Rich Democrats Don’t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Sep 28, 2016 12:31 AM GMT
    Rich Democrats Don’t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans


    "Regardless of party, the elite donors whose money dominates politics, and the elite officeholders whose decisions set policy, don’t value economic equality."
    http://time.com/money/4046099/income-inquality-democrats-republicans/

    (from a year ago)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 12:38 AM GMT
    #Debates While the US debates give the appearance of conflict photos tell the story of ruling class mutual affection.

    CtUxRvGWcAAfIJ4.jpg

    CtUxTNUWIAEen10.jpg

    CtUxW57WcAERrQ8.jpg

    CtUxZJ3XEAAzxWH.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 1:52 AM GMT
    To be perfectly candid, I would agree with the notion that many (but not all) rich people, regardless of party affiliation, are not particularly concerned about income inequality. Although I don't have any empirical data to support this, my sense is that people who are not worried about where they will get the money for next month's rent or groceries tend to be a bit complacent and, to a lesser degree, less empathetic. When you're living in a cocoon of comfort and luxury, you tend to forget that there are people outside your gated community who are suffering financially--people who may never own a home, who may never be able to send their kids to a good school or even college, who may never have enough money on which to retire. I wish the world were a little better, and rich people a little more caring, but this is reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:21 AM GMT
    Distribution of the Wealth During Presidential Administrations

    43gb_header_sm.jpg?1250888303
    2001-2008a.jpg

    42bc_header_sm.jpg?1250887359
    1993-2001.jpg

    41gb_header_sm.jpg?1250887249
    1989-1993.jpg

    40rr_header_sm.jpg?1250886929
    1981-1989.jpg

    39jc_header_sm.jpg?1250886567
    1977-1981.jpg

    38gf_header_sm.jpg?1250886356
    1974-1977.jpg

    37rn_header_sm.jpg?1250885880
    1969-1974.jpg

    36lj_header_sm.jpg?1250885677
    1963-1969.jpg

    35jk_header.jpg?1250885463
    1961-1963.jpg

    34de_header_sm.jpg?1250885267
    1953-1961.jpg

    33ht_header_sm.jpg?1250884801
    1945-1953.jpg

    32fr_header_sm.jpg?1250884571
    1933-1945.jpg

    31hh_header_sm.jpg?1250881969
    1929-1933.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:24 AM GMT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_RuleThe Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:28 AM GMT
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-03-05/liberal-millionaires-want-higher-taxes-and-minimum-wageLiberal Millionaires Say 'Tax Me!'
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:32 AM GMT
    http://patrioticmillionaires.org/The Patriotic Millionaires

    The Patriotic Millionaires are a group of high-net worth Americans who are committed to building a more prosperous, stable and inclusive nation. The Patriotic Millionaires’ goal is to create an overwhelming public demand - a true mandate - for economic policies that serve regular Americans and political process policies that ensure everyone participates fully and equally in our democracy. The group supports legislation that will advance the following three core principles:
    •All citizens should enjoy political power equal to that enjoyed by millionaires;
    •All citizens who work full time should be able to afford their basic needs;
    •Tax receipts from millionaires, billionaires and corporations should comprise a greater proportion of federal tax receipts.

    Here is a link to our brochure. And a link to our media highlight reel.

    The group first came together in 2010 to demand an end to the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, instantly sparking the public's attention. Overnight, the group became a media sensation. Over the last six years, the group has generated hundreds of millions of dollars worth of media attention, appearing on outlets from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart to the PBS NewsHour; from the front page of the Boston Globe to The History Channel. The Patriotic Millionaires’ reach is so vast that the President of the Czech Republic referenced the group in an address to the Czech Parliament. The largest television station in Japan and a major Swedish magazine both did feature stories on the group. We had the honor of joining the President in the White House in 2012 for his Tax Day address and in 2014 for the signing of the Executive Order raising wages for federal contract employees.

    The group is chaired by Morris Pearl, a former Blackrock executive who retired 2 years ago after a long career on Wall Street to work with the Patriotic Millionaires full time. Other members include: the founder of Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer, filmmaker Abigail Disney, founder of MOMs Organic Market Scott Nash, several Google employees including number 20 and number 59 David desJardins and Doug Edwards respectively, textile entrepreneur Great Neck Richman, and corrugated cardboard mogul Dennis Mehiel among others.

    The Patriotic Millionaires recently released their first eBook Re-Negotiating Power and Money in America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:34 AM GMT
    http://patrioticmillionaires.org/book/powerandmoney.pdf“PLEASE RAISE OUR TAXES.”

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:40 AM GMT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_PledgeThe Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthy people of the world to contribute their wealth to philanthropic causes.

    In June 2010 the Giving Pledge campaign was formally announced and Bill Gates and Warren Buffett began recruiting members.[2] In 2011 Gates and Buffett met with wealthy individuals in India and China and invited them to join the campaign.[3][4][5] The aggregate wealth of the first 40 pledgers was $125 billion as of August 2010.[6] As of April 2011, 69 billionaires had joined the campaign and given a pledge.[7] In April 2012, The Huffington Post reported that a total of 81 billionaires committed via the campaign.[8] A few of the signatories of the pledge after 2012 include: Hasso Plattner,[9] David Rockefeller,[10] Azim Premji,[11] Richard Branson,[12] Elon Musk, Tim Cook,[13] Sara Blakely,[14] and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw.[15] By March 2016, 142 individuals and/or couples were listed as pledgers on the official website

    $365 billion has been pledged by 139 individuals.[17] Below is a list of all pledges...



    http://givingpledge.org/The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.

    Warren Buffett

    “Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks (Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates) on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others.”

    Warren Buffett

    My Philanthropic Pledge

    In 2006, I made a commitment to gradually give all of my Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic foundations. I couldn’t be happier with that decision.
    Now, Bill and Melinda Gates and I are asking hundreds of rich Americans to pledge at least 50% of their wealth to charity. So I think it is fitting that I reiterate my intentions and explain the thinking that lies behind them.

    First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day.

    Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge.

    Moreover, this pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including — I’m proud to say — my three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others. Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends significant person- to-person help daily. I’ve done little of this.

    What I can do, however, is to take a pile of Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates — “claim checks” that when converted to cash can command far-ranging resources — and commit them to benefit others who, through the luck of the draw, have received the short straws in life. To date about 20% of my shares have been distributed (including shares given by my late wife, Susan Buffett). I will continue to annually distribute about 4% of the shares I retain. At the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled. Nothing will go to endowments; I want the money spent on current needs.

    This pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. They have already received significant sums for their personal use and will receive more in the future. They live comfortable and productive lives. And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life.

    Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and long-standing friends.

    My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.)

    My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.

    The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our wellbeing would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.


  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Sep 28, 2016 4:33 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 5:14 AM GMT
    Something that would deeply concern socalists. Socialism does really well, until it runs out of other people's money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 12:45 PM GMT
    There can be no question that the current economic environment is skewed towards the rich. I've always believed that people who earn millions of dollars ought to be taxed more. If a person who earns $20M a year were taxed at, say, 50% just for the sake of argument and simplicity here, that person would still have a hefty $10M on which to live. How much money would a reasonable person need a year to have a very comfortable life? Everything else, in my mind, is simply greed. Now, I can understand why someone who earns $1M may not care so much about income inequality because more than likely that person is focused on trying to maintain that income to the exclusion of everything else. $1M/year may sound big but, all things considered, it really isn't that big. On the other hand, someone who already has amassed millions of dollars and who is set for the rest of his life ought to be thinking about how to make this world a more equal world. Perhaps this is the reason why some of our more notable billionaires are using some of their money to effect change.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 3:31 PM GMT
    There are SMART RICH PEOPLE and DUMB RICH PEOPLE.

    SMART RICH PEOPLE think in terms of what is called "enlightened self interests".
    What benefits all of society, like greater educational opportunities, benefits them too.
    Most of us want to be well educated and live a healthy life and we want to live in a society of well educated, healthy fellow citizens.

    DUMB RICH PEOPLE are selfish and stupid enough to think that they can live happily in ever shrinking safe zones where they haven't yet destroyed the environment.
    Like it or not, the gated community is connected to a bigger world.
    Consideration for others isn't really an option.
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Sep 28, 2016 3:41 PM GMT
    DOMINUS saidThere can be no question that the current economic environment is skewed towards the rich. I've always believed that people who earn millions of dollars ought to be taxed more. If a person who earns $20M a year were taxed at, say, 50% just for the sake of argument and simplicity here, that person would still have a hefty $10M on which to live. How much money would a reasonable person need a year to have a very comfortable life? Everything else, in my mind, is simply greed. Now, I can understand why someone who earns $1M may not care so much about income inequality because more than likely that person is focused on trying to maintain that income to the exclusion of everything else. $1M/year may sound big but, all things considered, it really isn't that big. On the other hand, someone who already has amassed millions of dollars and who is set for the rest of his life ought to be thinking about how to make this world a more equal world. Perhaps this is the reason why some of our more notable billionaires are using some of their money to effect change.


    LMAO. You want to determine how much money someone "needs"? Piss off.
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Sep 28, 2016 3:50 PM GMT
    14484940_10154513285970786_8170353093210
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 4:23 PM GMT

    As with many things the Dems only have to say they care.

    The only grade they get is a vote and if the electorate is too dumb to figure this out we all pay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 4:39 PM GMT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_StatesThis article is about a political and social philosophy. For the United States political party, see Republican Party...

    Republicanism is the guiding political philosophy of the United States. It has been a major part of American civic thought since its founding. It stresses liberty and unalienable individual rights as central values, making people sovereign as a whole, rejects monarchy, aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption. American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. For them, according to one team of historians, "republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy."...

    ...John Adams often pondered the issue of civic virtue. Writing Mercy Otis Warren in 1776, he agreed with the Greeks and the Romans, that, "Public Virtue cannot exist without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics." Adams insisted, "There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society."

    Adams worried that a businessman might have financial interests that conflicted with republican duty; indeed, he was especially suspicious of banks. He decided that history taught that "the Spirit of Commerce ... is incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic." But so much of that spirit of commerce had infected America. In New England, Adams noted, "even the Farmers and Tradesmen are addicted to Commerce." As a result, there was "a great Danger that a Republican Government would be very factious and turbulent there."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AristocracyAristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos "excellent," and κράτος kratos "power") is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class....Since the French Revolution, aristocracy has generally been contrasted with democracy, in which all citizens should hold some form of political power...


    It does not seem unreasonable that a country which ended rule by kings, that created, fostered and defended for itself such a successful system of free enterprise might then reign in excessive successes of that very system (which when unfettered work against the Republic) to recycle back into the system. This seems arguable on two very simple points. One that those beneficiaries were able to so thrive because this system allowed that, defended throughout history and often today by the blood of the children of the less fortunate--and there's no repaying that in full--but also by the very leniency which allows people to profit by scamming each other. That smarter people, even if only slightly above the IQ average but endowed perhaps with some charisma, might take advantage of lesser intelligence or of those smarter but with more greed than smarts.

    In maintaining as much freedom in commerce (often at the expense of our life sustaining environment--who's paying us rents on that?), as well as so much freedom in speech that allows even for massive advertising scams (often at the expense of dumbing down our citizenry), it seems quite reasonable to tax the fuck out of that and to use that money to counter the detrimental effects of these excesses of such "free" commerce.

    Wasn''t there a conniving conservative pre-tRumpublican poster around here who even touted the concept in her screenname: freeenterpriseisnotfree, I think it was.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 9:01 PM GMT
    JackNNJ said
    DOMINUS saidThere can be no question that the current economic environment is skewed towards the rich. I've always believed that people who earn millions of dollars ought to be taxed more. If a person who earns $20M a year were taxed at, say, 50% just for the sake of argument and simplicity here, that person would still have a hefty $10M on which to live. How much money would a reasonable person need a year to have a very comfortable life? Everything else, in my mind, is simply greed. Now, I can understand why someone who earns $1M may not care so much about income inequality because more than likely that person is focused on trying to maintain that income to the exclusion of everything else. $1M/year may sound big but, all things considered, it really isn't that big. On the other hand, someone who already has amassed millions of dollars and who is set for the rest of his life ought to be thinking about how to make this world a more equal world. Perhaps this is the reason why some of our more notable billionaires are using some of their money to effect change.


    LMAO. You want to determine how much money someone "needs"? Piss off.


    Sure enough, there it is: another clear example. No surprise there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 9:06 PM GMT
    What was it the Donald said, 652 or 654 million in earnings last year and paid no taxes? Lol. Cause the Democrats squander?
    Image result for leona helmsley no taxes
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2016 10:15 PM GMT
    http://helmsleytrust.org/about-us
    Total assets as of 2015 $5.54 BILLION
    Total Value of Grants Since Inception $1.635 billion


    https://fconline.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker-profile?collection=grantmakers&key=HELM023The trust aspires to improve lives by supporting effective nonprofits. Grantmaking focuses on four main areas: health and medical research, human services, education, and conservation. The trust, which is administered by four trustees selected by Leona Helmsley, also awards grants in other areas.


    http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/Donald Trump: The Least Charitable Billionaire In The World

    Although Donald Trump has described himself as an “ardent philanthropist,” he has only donated $3.7 million to his own foundation. In comparison, a wrestling company has given Trump’s foundation $5 million. He ranks among the least charitable billionaires in the world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2016 1:29 AM GMT
    The old class warfare game.

    Just like crabs in a bucket....people want to see the other guy dragged down, even if their own life gets dragged down with it. Very sad.