This site is doing a great service by calling attention to the gross inequities that have been engineered by free market gone wild policies, with poor (pun intended) consequences for much of society.
The recurring defensive theme about how the wealthy pay so much more in taxes than we do is curious. Yes, they do. But the defining factor here should not be aggregate amounts of taxes paid - it should be how much it impacts your daily life to pay them. It's a little different when you make $45,000 and you pay a 25% rate on that - perhaps even 30%. That allows one to live -in a metro area that means just getting by, if at all. One doesn't have to count pennies or worry when living on $1 million a year. Even if 70% of that were paid in taxes, the resulting $300K provides a better living than most people can hope to experience. That is why we need not fuel the inequities any more by having 15% tax rates on investments. Many people will never save enough money to have the chance to invest if their wages are depressed and they are taxed at 30%. This is the great black hole in the trickle down theory.
There is another comment I find curious too. It is the one about philanthropy. Of course society is very grateful for that. However, as has been written, philanthropy by individuals is not always in the best interests of society at large. How is this so? So many donations go to high end universities, art museums and so on. But what about afforable housing? Wealthy advocates and philanthropists are really needed. Brad Pitt is one of the few who is addressing that in New Orleans. We need affordable housing first before people can learn in school, so that they have a sustainable lifestyle that is not overpriced and overhyped. We need affordable healthcare also. And decent wages so people can afford to live. These are important cornerstones of a sane and healthy society. Unfortunately philanthropy does not address these needs in an equitable way, as it is highly personalized in most cases (alumnae giving to their alma maters and so on). Philanthropy is not always about the logical application of funds to areas where the need is greatest.
Regarding the societal cornerstones, two comments. One on the housing "crisis". This was engineered by the free market aspirants fueling the "imitate the wealthy" syndrome. It seems mostly only "luxury" housing has been built in the last decade. And those with falling wages were scammed into thinking they could afford McMansions too. It's fitting a square peg in a round hole. No nonsensical loan is going to negate the fact that housing prices are simply too high, they are too large and too much about luxury, and that's not sensible at all for median and under incomes. Some of us are just looking for a place to live. In any case, where are the luxury wages for all Americans, if indeed we are all supposed to live in luxury housing? This is more crackpot economics brought to us by Alan Greenspan and his band of hyping capitalists. It doesn't work. Has anyone analyzed median and under income lately? And just what that after tax income buys? It's certainly not a $300K or more house. Or has this segment of society simply disappeared? One would think so based on the lack of housing being built that makes sense for those workers.
The second comment relates to schools. Clearly the most important subjects are not being taught in most schools, and we need some real life lessons since apparently parents aren't teaching these values any longer. The most important subjects are about immediate life issues: How to realistically analyze ones's finances and how to live under one's means - and how to resist media hype and rampant pointless consumerism and greed. Perhaps the lack of attention to this as teaching matter was by design....it almost seems so.
Thus we have the fallout from unchecked and unconscionable greed, which is really no surprise at all, since greed in general is senseless and amoral - and unnecessary. I look forward someday to sane economic policies (progressive taxes being an important component - but not to bash to rich - just to make things more equitable and reasonable for all). After all, what is the sense in bankrupting your customers (the working classes)?. Most importantly, where are the morals and humility in this age? We have to get away from worshiping money and thinking it is the only barometer of success before society can be rescued.
This site is doing a great service by calling attention to the gross inequities that have been engineered by free market gone wild policies, with poor (pun intended) consequences for much of society.
The recurring defensive theme about how the wealthy pay so much more in taxes than we do is curious. Yes, they do. But the defining factor here should not be aggregate amounts of taxes paid - it should be how much it impacts your daily life to pay them. It's a little different when you make $45,000 and you pay a 25% rate on that - perhaps even 30%. That allows one to live -in a metro area that means just getting by, if at all. One doesn't have to count pennies or worry when living on $1 million a year. Even if 70% of that were paid in taxes, the resulting $300K provides a better living than most people can hope to experience. That is why we need not fuel the inequities any more by having 15% tax rates on investments. Many people will never save enough money to have the chance to invest if their wages are depressed and they are taxed at 30%. This is the great black hole in the trickle down theory.
There is another comment I find curious too. It is the one about philanthropy. Of course society is very grateful for that. However, as has been written, philanthropy by individuals is not always in the best interests of society at large. How is this so? So many donations go to high end universities, art museums and so on. But what about afforable housing? Wealthy advocates and philanthropists are really needed. Brad Pitt is one of the few who is addressing that in New Orleans. We need affordable housing first before people can learn in school, so that they have a sustainable lifestyle that is not overpriced and overhyped. We need affordable healthcare also. And decent wages so people can afford to live. These are important cornerstones of a sane and healthy society. Unfortunately philanthropy does not address these needs in an equitable way, as it is highly personalized in most cases (alumnae giving to their alma maters and so on). Philanthropy is not always about the logical application of funds to areas where the need is greatest.
Regarding the societal cornerstones, two comments. One on the housing "crisis". This was engineered by the free market aspirants fueling the "imitate the wealthy" syndrome. It seems mostly only "luxury" housing has been built in the last decade. And those with falling wages were scammed into thinking they could afford McMansions too. It's fitting a square peg in a round hole. No nonsensical loan is going to negate the fact that housing prices are simply too high, they are too large and too much about luxury, and that's not sensible at all for median and under incomes. Some of us are just looking for a place to live. In any case, where are the luxury wages for all Americans, if indeed we are all supposed to live in luxury housing? This is more crackpot economics brought to us by Alan Greenspan and his band of hyping capitalists. It doesn't work. Has anyone analyzed median and under income lately? And just what that after tax income buys? It's certainly not a $300K or more house. Or has this segment of society simply disappeared? One would think so based on the lack of housing being built that makes sense for those workers.
The second comment relates to schools. Clearly the most important subjects are not being taught in most schools, and we need some real life lessons since apparently parents aren't teaching these values any longer. The most important subjects are about immediate life issues: How to realistically analyze ones's finances and how to live under one's means - and how to resist media hype and rampant pointless consumerism and greed. Perhaps the lack of attention to this as teaching matter was by design....it almost seems so.
Thus we have the fallout from unchecked and unconscionable greed, which is really no surprise at all, since greed in general is senseless and amoral - and unnecessary. I look forward someday to sane economic policies (progressive taxes being an important component - but not to bash to rich - just to make things more equitable and reasonable for all). After all, what is the sense in bankrupting your customers (the working classes)?. Most importantly, where are the morals and humility in this age? We have to get away from worshiping money and thinking it is the only barometer of success before society can be rescued.