But each one of her heirs earnt that inheritance through hard work and risk-taking.

To be fair, some of them did have a role in the family business, but Ronald's role was never more than perfunctory. He was the artiste.

freeman2 wrote:The above posts and their links indicate the real-world impacts of having much of the wealth go towards the top. The morbidity differences are astonishing in the Whitehall II study and the social impact on high-school graduates is eye-opening in the column linked by George as well. This winner take all society is bearing ugly fruit.

Yes, the fact that the poor in America would be rich in many places of the world is "ugly." I've been in more poor homes than most here, I suspect. I don't know many RS users who have frequented ghettos and slums for a living. I'm here to tell you very few Americans don't have TV's, refrigerators, cable service/satellite, microwaves, video games, a couple of cars, etc.

I am not saying there is not a rich/poor divide. I am saying that the US is a country in which anyone can succeed or fail. Talent and hard work win. Sometimes luck or accident of birth grant someone riches, but that is not a reason to tar and feather them.

We don't live in a "winner take all society."

steve

Yes, the fact that the poor in America would be rich in many places of the world is "ugly."

If only you could get them all to move...

Not Steve's job to get them to move any more than it is his job to provide financial assistance for them. If they want to move where they can live less expensive, certainly their choice.

Perhaps you were thinking of the creation of Liberia?...

bbauska wrote:Not Steve's job to get them to move any more than it is his job to provide financial assistance for them. If they want to move where they can live less expensive, certainly their choice.

Perhaps you were thinking of the creation of Liberia?...

Sadly, Ricky can't see the forest for the trees. The "poor" in America have a life that billions throughout history would have killed to obtain--and the opportunity of increased fortune. That such a state is "poverty" is unparalleled in human history. However, for the socialist only equality of outcome is acceptable. Opportunity means next to nothing. And, success? Well, that's just luck--and the benefit of living in our country. It's certainly nothing to take credit for and it must, must, must not cause you to accrue wealth. After all, without all the non-taxpayers not paying to pave streets, put cops on the street, and utilities, why you, Mr. Rich Guy, would . . .

It's perverse really. To liberals, wealth is illegitimate and must be punished, while sloth and indifference must be rewarded. To quote Heston, "It's a madhouse!"

Just did my taxes. Down to about 7% effective Federal tax rate (tax/AGI). My state and local were actually more than my federal. Man, I should do this for a living (I had an enormous amount of deductions this year). Feels great, and besides not paying a lot of Federal taxes, I no longer feel like I'm subsidizing Warren Buffet.

More seriously, paying close attention to how much you're paying in taxes makes the issue of tax fairness and equity topical to each of us. For me, the last two years I've been a beneficiary of an inequitable tax system, but in the past I was one of the many victims. I'm going to be working very hard to see that I remain on the right side of that equation from here on out, but really the system needs to be completely revamped. If Republicans win this fall, I don't think that's going to happen. If Dems win, it might, but it might not. In a world with Superpacs I'm not sure how much change we're going to see.

The disparity in America appears to me to be a three legged stool. One leg, poor parenting/divorce/single parent homes. Second leg, poor decision making by individuals (dropping out of school, early pregnancy, drug use, marrying the idiot next door) Thrid, government interference on both sides of the aisle which includes a horrible tax code. But I don't think that fairness is really at the heart of it. I paid for my kids I don't want to pay for yours. Isn't fair. Earned income tax credit Ha Ha Ha. The entire tax system needs to be changed. Won't be done by either party but the Republicans have a much better chance, sorry to disagree. Democrats LOVE big government. Which equates to higher taxes and income redistribution.

rush

Which equates to higher taxes and income redistribution.

Do you know anything of the history of tax rates in your nation since 1945? Your tax rates are at the lowest they've been since 45. Was your country in a huge mess from 45 to 2000 because of the higher tax rates? Until 1980 there were almost 35 years of surpluses, paying down the debt and solid economic growth....
Do you believe in a balanced buget or just lower taxes? Are you willing to borrow money from China now to pay for oil company subsidies and the lowest tax rates in US history?
You may be right that Americans love big govenrment but don't want to pay for it. Thats why, when budget proposals come out the cuts are never specified... There aren't enough people willing to endure the loss of the benefits of government programs in order to pay for the cuts proposed

rickyp wrote: Until 1980 there were almost 35 years of surpluses, paying down the debt and solid economic growth....

Actually, I think someone, perhaps RayJay, posted information showing this was not true. That between 1945 and current years there had only been something like 12 years of balanced budgets/surplus and 6 of those were during Clinton.

ARJ, you are right that there were few years of surplus in the last 67 years.

However, the debt as a proportion of GDP did go down over the 35 years because while there were deficits, they were realtively small and the economy was growing faster.

Actually Rick, I have lived through most of them. So let us begin with the difference between facts(statistics) and truth. I just heard the same argument from one of the Clinton era talking heads just a few days ago. I think it was Robert Reich. Do you subscribe to the same talking points? The truth behind the statistics is that in the decades following WWII, Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world was in rubble. South America, Africa, China, Russia had not yet begun to compete. We were all alone in the world as far as economies were concerned. We were successful IN SPITE OF and not BECAUSE OF the tax structure.

Second, I believe in both a balanced budget and lower taxes. We do not have a problem with taxes being too low. We have a problem with spending being too high. So the rest of the following doesn't really apply. We borrow money from China because of our overspending. Every dollar of taxes taken from the economy leads to more bureaucratic waste (just see the most current government scandal in GSA).

We pay for conressional staffs so that they can talk to lobbyists. We then pay for those staffs to decide how to raise/spend more money. We pay for people to write the bills. We pay for people to determine how to collect the taxes. We hire people to make sure that people are paying the taxes. We pay people to punish people for not paying the taxes. ANd then whatever is left we spend on some bureaucrat/politician pet project. And since there is no longer anything left of the original dollar we need to borrow from China.

We became the richest and freest and most generous country in the history of the entire world by having a small government. As Jefferson said as government grows freedom disappears.

As for oil company subsidies, if it leads to more energy for us (but it won't because of the progressive/liberal/socialist/ democrats) then fine. And even if these subsidies were eliminated, it would not make any difference whatsoever. What everyone on the left tends to ignore or in their ignorance they don't even know is that corporation do not pay any taxes anyway. If their taxes are raised they raise the price of theor products and the consumers end up paying for it anyway.

As for the last pargraph, some Americans love big government. Those that sit home and collect benefits. The rest of us that pay for those benefits don't really like big government. It has taken us over a century of continuing government growth to get where we are now. The biggest offenders have been Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and now Obama. It will take at least one entire generation to fix the problem if it is not too late already. The tipping point has already been reached. 50% of the country pays no federal income tax so of course they will vote for whoever syas they will raise taxes. "Raise his taxes and send me my check"

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Actually it was not Ray Jay, it was me. Definitely something Ray Jay would have also, though.

Fair enough on surpluses. I should have said debt as a portion of GDP .. It was possible to run a small deficit and still see the debt to GDP ratio decrease as the economy grew. And its accumulated debt that is the most basic problem.

The debt burden fell rapidly after the end of World War II, as the US and the rest of the world experienced a post-war economic expansion. However, growth rates in the western countries began to slow in the mid-1960's. Beginning in the mid-1970s and afterwards, U.S. government debt began to increase faster than GDP.[3][4] In 1974 Congressional Budget Act reformed budget process in order to allow Congress to challenge the president's budget more easily and as a consequence deficit became increasingly difficult to control.[5] Debt held by the public as a share of GDP increased from its post-WWII low of 24,6% in 1974 to 26,2% in 1980.[6]

From 1981 to 1989, nominal debt held by public nearly tripled. On the one hand, President Ronald Reagan increased military spending and lowered tax rates, while on the other hand congressional Democrats blocked attempts to reverse expansion in social welfare spending.[7][5] As a result, debt held by the public as a share of GDP increased from 26,2% in 1980 to 41% by the end of the 1980s.[6]

Debt held by the public had risen to nearly 50% of GDP in the early 1990s, but fell to 39% of GDP by the end of the decade. The public debt burden during the presidency of Bill Clinton between 1992 and 2000, fell due in part to decreased militarily spending after Cold War, 1990, 1993 and 1997 budget deals, gridlock between White House and Congress, and increased tax revenue resulting from the Dot-com bubble.[8][9][10] The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained fiscal action by the Congress and the President and together with economic growth contributed to the budget surpluses that materialized by the end of the decade. These surpluses led to a decline in the debt held by the public, and from fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the debt-to-GDP measure declined from about 43 percent to about 33 percent.[11]

Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[12] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[13] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.[14][15] Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February 2012,[16] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.[15]

Thank you.