I'm poor myself and I could not care less if someone else is rich.

[eman926]

First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.

 

[Deuce]

Good for you. But let's not pretend the wealthy don't have an effect on your life.

 

[eman926]

Good for you. But let's not pretend the wealthy don't have an effect on your life.

Sorry, I still don't agree.

 

[Moonglow]

What is a confessional for $400?

 

[Drawdown]

First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.

Flat taxes are theoretically "fair" but completely inadequate to fund the government if done at any level that does not put most of America into cardboard houses.

 

[eman926]

Flat taxes are theoretically "fair" but completely inadequate to fund the government if done at any level that does not put most of America into cardboard houses.

I think at least half of the government should be privatized. We could have things like private militaries, police forces, etc., as well as privatized aid like Social Security and Medicaid. This would cut quite a bit of costs for the government.

 

[Drawdown]

I think at least half of the government should be privatized. We could have things like private militaries, police forces, etc., as well as privatized aid like Social Security and Medicaid. This would cut quite a bit of costs for the government.

What could possibly go wrong with Rent-A-Soldier and Pinkerton's Public Safety, Inc., running everything?

 

[gdgyva]

Good for you. But let's not pretend the wealthy don't have an effect on your life.

how does the wealthy (someone like a Bill Gates) affect him, or say me

He doesnt affect my business one iota

doesnt affect what i pay for groceries or gas

doesnt affect my customers on whether or not they use my services

he doesnt affect the taxes i pay

he doesnt affect what i pay for health insurance

so please....in what way does Bill Gates or some other wealthy person affect my life

does what Washington do really affect my life? do i really care what lobbyists do?

my everyday life is in no material way affected.....

 

[eman926]

What could possibly go wrong with Rent-A-Soldier and Pinkerton's Public Safety, Inc., running everything?

That's why the government would select the businesses with competition. And like private militaries the government hires would still be cheaper. It's kind of like how we fund public schools but with vouchers we help students find private schools. Similar format.

 

[Bum]

I think at least half of the government should be privatized. We could have things like private militaries, police forces, etc., as well as privatized aid like Social Security and Medicaid. This would cut quite a bit of costs for the government.

You mean people that owe thier allegiance to the person paying them?

Sure....what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

 

[CaughtInThe]

people just want a level playing field and for wealthy people to NOT be able to buy politicians.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Good for you. But let's not pretend the wealthy don't have an effect on your life.

Conveniently the Democrats have that impact.

Access Denied

2/20/20: For an updated version of the wealth of presidential candidates visit here.

A new tally of presidential candidates' personal finances shows that most of the Democratic front-runners are worth more than $500,000 – more than five times the median net worth of American families at $97,000.

According to figures posted by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan tracker of money in politics, the leader of the pack is former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, a financier who founded two publicly traded companies. Delaney, who has yet to gain significant traction in the polls, reported a net worth between $55 million and $279 million. Last year, he received nearly $1 million in income from Alliance Partners Holdings, the investment firm he founded, as well as various other income streams via capital gains, dividends and rental properties.

Delaney's fortune puts him leaps and bounds ahead of the next wealthiest Democrat, Beto O'Rourke, whose reported assets are valued between $3.4 and $16.3 million. O'Rourke owns part of a shopping center in his hometown of El Paso, Texas, and was a former partner in a real estate company based there. His wife, Amy Sanders O'Rourke, is a consultant for a regional economic development group and the daughter of a Texas real estate mogul.

 

[Drawdown]

That's why the government would select the businesses with competition. And like private militaries the government hires would still be cheaper. It's kind of like how we fund public schools but with vouchers we help students find private schools. Similar format.

We increasingly fund schools with those federal dollars you want to evaporate.

 

[chuckiechan]

First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.

The wealthy in America for the most part are wealthy because they of what they did, and along the way they employed lots of people and made or bought things that could sell for a profit. They paid lots of taxes, and so did their workers. In this way America is somewhat unique. Most countries block new entrants into their cronies markets with restrictions, rules, and regs. We usually leave people alone until they start making serious money.

 

[Praxas]

Sorry, I still don't agree.

So if the wealthy vote themselves a tax cut and decide that services you or any of your family uses have to be cut to support that, it affects you.

Now you can claim you don't care and it don't affect you, but it does. You can put your head in the sand all you want but it still affects you.

 

[Michael Cole]

First off, I don't envy the rich. Yes, someday I'd aspire to get a career that would get me there, but I focus on the now. I don't blame any of the rich for my problems, and I don't think they should have to give up any of their income to support me. I still support either a flat tax, a fair tax, but the best option I think would be a basic consumption tax (not a fair tax). I think any of those would be the best options. I do have a disability, and I get some aid. But I'm striving to work my way out of it, unlike some. I think privatization of my aid would still be better. I plan to go to a different state to go to school someday, but for privacy reasons (I already told you enough) I won't share what those are. I will tell you it's a liberal dominated field though.

This doesn't mesh with the title. If you didn't care about the rich, you wouldn't support tax policy like a flat tax, which heavily favors the wealthy.

So, your tax policy would mesh with your political lean, but it clearly shows that you favor the rich paying less in tax. Kinda hard to claim you "don't care" and be taken seriously.

 

[Michael Cole]

I think at least half of the government should be privatized. We could have things like private militaries, police forces, etc., as well as privatized aid like Social Security and Medicaid. This would cut quite a bit of costs for the government.

I believe the $600 toilet seats were manufactured by a private company.

 

[eman926]

This doesn't mesh with the title. If you didn't care about the rich, you wouldn't support tax policy like a flat tax, which heavily favors the wealthy.

So, your tax policy would mesh with your political lean, but it clearly shows that you favor the rich paying less in tax. Kinda hard to claim you "don't care" and be taken seriously.

Go on and believe what you believe. I simply state my views, but if you yourself don't believe me, it really doesn't concern me.

 

[Michael Cole]

What could possibly go wrong with Rent-A-Soldier and Pinkerton's Public Safety, Inc., running everything?

Judge Judy, Matlock and Rescue Me...wait...those guys are good. I think the answer isn't in privatization, but in Hollywood scripts. Okay, scratch that. That's what we have now. No, the answer is vote for Joe Biden. Most appear to agree.

 

[Individualism]

When you start on the road of success fear will appear, especially if you start with nothing like me and many others did. The key is to not allow that door of fear to open because you will have a lot of individuals that will manipulate you for different reasons. In a more direct way, don't be a sheep.

As an immigrant that succeeded after many years of struggles, I was exposed to some communists trying to set me up with a group thinking program that I am a victim and I should blame the system. I was also exposed to the excesses of some individuals from the right/borderline fascists that by thinking being born here makes you into something special and everyone else is lower. Communists hate their country too much, ultra-nationalists/fasciscts love their country too much. They are not open for debate or to learn anything positive from them.

What I learnt is to stay away from people that are not rational and focus on work and productivity. Success will come. I have problems today than years ago when I had nothing )))

 

[Helix]

the good news is that if someone finally wins one hundred percent of the wealth, it's like we all win.

 

[Drawdown]

how does the wealthy (someone like a Bill Gates) affect him, or say me

He doesnt affect my business one iota

doesnt affect what i pay for groceries or gas

doesnt affect my customers on whether or not they use my services

he doesnt affect the taxes i pay

he doesnt affect what i pay for health insurance

so please....in what way does Bill Gates or some other wealthy person affect my life

does what Washington do really affect my life? do i really care what lobbyists do?

my everyday life is in no material way affected.....

The cost of manufacturing an iphone is like $12. The rest of the "costs" are licenses to people like Bill Gates. I get your point, but at the same time, for most people things like cellphones, cable, and internet that flow to the gazillionaires really is why the rich are getting richer. There is no need to make or invent or produce when you have intellectual property rights bringing you big checks every quarter.

 

[eman926]

The cost of manufacturing an iphone is like $12. The rest of the "costs" are licenses to people like Bill Gates. I get your point, but at the same time, for most people things like cellphones, cable, and internet that flow to the gazillionaires really is why the rich are getting richer. There is no need to make or invent or produce when you have intellectual property rights bringing you big checks every quarter.

Bill Gates has nothing to do with Apple. He’s with Microsoft. You’re thinking of Tim Cook.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Drawdown]

Bill Gates has nothing to do with Apple. He’s with Microsoft. You’re thinking of Tim Cook.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I am talking about hidden licensing costs and Tim Cook is not a billionaire. Apple wouldn't even exist if Bill Gates had not saved it. He can wrap it up in pretty reasons, but the long and short of it was Gates saved Apple to save Microsoft from being busted apart as a monopoly.

 

[Michael Cole]

Go on and believe what you believe. I simply state my views, but if you yourself don't believe me, it really doesn't concern me.

I never said I didn't believe you. I said take you seriously. Big difference. I thought I was clear, but I'll try to explain.

It's your rhetoric I find disingenuous. Logically, it's fine. That's the beauty of language. It can be used one way, and mean something entirely different.

I'm poor myself and I could not care less if someone else is rich.

First off, I don't envy the rich.

So far, so good. I don't envy the rich, either. Envy and jealousy have never been emotions I connected to much. Some in my younger years, I guess. So, I really don't envy the rich. Indeed, I don't care that the rich are rich. A free society needs them. And that's that. Fortunes like those of Bloomberg are unarguably obscene, and it wouldn't hurt to examine how we deal with obscene wealth, but billionaires most certainly should exist.

Now, I'm not you, but we are both unenvious and supportive of the rich, and then you turn to tax policy, which is where we differ. Regressive tax policy that would affect the poor, who, by your thread title, appear to be your target audience.

So, like I said, I'm having a hard time thinking you don't care about the rich. You obviously care enough about them that you favor giving them more of your wealth. You may not be envious, but lobbying for tax-cuts for the wealthy looks like a suicidal position to hold.

In other words, "I'm poor, and I don't care if we enact more tax-cuts for the wealthy" would have been a more direct and honest title. Just my take on it.