View Single Post
Old 09-04-2019, 08:03 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
If you are really that close to being truly rich, you don't have to worry about either your future or your children's. I've got enough money so that I'm retired and don't have to worry about having enough to last us our entire lives, with probably enough for our kids. But they won't need it when they get it, just like we didn't need money we got from our parents.
As for cutting spending, we probably won't ever do that on an absolute basis since the population is growing. But why treat spending as monolithic? There is spending we can agree is useless - Iraq War II, Trump's salary, and money that would pay big benefits, like infrastructure repair which everyone wants to do but which never seems to happen. We need to distinguish high return spending from low return spending.

The rich aren't monolithic either. Lots of the rich think their taxes should be raised.
But some of the rich want to spend their money to give themselves breaks. There are some CEOs who deserve every penny. Then there are CEOs who destroy stockholder value and get fired with 8 figure parting gifts. That adds a lot of value.

Senator Inhofe is pretty rich. He has a big house in an exclusive community on a lake, and he likes the water level in the lake to be high to aid in boating. Fine, except that making the water level high causes floods several times a year in the town below. Monster? I'd say so. If Scooby Doo did that story, you'd think the villain was too evil to be real.

During the bubble I made a lot of money on stock options and didn't mind getting bumped to a higher bracket at all. Actual options shouldn't be taxed because they are too speculative. When they become stock, the stock should be taxed - if it is above a certain level. The average Amazon worker is not going to have to pay a penny under any proposal I've seen. If Bezos has to pay, fine. If someone gets rewarded with enough options to go over the threshold, and they cash them in, they should definitely pay.
BTW, cashing in options and not selling the stock is dangerous. During the bubble people who did this were liable for tax on the difference between the option price and the exercise price. Some kept the stock, the stock tanked, and they didn't have enough money to pay the tax. I never made that mistake at least.
Voyager, I agree with most of this. All spending isn't bad, but spending on ANYTHING that isn't agreed upon by both political factions is counterproductive.
If there was a need then both political factions would be willing to spend money, then agreement could be reached (just like it used to) but currently everyone has a direction different from the other. And you know why? Because either the people are too stupid to realize that politicians don't give a wrinkled cats tit for them, or they haven't been informed well enough by the opposition that this benefits them. Or, it just doesn't benefit them.

The rich cut off I've seen, in order to cut anything from our currently (IMO) bloated budget, easily the 1% gets hit but more likely the top 10%.

We currently have around 50% of our populace not having any skin in the federal game, they are paying in $0 to the federal kitty. I don't see that ever working out.
This is not about them being able or unable to pay, this is about skin in the game. If I pay, I care. If I don't pay why should I care?

Oh but they do you say, they vote. And what do they vote for? Why they vote for themselves, they vote to give themselves more. And the politicians listen.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 09-04-2019 at 08:05 AM.