• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WSJ: Rich people far more likely to vote Republican than working-class.

Back atcha.

'fair nuff.

Book Review: The Millionaire Next Door

Many people who earn high incomes are not rich, the authors warn. Most people with high incomes fail to accumulate any lasting wealth. They live hyperconsumer lifestyles, spending their money as fast as they earn it. In order to accumulate wealth, in order to become rich, one must not only earn a lot (play “good offense”, according to Stanley and Danko), but also develop frugal habits (play “good defense”). Most books focus on only one side of the wealth equation: spending less or earning more. It’s refreshing to read a book that makes it clear that both are required to succeed.

High-income spenders live in a house of a cards. Sure they have the money now to fund their hyperconsumer lifestyle, but what happens when that money goes away? It’s also difficult for low-income frugal folks to acquire wealth. They need to learn to play financial “offense”. But those with low incomes who spend are in the biggest trouble of all.

The wealthy, on the other hand, generally have a high income and a frugal mindset. They share other characteristics as well.

* 80% of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich. This is contrary to those who would have you believe that wealth is usually inherited.
* 20% of millionaires are retired
* 50% of millionaires own a business



The Top 7 Ways Millionaires Became Wealthy

4) Don't Accept Economic Support from Your Parents once Outside the Home
Sounds painful doesn't it? It's a fact that has taught the wealthy how to earn, keep, and invest money. Parents of the wealthy do not, or cannot, provide "economic outpatient care". The results are clear: The more dollars the adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate. Those who are given less are motivated to accumulate more on their own merits. An amazing fact: 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires; they have made their money on their own, in their lifetime.




a citation that the very rich usually got it through inheritance?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
'fair nuff.

Book Review: The Millionaire Next Door

Many people who earn high incomes are not rich, the authors warn. Most people with high incomes fail to accumulate any lasting wealth. They live hyperconsumer lifestyles, spending their money as fast as they earn it. In order to accumulate wealth, in order to become rich, one must not only earn a lot (play “good offense”, according to Stanley and Danko), but also develop frugal habits (play “good defense”). Most books focus on only one side of the wealth equation: spending less or earning more. It’s refreshing to read a book that makes it clear that both are required to succeed.

High-income spenders live in a house of a cards. Sure they have the money now to fund their hyperconsumer lifestyle, but what happens when that money goes away? It’s also difficult for low-income frugal folks to acquire wealth. They need to learn to play financial “offense”. But those with low incomes who spend are in the biggest trouble of all.

The wealthy, on the other hand, generally have a high income and a frugal mindset. They share other characteristics as well.

* 80% of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich. This is contrary to those who would have you believe that wealth is usually inherited.
* 20% of millionaires are retired
* 50% of millionaires own a business



The Top 7 Ways Millionaires Became Wealthy

4) Don't Accept Economic Support from Your Parents once Outside the Home
Sounds painful doesn't it? It's a fact that has taught the wealthy how to earn, keep, and invest money. Parents of the wealthy do not, or cannot, provide "economic outpatient care". The results are clear: The more dollars the adult children receive, the fewer they accumulate. Those who are given less are motivated to accumulate more on their own merits. An amazing fact: 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires; they have made their money on their own, in their lifetime.




a citation that the very rich usually got it through inheritance?

:good_job:

I forgot about The Millionaire Next Door. I couldn't find much. I stand corrected. Well, at least I'm still standing.... ;-)

And, as if THAT isn't bad enough, I further disproved my OWN thesis:

There were 691 billionaires in the world as of 2005. 388 of them were self-made. I shall not quibble percentages. Bill Gates Tops Forbes List of Billionaires for 11th Year - Bloomberg

:failpail: (self-imposed)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
actually being rich is generally an indication that one has built a small business from the ground up, improved your local area, created jobs, raised standards of living, and provided higher quality goods or services to consumers for a lower price.

do you have anything to back that up? much wealth is passed from generation to generation.
 
:) see above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
:good_job:

I forgot about The Millionaire Next Door. I couldn't find much. I stand corrected. Well, at least I'm still standing.... ;-)

And, as if THAT isn't bad enough, I further disproved my OWN thesis:

There were 691 billionaires in the world as of 2005. 388 of them were self-made. I shall not quibble percentages. Bill Gates Tops Forbes List of Billionaires for 11th Year - Bloomberg

:failpail: (self-imposed)

well. not many people have the ability to do that. i'm impressed :).
 
Unfortunately, you can't "I know you are, but what am I" your way out of this one. Republicans have run every single election cycle for decades pledging upper-income tax cuts, and have immediately delivered them as soon as they're in a position to do so - paying off their party's fundraising base. It is a direct quid pro quo: Put us in power, get a fatter paycheck. Where is the comparable "payoff" you're alleging on the part of Democrats, and who is supposedly receiving it?



No, Turtle - they take it all. They just give you a piece of their loot up front, and let you pay it back with interest in later years through skyrocketing costs of living.



In other words, pledging to provide opportunities is "buying votes," while pledging to dole out more money to rich people isn't? Turtle, Democrats are doing their job supporting health care and education, but Republican tax proposals aren't based on anything - they push lower rates every single election cycle as standard practice. It's nothing more than payoffs and kickbacks.



Democrats create wealth by investing in the underpinnings of the economy that make it all possible, and Republicans redistribute public resources to the wealthy elite by cutting their taxes and systematically underfunding institutions. The elite then uses this money to outsource jobs and strip the American economy of productive capital. This benefits them in several ways: (1) It destroys labor unions, (2) it allows them to do business in foreign countries with poor human rights records, and (3)it lets them evade paying taxes to an even greater extent. The Republican Party has zero loyalty to this country. Zero.



It's not your money, it's tax money that you pay in exchange for using the entire ecosystem of institutions that make your job possible. Not paying it just means someone else is paying it for you, and probably someone a lot less able to afford it. This is Civics 101 here, I shouldn't have to explain this.

More oozing BS. YOu are in no position to explain anything to me because you operate under a system of parasitic thinking that is foreign to what Made America great. The rest of your claims are bogus as well. I am glad the GOP delivers on its promises-that is why I support them

I GET ZERO de jure extra benefits for paying more taxes than 99.2% of the population. SO why should I want to pay more taxes or support a party that wants to buy the votes of people who feel like you? You seem to forget that class envy is rampant (just look at this board) and people like you feel better when the rich are soaked more.

I have no duty to fund your existence
 
do you have anything to back that up? much wealth is passed from generation to generation.

so what-I do everything possible to save for my kid. I spend less on vacations, I drive a used car, etc so I can leave my kid more.
I set up trusts, I buy insurance on my own life for him.
 
Oh, you're rich? We hadn't heard. I don't think you've ever mentioned it before. :roll:

yawn-so what do I get for paying more taxes than you do?

It would be nice if everyone were honest as to their financial positions so we can evaluate the veracity of their claims.

for example-one guy who constantly rags on me confessed that he pays "twice the average tax bill" which still puts him squarely in the category of NET TAX CONSUMER. when someone is paying a few grand a year in income taxes and they scream that the top 2% ought to pay more their rants really have ZERO merit
 
YOu are in no position to explain anything to me because you operate under a system of parasitic thinking that is foreign to what Made America great.

If you refuse to contribute to the maintenance of our nation's institutions, you are simply imposing that cost on someone less able to afford it while reaping the benefits yourself. That is "parasitic thinking."

I GET ZERO de jure extra benefits for paying more taxes than 99.2% of the population.

And that would matter if reality were limited to the domain of "de jure." Individual wealth is facilitated by the overall health of an economy, which comes from infrastructure investment and well-maintained institutions.

You seem to forget that class envy is rampant (just look at this board) and people like you feel better when the rich are soaked more.

Privilege comes with responsibility. Anyone who doesn't want to accept that is welcome to "Go Galt" and leave this country any time.

I have no duty to fund your existence

You have a duty to maintain the economy that makes your livelihood possible.
 
yawn-so what do I get for paying more taxes than you do?

It would be nice if everyone were honest as to their financial positions so we can evaluate the veracity of their claims.

for example-one guy who constantly rags on me confessed that he pays "twice the average tax bill" which still puts him squarely in the category of NET TAX CONSUMER. when someone is paying a few grand a year in income taxes and they scream that the top 2% ought to pay more their rants really have ZERO merit

The fact that you constantly brag about your wealth, look down your nose at anyone earning less than you, and know where you stand on the income ladder (and thus your worth as a human being) to the nearest TENTH OF A PERCENTILE is vain, classless, and annoying.

If you want to know what enables populism and "class warfare," look in a mirror. All of those people you hold in such contempt (who are disgusting parasites who perhaps earn only TWICE the average income) have a vote whether you like it or not. And highlighting people like you is enough to rouse the inner populist in them.
 
Last edited:
More oozing BS. YOu are in no position to explain anything to me because you operate under a system of parasitic thinking that is foreign to what Made America great. The rest of your claims are bogus as well. I am glad the GOP delivers on its promises-that is why I support them

what made america great? for who? wages haven't increased relative to inflation since 1979, while ceo's have seen exponential increases in salary. used to be a single wage earner could raise a family, then it required a spouse, then it required borrowing, now it is a gamble.

this while the rich have seen growth.


literally, the rich have been getting richer, the poor poorer.
I GET ZERO de jure extra benefits for paying more taxes than 99.2% of the population. SO why should I want to pay more taxes or support a party that wants to buy the votes of people who feel like you? You seem to forget that class envy is rampant (just look at this board) and people like you feel better when the rich are soaked more.

I have no duty to fund your existence


what about yours? the rich get wealthy on the backs of labor, you are probably no exception. what if labor was paid relative to its value? people might start wanting to go to work. imagine that.
 
Last edited:
If you refuse to contribute to the maintenance of our nation's institutions, you are simply imposing that cost on someone less able to afford it while reaping the benefits yourself. That is "parasitic thinking."



And that would matter if reality were limited to the domain of "de jure." Individual wealth is facilitated by the overall health of an economy, which comes from infrastructure investment and well-maintained institutions.



Privilege comes with responsibility. Anyone who doesn't want to accept that is welcome to "Go Galt" and leave this country any time.



You have a duty to maintain the economy that makes your livelihood possible.

do you just make crap up? I contribute more to society in a month than you most likely do in several years.what privilege do I get that you do not have from the Government

I ask this dozens of times and you are never able to provide an honest answer. What de jure benefits do top bracket tax payers get in return for paying far far more taxes than most people?

and tell me-what exactly do you do for a living?
 
what made america great? for who? wages haven't increased relative to inflation since 1979, while ceo's have seen exponential increases in salary. used to be a single wage earner could raise a family, then it required a spouse, then it required borrowing, now it is a gamble.

this while the rich have seen growth.


literally, the rich have been getting richer, the poor poorer.



what about yours? the rich get wealthy on the backs of labor, you are probably no exception. what if labor was paid relative to its value? people might start wanting to go to work. imagine that.

wow they are coming out of the woodwork

of course the rich get richer. they compete better

edify me as to your brilliance by telling me what would be the state of the union if the rich were not getting richer?

I realize the socialist mindset (or worse the disease known as communism) holds that the freedom to contract really doesn't exist

if you agree to work for 10 bucks an hour and the guy who provides you a job makes 11 an hour off of your labor I guess you feel exploaited. Of course you cannot figure out that if he doesn't make at least something about 10 an hour he has no reason to employ you
 
The fact that you constantly brag about your wealth, look down your nose at anyone earning less than you, and know where you stand on the income ladder (and thus your worth as a human being) to the nearest TENTH OF A PERCENTILE is vain, classless, and annoying.

If you want to know what enables populism and "class warfare," look in a mirror. All of those people you hold in such contempt (who are disgusting parasites who perhaps earn only TWICE the average income) have a vote whether you like it or not. And highlighting people like you is enough to rouse the inner populist in them.

you are being dishonest again. I think it is important for people to be honest about their situation as I noted again. I don't look down on you if you make less. I look down on you because you think I have some additional duties to pay your way. and yes, I oppose a system that allows people to vote up the tax rates of others which is why I favor a flat tax.
 
If you refuse to contribute to the maintenance of our nation's institutions, you are simply imposing that cost on someone less able to afford it while reaping the benefits yourself. That is "parasitic thinking."

he's not refusing to maintain necessary infrastructure; no one argues that taxation on the rich should be zero (though, given the benefit they represent to society, it's a thought). he's arguing that he shouldn't be punished for the fact that he has already helped society's infrastructure more than others.

And that would matter if reality were limited to the domain of "de jure." Individual wealth is facilitated by the overall health of an economy, which comes from infrastructure investment and well-maintained institutions.

which generally benefit no one more or less de facto. some people are simply better at taking advantage of what is available to better themselves, others, and society; and they often attain more wealth by doing so.

Privilege comes with responsibility. Anyone who doesn't want to accept that is welcome to "Go Galt" and leave this country any time.

yeah, that's a brilliant response. absolutely wonderful. and what happens when the people who pay the majority of our taxes leave?

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates...

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."


Adios, New York

Politicians like to talk about incentives -- for businesses to relocate, for example, or to get folks to buy local. After reviewing the new budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immedi ately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need do only one thing: move out of New York state.

Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things -- registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate -- in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York taxes annually.

By moving to Florida, I can spend that $5 million on worthy causes, like better hospitals, improving education or the Clinton Global Initiative. Or maybe I'll continue to invest it in fighting the status quo in Albany. One thing's certain: That money won't continue to fund Albany's bloated bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and regular special-interest handouts...

In New York, the average total state and local tax burden is $5,260 for every man, woman and child. That's by far the highest in the country. And like Albany, when faced with problems, municipalities have one answer: increase taxes.

Upstate New York has been particularly hard hit. Add unreasonable real-estate taxes to uncontrolled state spending, and you wind up with whole communities decimated. An unworkable assessment process compounds the problem further. The result: Fifteen of the 20 highest-taxed counties in America are right here in Upstate New York. While homeowners in other areas build equity, we just pay more taxes.

This problem didn't begin with the current recession. New York faced a $6 billion shortfall before the economic downturn. However, in the face of economic turmoil, Gov. Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith looked to the unions and special interests, who answered with one voice: raise taxes.

That was irresponsible -- and may just prove to be counterproductive, since the top 1 percent of earners account for about 50 percent of state revenue and are the ones who can and will leave... Bottom line? By domiciling in Florida, which has no personal-income tax, I will save $13,800 every day. That's a pretty strong incentive.

You have a duty to maintain the economy that makes your livelihood possible.

everyone does. but no one has a right to demand from others for their own sustenance. TurtleDude, like everyone else, has a responsibility to maintain the roads, the police, the courts, the military, the treasury, the state department, etc; however, to push that into arguing that TurtleDude also has a responsibility to maintain those who simply sit at home and collect a check? :sorry: welfare is not an institution necessary for the survival of this society, nor is it necessary for him to continue to work. it is simply parasitism.

as the Founding Fathers well knew.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison

and so forth.
 
Last edited:
and tell me-what exactly do you do for a living?

as a federal employee (military), the recession doesn't exist for me. in fact, on Jan 1, i'm getting a pay raise. :D thanks TD :thumbsup:
 
CaptainObvious.jpg

Before people thank Spud too much for his generosity, they should take a look at the one he's keeping for himself.

Blog%206.3.jpg
 
This shatters the myth of Republicans being poor, uneducated trailer trash with pitchforks.
 
wow they are coming out of the woodwork

of course the rich get richer. they compete better

edify me as to your brilliance by telling me what would be the state of the union if the rich were not getting richer?

I realize the socialist mindset (or worse the disease known as communism) holds that the freedom to contract really doesn't exist

if you agree to work for 10 bucks an hour and the guy who provides you a job makes 11 an hour off of your labor I guess you feel exploaited. Of course you cannot figure out that if he doesn't make at least something about 10 an hour he has no reason to employ you

of course the rich are getting richer? where's that coming from? there is a finite amount of wealth available.



what happens when people can't afford tv's and houses and boats and all of these products the wealthy are selling, because their wealth was slowly leaked to teh upper class? its called a recession, its what we are in now.


even the upper class suffer at that point. take all you want, but know that without people buying the economy goes to ****.....the value of your dollar is worth more if the middle classes have money. but if you constantly take, eventyually take a hit too. its a systemic check on greed/.
 
of course the rich are getting richer? where's that coming from? there is a finite amount of wealth available.

um, no. there isn't. when a rich person get's richer, it's usually because he or she has made another person richer. that's the beauty of mutually beneficial trade.
 
So if the rich favor Republican then why isnt the super rich in Hollywood voting republican? You always hear the left whine and cry about soaking the rich yet are silent about a movie star making 10 million for a couple months of work on a movie set. Then attack a CEO whom creates long lasting jobs and is rewarded for making a business successful and putting people to work.

So if the rich is voting republican that must make the poor, welfare, foodstamp, drug dealers and all around lazy assholes supporting the dems. I would rather have someone that betters America than the scum of society.
 
of course the rich are getting richer? where's that coming from? there is a finite amount of wealth available.



what happens when people can't afford tv's and houses and boats and all of these products the wealthy are selling, because their wealth was slowly leaked to teh upper class? its called a recession, its what we are in now.


even the upper class suffer at that point. take all you want, but know that without people buying the economy goes to ****.....the value of your dollar is worth more if the middle classes have money. but if you constantly take, eventyually take a hit too. its a systemic check on greed/.

ah the zero sum gain nonsense that the marxist left is famous for.
 
So if the rich favor Republican then why isnt the super rich in Hollywood voting republican? You always hear the left whine and cry about soaking the rich yet are silent about a movie star making 10 million for a couple months of work on a movie set. Then attack a CEO whom creates long lasting jobs and is rewarded for making a business successful and putting people to work.

So if the rich is voting republican that must make the poor, welfare, foodstamp, drug dealers and all around lazy assholes supporting the dems. I would rather have someone that betters America than the scum of society.
hollyweird actors tend to vote dem for several reasons

1) many actors have a rather inordinate need to feel loved and they think being liberal makes them more popular with the common man

2) many actors are libertines who go through sexual partners faster than I go through legal pads--they don't like some guy making 15K a year calling them a "sinner'

3) one of my best friends in College-former actin US Attorney General Peter Keisler (founder of the federalist society, AJ Kennedy's first law clerk--along with Estrada) was a member of the SAG-he did commercials in HS. He told me there is a reason why so many rich actors are dems and bash corporate success. In the corporate world, success is set forth in a straight path. same with law. At big law firms you get in by getting top grades at a top law school. You make partner by bringing in lots of business or by billing lots of hours consisting of productive work.

In Hollywood its far different. Luck, good looks, family connections or who you sleep with play alot more of a role. Harrison Ford was working as a carpenter on a set when he was discovered. Sean Connery was a body builder who got 007 when Frank Sinatra turned it down. Wynona Ryder's parents are screenwriters. Nicholas Cage is FF Coppolas nephew. Sigourney Weaver is the daughter of a former president of NBC. Charlie Sheen-obvious, etc. the technically best actors almost always are not the big stars. The govenator had no real acting background and became one of the biggest stars ever.

so the hollyweird types assume that the president of GE or P&G got to the top the same way they did. SO they don't have much respect for a John Smale who became head of PG because he spent ten years convincing the ADA to approve Crest toothpaste-an approval that made PG several extra billion dollars.
 
my favorite line is "working people" a term rich dems (most of whom never earned their wealth)...

So how do "rich Dems" get rich if they don't "earn their wealth"?

I would like to know.

What about McCain? Did he "earn his wealth" (or did he marry it...)? I seem to recall a lot of Right-leaning media calling John Kerry a "gigolo" because he married into wealth. But I noticed that McCain got little mention or criticism from the right for doing the same thing in 2008 (only worse, because his wife was sick and had supported him post-Vietnam).

Did George W. Bush "earn his wealth", or did he inherit it?

Did the Koch Brothers "earn their wealth", or inherit it?

What about all those damn Waltons who are all over the Forbes list? They work to earn it, or did they inherit it?

Very few of the Uber-rich worked their way from the ground up. There are some great examples of people who did work hard or presented a great idea that carried them to wealth and they are to be applauded. But I would note that several of those who did work their way up to the Forbes list instead of inheriting their way there are known to be more politically left of those who inherited all or part of their wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jay-Z, to name a few.
 
Back
Top Bottom