is telling us is that they do not want us to be a healthy nation and they do not want others to share the riches that this country can offer. They are so afraid of losing a few pennies to someone else that they become someone else. I wish every person in this country had healthcare, and I would be more than willing to pay my share of that healthcare. If all the tax loopholes for corporations and people were closed. We would have absolutely no problem paying for that type of stuff. So in effect the GOP prizes corruption or loopholes over people

follower
59
Points
follower 04/28/11 - 02:34 pm
0
0
Burninator, do you think

Burninator, do you think their may be an agenda in the University of Greenwich's article? Are they federally funded? If so, can they be compltely objective?

For every web-site that is pro-government in judging efficiency, there's one to refute such. Try the one below that merely list scenarios and responses.

www.govleaders.org

Ultimately, most are opinions. Based on a USPS vs. UPS/FED EX comparison, do you still stand by your post? Or is that only one example that is insufficient. How about Medicare/Medicaid? A model of efficiency?

A board room with over 400 members and another that must agree in principle of 100 members, rarely reach a concensus without personal agendas. And as those members are spending the money of others, they are rarely affected personally, unless they offend the populace that voted for them. And as most run for office with the intent to stay for life, the main concern is "pork" as much as possible so as to ensure their board membership for life.

follower
59
Points
follower 04/28/11 - 02:38 pm
0
0
citi, that's the same "wolf"

citi, that's the same "wolf" cry that says Republicans hate children.

And if you are willing to pay for someone else's health care, nothing is stopping you. I'm sure a family in poor financial health would deeply appreciate your contribution. Make your wish come true. If you are "more than willing", why haven't you done so?

JesusSavesAtCitiBank
2
Points
JesusSavesAtCitiBank 04/28/11 - 03:09 pm
0
0
A lot of people don't really

A lot of people don't really understand what socialism is. They hear socialism and all that comes to mind is the Soviet Union. Most people want some socialized institutions, but even I think that completely socializing everything is going to far. I'd like to see a public health care, and more government aid to college students, maybe some more extensive public transportation in some cities, but beyond that it's fine to have a vibrant private sector. Socialism is hardly the cure all to our problems, but neither is capitalism. A combination of both is probably the best system.

The gap between the top 2% and the rest of us has never been greater. The laws and government have allowed them to make and keep even more wealth. This has caused a greater burden and distribution of wealth between the middle working class and the upper class.

Reasonable spending cuts, mixed with tax increases on the upper 2% will go a long way to balancing the budget.

And why is it that its not redistribution of wealth if we create laws and situations that send it to the top while destroying the middle class?

The top 1% possess 90% of the wealth, but they only carry 40% of the tax burden.

I just think it should be equitable.

They can voluntarily spread the wealth around so that they don't possess such a large percentage of the wealth or we can tax them more so that their share of the tax-burden is more in line with the wealth that they hold.

I really don't see how that's such an unfair expectation.

Darby
25053
Points
Darby 04/28/11 - 03:49 pm
0
0
"I have always believed...."

"I have always believed...." What you or I believe is of absolutely no consequence. The fact is rich people do drive the economy, do create jobs and do invest, giving the banks and savings and loans the capital they require to loan money to others. If we are lucky, those loans will not go into default (unless made to folks who are conditioned to being spoon fed by government) and the economy will grow.

"Rich people" already have to pay taxes at a higher rate than the working class. Much, much higher. Of course, this is to suggest that rich people don't work. Who believes that? Suggesting that they don't is to speak from ignorance.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earns 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. That means that the lower 90 percent of the "folks" pay only 32 percent of the bill to subsidize our inefficient and wasteful bureaucrats. When you cull out the deadbeats with their hands out, who pay no taxes, it means that the middle class is getting a raw deal too.

Eliminate income taxes & charge a national sales tax, paid on everything purchased. Now there's an idea that really works. It's called the Fair Tax but it's ridiculed by Democrats whenever it's suggested because it severely cuts into the power wielded by politicians.

Democrats are for a national sales tax, but only if it's levied on top of the current income tax.

You are aware, aren't you that almost fifty percent of Americans pay no income tax at all? Many of those receive an "income tax refund" called the "Earned Income Tax Credit". This is money paid for having children that you can't afford. Of course it comes from people who are responsible and who do contribute to the economy. Not just talking about rich people here either.

Darby
25053
Points
Darby 04/28/11 - 03:59 pm
0
0
"we can tax them more so that

"we can tax them more so that their share of the tax-burden is more in line with the wealth that they hold."

Who is "we"? What will your position be when "we" come after you?

You said. "I really don't see how that's such an unfair expectation."

If you can't see something, it might be because you haven't opened your eyes....

It's really discouraging to witness what was once such a great nation, with such a magnificent past and such a promising future gradually being reduced to third world status by class envy and indolence.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Officers tell of trauma from taking life

Although every experience is different, officers who take a life often experience severe bouts of depression, alcoholism, marital problems, sleepless nights and feelings of being alone in the ...
Search Augusta jobs