What Are Rich People Thinking?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: harrison.cannon@gmail.com @ 11/10/2008 6:15:50 PM

    The author doesn't seem to understand that for some people it's not just about the money.

  • Posted By: Kerberos @ 11/10/2008 6:14:59 PM

    I wonder how many of the "rich" who voted for Obama bought their first house with no help from papa & mama, or worked their way through college? - In a pinch, they resort to the giveaway mentality, I believe that's what they experienced, so that's what they resort to - a no brainer.

  • Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 6:10:02 PM

    JC0101 style comments are most revealing.

    Actual confessions from real people...

    The sad truth is that reducng taxes & spending is so hard to do...

    Emmanuel has an interesting plan for 15-25-35% tax rates.

    It may be as low as it gets...

  • Posted By: jpieder @ 11/10/2008 5:31:01 PM

    With all due disrespect to Mr. Gross' mental capabilities let me point that majority of people who make $250K per year or more are not Joe the Lawyer or Shmo the Fund Manager but couples who, like my wife and I, work on technical positions (e.g. we are programmers), make more than $100K each (good salary but comparatively common in high-tech these days), and have 2nd jobs to pay our daughter tuition. If comrade Obama pushes his tax increase we will negotiate more vacation time in exchange for salary decrease, drop 2nd jobs, and apply for more financial aid. I am not sure if it helps anybody but there is no other choice. You may blame me for not willing to continue moonlighting to fund your child through college; I would not blame you if you were in my shoes. As you may guess, I did not vote for comrade Obama. If the new regime puts me in front of firing squad (highly unlikely, I hope) my last words will be: ???Comrade Gross is a big idiot!???

    • Posted By: slug @ 11/10/2008 6:08:18 PM

      First,I have voted in 10 presidential elections. I have heard the rhetoric repeatedly, but I have never met anyone who actually didn't try to maximize his or her gross income because of taxes, especially when the increase would be so marginally small. It seems that when people really examine the issue, they always conclude total net income is always larger, not smaller, regardless of the progressive tax rates in effect.Second, after eight years of "deficits don't matter" and borrow and spend rather than "tax and spend" in all liklyhood we are either going to have to face diminished purchase power through higher taxes or diminshed purchase power through the diminished purchasing power of the dollar and probably both. It is suprising to me how names and labels control perceptions so much more effectivly than reality. Nixon institutes price controls, Reagan allows run way deficits and W runs the highest deficits in history and socializes the American banking system and maybe the insurance sector wire taps our phones and authorizes torture of prisoners. Yet Obama, who proposed what can be described as no more tha
      n a
      moderate adjustment of an already progressive tax system (i.e. the prosperous pay more) and those whonote a lot of prosperous people voted for Obama anyway are labeled a "comrade"and he hasn't actually done anything yet. That dissonance between reality and belief has got to be tough to work with. The point of the whole article was to demonstrate that there are a large number of people who work just as hard as you do and make more or less than you who have shunned their faith based concepts to reality and have observed and learned from the actual facts and compelling lessons of the last eight years. Obviously some have not. this does not make anyone a "comrade" or even a close acquaintance. That's just the way it is.

  • Posted By: cjb12 @ 11/10/2008 6:06:55 PM

    I agree, this is a dumb article. If the rich were crazy to vote for Obama because it adversely affected their wallets, then, by the same logic, every poor person in the country that voted for McCain is similarly crazy.
    Reductionism taken to the point of stupidity.

  • Posted By: Ben Stroked @ 11/10/2008 6:04:27 PM

    I dont buy the share the wealth bit. And sure dont like the 7 billion bail out, thats roughly $23,000 for every man woman and child in the country. Giving that money to companys that fold from bad managment with their money is like giving an adict a key to the local drug store.Somtimes I wonder if people really knows where our gov gets all that money, in case ya dont.........outa your paychecks, taxes taxes taxes! I dont mind paying, and paying more,But my money is hard earned and I expect it be better spent. Ya I know the carmakers need a couple billion to get them through, but they didnt see it like that when I couldnt afford payments on a new truck......so fukc em, I like my honda.....we tax payers kinda fianace this bunch of idiots in charge, live them in charge fine but for fukc sake lets make them get a new accountent! Cuz their really fukcing up with the one they got.

  • Posted By: Wealthy and happy to pay for it @ 11/10/2008 6:04:19 PM

    I earn that much and more and I don't understand how educated wealthy people feel that spending freely on a war isn't going to hit them in the pocket books. Most of us are willing to pay for a war and I do mean PAY, when there is a critical reason but Iraq in meaningless. We didn't even get their oil. The terrorists are already here. DUH!. The bill for this war has come due and we have to pay. Period. If the lower income people can't purchase the goods we all have stocks in, then the whole country is lost. BTW, the news organizations are run by rich capitolists.They are really not so left! Capitolism is our asis but you have to take the good with the bad andf the bad is where we are right now! Get over it and do something constructive.

  • Posted By: irishmafia @ 11/10/2008 6:03:46 PM

    Do you write for comic books also? You should because the article is pure fantasy. LOL The liberal media writes whatever it wants with no facts to back it up and the brainwashed swallow it as truth. Been going on for years. Notice you didn't bother to put any links to back up your story. Interesting because then people would actually be able to check your facts. But then again what liberal ever let facts get in the way of their agenda?

  • Posted By: Accounting'smygame @ 11/10/2008 5:14:06 PM

    NO the popular vote WAS NOT closer for Obama/McCain - about 7 Million difference. Whereas, when Kerry run against the incumbant Bush in 04, there was only a 3 million difference. 59 Million Americans voted for Kerry vs 61 Mil for Bush. And what consideration did we receive, us 59 million, from the Bush Administration....zip!
    You gotta keep an eye on these folks who primarily watch FOX for all their news - they're hand fed malarkey.

    • Posted By: A Midwest Mom @ 11/10/2008 5:24:27 PM

      Actually those figures are from USA today and Gannet news services. Who is believing malarkey, I looked at the popular vote and used a calculator (you could to you know) Where on earth did you get 7 mil difference?

      • Posted By: Rocker68 @ 11/10/2008 6:03:25 PM

        The difference at this point is 8,181,896 Obama 65,937,955 McCain 57,756,059

      • Posted By: Rocker68 @ 11/10/2008 6:01:57 PM

        The actual difference at this point is 8,181,896. Obama 65,937,955 McCain 57,756,059. There may be some outstanding votes though.

    • Posted By: ppenguin95 @ 11/10/2008 5:39:27 PM

      I think it will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next 4 years. For your comment, 95% of media outlets lean to the left. It is a fact. Fox News happens to slightly lean to the right, but because every other media outlet leans so far to the left that it appears as though Fox is way to the right. I find there reporting to be pretty fair. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS all go to the far left. I feel that all media reporting should be 100% unbiased. They should just report the news and give their analysis but let us people decide how we believe, and not try to push what they want us to believe.

  • Posted By: kevlarman @ 11/10/2008 6:03:19 PM

    They probably put the country ahead of their wallet. And that may be the hardest thing for the author to understand. Oh and to the comments about who's right and who's left in the media, I guess it's just a matter of perspective however, the vast majority of talk radio (a popular media to the great-unwashed masses...) is primarily right wing. MSNBC is as left-leaning as FOX is right leaning with CNN splitting the middle. I suspect that folks will be scratching their heads over why the rich voted for Obama for many years after he's done with being president. I still say it is probably not so difficult to figure out. I think the solution is as simple as my opening line suggests. I just think that they put the nation ahead of themselves for once. Everyone is capable of those moments from time to time, including the privilaged.

  • Posted By: Van Man @ 11/10/2008 6:01:34 PM

    A Depression is BAD for rich people.
    Unnecessary wars are BAD for rich people.
    A dying planet is BAD for rich people.
    Rich people understand that economic policies are important; while this used to be a Republican strong suit, it sure isn't anymore. The debt clock came down under Clinton; they had to add a digit because of Bush!

  • Posted By: 4astrongamerica @ 11/10/2008 6:01:14 PM

    It is really lucky for most of you that in a day or two, we will no longer see the crazy predictions that are being made here. This economy is like nothing we have seen before. It doesn't follow any of the typical historical patterns. Some of the most intelligent, most successful business people in our country have sustained enormous losses; including some of Obama's closest financial advisors. It is very easy to say what Obama will do when he's still standing on the sidelines or to second guess the current administration. Once the new administration takes office, the wake up call will begin. I would seriously take a wait and see approach. Obama has created enormous expectations for his presidency. Trying to rein that in at this point is maybe too little, too late. He has promised a lot; we'll see if he delivers. If in fact he can, the bandwagon will remain full -- if not...well, people will jump off as quickly as they jumped on. Promises will only get you so far and then, people expect results. Although I was not a supporter, I wish him all the luck and offer my prayers for his success.

  • Posted By: irishmafia @ 11/10/2008 6:00:13 PM

    do you write for comic books also? You should because the article is pure fantasy. Notice you have no links to any of the claims you make. LOL But what the hey people have believed wathever the liberal press throws at them for years.

  • Posted By: gtbrock1 @ 11/10/2008 5:58:17 PM

    Time will tell. Bush did a lot of damage, but doesn't get credit for some very good things that did occur under his watch. The financial crisis will ultimately be shown to be a delayed holdover from Clinton policies regarding mortgages for people that had no business qualifying for them. Even with that, our economy was in much better shape before Democrats took control of the Senate and the House and prevented several Bush recommendations from occuring. At one point, Republicans had control of all 3 major branches and we did a lousy job with it. It will now be interesting and enlightening to see if the Democrats do a better job. At the end of the day it still boils down to the simple economic fact that you can't spend more than you make. Obama's plans are ambitious and even revolutionary. Almost evangelical. But "moderate tax increases" on the top 3-6 percent of taxpayers (who already pay 70% of the tax burden) will not possibly fund all of the great Democratic ideals. With increasing costs of a aging population of baby boomers we were already poised for financial disaster prior to the "credit crisis". As an employer of 7 people, none of my very competent employees will be getting raises this year as i simply cannot afford to do that with the low margins of profit already built into my practice. I believe we are in for a difficult decade - no matter who or what party is in charge.

  • Posted By: JC0101 @ 11/10/2008 5:57:50 PM

    I have a relative who makes more than $250k. He owns multiple ice cream stores, which are not doing well right now. He voted for Obama. The more money middle class people have the more they will buy from him. CEOs don't go to his stores, so more tax cuts for them won't help him. Plus, his taxes won't go up that much. A couple of thousand extra in taxes is far better than ten of thousands less in decreased business.

  • Posted By: RavenMaven @ 11/10/2008 5:55:39 PM

    This is a really dumb article, and I am not surprised at the really dumb responses it illicited on this board. Becasue a person is rich, then everything they think or care about is somehow related to money? How absurd. Did it ever occur to the author or anyone on this board that the folks who are rich and voted for obama did so for some other reason other then his tax plan? And using a small county in Connecticut as your measuring stick for all rich people? Equally dumb. Of course this is NewsWeek, so I don't expect much. Did you know that there are more rich people in Florida than in Connecticut? Did you study their voting habits, or did you just look for examples that supported your pre-determined conclusion. You call this journalism? You are a hack....

  • Posted By: Ediacaran @ 11/10/2008 5:55:36 PM

    The Pied Piper's tune appeals to many, especially children.

  • Posted By: rob egenolf @ 11/10/2008 5:13:33 PM

    The much larger (and still unanswered?) question is why so many voters voted against their own best economic interest the past two presidential elections. George Bush was certainly no friend to the best interests middle and lower income voters who nonetheless still voted him into office, Determine the answer to that questions and you will also find the answer top this one as well. Voters do not always simply vote their pocketbooks.

    • Posted By: LeMec @ 11/10/2008 5:54:44 PM

      I agree as well. You have to look at the bigger picture, not just a person???s income to understand how they vote. Americans are generally unhappy with who ever is in power. Right now it is the Republicans. In ???94 it was the Democrats. Right now so many now disapprove of the war, are upset about the economy, and whatever personal issue upsets them that they blame it on the President and his party. Just wait a few years and everyone will be upset with the Democrats, when they raise taxes, over regulate business, restrict 2nd amendment rights, and are upset at what ever negative thing is happening at the time. Then everything will swing back to the Republicans. On a second note a big part of Obama???s win was a Republican rejection of their candidate. Many of McCain???s votes were votes against Obama rather then support for him. You can???t win in that situation. Look at ???04 and the ???anybody but Bush??? theme when Kerry lost and ???96 when Dole supporters disliked Clinton more then they supported him. In 2012 if the Republicans can nominate someone who can unite the party, they will give Obama a much better run for his money.

    • Posted By: ppenguin95 @ 11/10/2008 5:27:47 PM

      Totally agree! People can't look at one segment or piece of someone's voting process or method. People are complex and while some tend to vote based on there overall belief system others simply vote for whomever is running from their party and others vote based on how they view the candidates personality. etc.

  • Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 5:54:00 PM

    I believe vancbjorn is true...

    "Trendy " liberal millionaires...

    In fact,if some centrist Dems ,together with Reps,manage to lower the estate tax,they will go all Dem...

  • Posted By: Ediacaran @ 11/10/2008 5:52:48 PM

    The Pied Piper's tune appeals to many.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse