What Are Rich People Thinking?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 5:50:07 PM

    There is plenty of money for infrastructure,even with lower taxation.

    The big problems are the social security,medicare/aid taxes...

    Infra is a catchphrase of the socialists in their effort to justify higher taxation.

    They all talk about "bridges ",like parrots...

    • Posted By: markmier @ 11/10/2008 5:52:12 PM

      Parrots like McCain and Palin?

      "I was for the bridge before I was against it?"

  • Posted By: lareguy @ 11/10/2008 5:35:05 PM

    I am lucky enough to make over $250K a year - which in LA is not as great as it sounds, but is great nonetheless - and I have voted Republican since 1992 - and I voted for Obama. I live in an America that has forgotten the value of education, especially in areas of math and science. Our infrastructure is falling apart - our rails are 30+ years behind those of Europe or Asia, and our highways can not handle the capacity. The country needs to spend a little on itself, and if that means higher taxes for a period of time, so be it. Something good WILL come out of this, and perhaps a new Republican party can emerge. A party that is not beholden to religious conservatives fighting against issues that were resolved 40 years ago - in short, a party that looks ahead, not backwards.

    • Posted By: REALITY CHECK @ 11/10/2008 5:45:17 PM

      What makes you think the higher taxes will be used for infrastructure? You'll pay taxes alright, but Obama said he intends to use it to give money to those "less fortunate". He'll go for a quick fix, not infrastructure that takes years just to get thru the approval process, and then years more to construct. Politicians always look for near term results to tout in their re-election bid.

      • Posted By: JC0101 @ 11/10/2008 5:51:29 PM

        Where did Obama say that he intends to give the money to the less fortunate? If you mean the "spread the wealth" comment, he was referring to a tax cut for people who pay income and/or payroll taxes. He has said repeatedly that he will invest in infrastructure.

    • Posted By: ldatug @ 11/10/2008 5:38:39 PM

      I feel the same way. We make $400K plus, and I do not fear a tax increase at all. The proposed increase is not large, and I think there is much to be fixed in this country. I'd rather pay slightly more taxes and borrow less from China.

  • Posted By: vancebjorn @ 11/10/2008 5:50:26 PM

    I live in Atherton, Calif., one of just a couple towns in the entire SF Bay area which consistently votes Republican. (The town of 8000 has a median house price is $4M, and many north of $20M). This year the vote went strongly to Obama - something like 58%. This is a big change.

  • Posted By: commoncents2439 @ 11/10/2008 5:48:34 PM

    The election is over. It is time for the media to lay off the Republicans and enjoy their Democratic victory. Let the nation heal instead of continueing to find new ways to show how bad Obama beat McCain. In sports rubbing salt in the wounds is called poor sportsmanship. A win is a win and a loss is a loss. Let's move on. I vote for change, how about some positive reporting?

  • Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 5:38:43 PM

    Interesting comments.
    The most reliable are from people who actually earn more than 250K.

    As a financial consultant,I know quite a lot of them...

    Some of them are indoctrinated in capitalism.

    A few others ..." go with the flow ".

    Either they want to be "trendy ",like the so-called elites,in East & West coast,others are actually scared of even higher taxes & they go for the lesser evil,others don't mind because they have plenty. They show apathy.

    Either way,the "rich " are not a cement voting block,like blacks & jews...

  • Posted By: suwanavi @ 11/10/2008 5:38:04 PM

    If the author is confused by this phenomenon, maybe his assumtion that wealth=greed+self interest has some flaws. If a person is making $250k or more and has opportunities most people don't have, maybe they think they can afford to give a little more back!

  • Posted By: luckydog @ 11/10/2008 4:42:00 PM

    As a CPA I see the dishonesty in this first hand. Less than 48 hours after the election I get an e-mail from the accountant of a extremely wealthy individual talking about the year-end strategy they want to undertake to leave the door open to take income this year and pay less tax (my client is a partner in one of his ventures and therefore the reason for the e-mail to me). Problem is, this particular individual was a HUGE Obama supporter. These people are all the same behind closed doors. They're OK with someone else paying more taxes. Just not them. What a fraud.

    • Posted By: Fl-Mom @ 11/10/2008 5:36:55 PM

      Actually, isn't everyone OK with someone else paying more taxes? I mean really, that isn't exclusive to the wealthy. The entire middle class is OK with raising taxes, as long as it isn't them. Let's just hope that all the extra tax money coming in from the wealthy will be used in a meaningful way.

  • Posted By: Evoluted1 @ 11/10/2008 5:36:46 PM

    The redistribution UPWARD of wealth into the hands of the top one to five percent is not what those who fought in the American Revolution envisioned. The concept that we start off on equal footing is now a joke. If the world monetary system, crumbles, I think we should let the wealthy eat their gold toilet seats and jewel encrusted umbrella stands.

  • Posted By: suwanavi @ 11/10/2008 5:32:18 PM

    The author seems to be baffled by this Bushenfreude on the assumtion that wealth=greed+self-interest. Maybe some of the affluent has a higher moral compass. "This country has been good to me, I can afford to give a little more back!"

  • Posted By: jpieder @ 11/10/2008 5:30:47 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: the magic of @ 11/10/2008 4:48:44 PM

    In Illinois, our son and his wife, who go over the 250,000 category on salaries alone, told us they didn't mind paying more taxes if it meant that their daughters didn't have to contend with a huge govt deficit in their lives. They expect Obama to make things better all around - war, foreign relations, economy, racial, inner city schools. They have great hope. We'll see how it goes.

    • Posted By: Dr. Snort @ 11/10/2008 5:30:28 PM

      Must be from Chicago

  • Posted By: mrrightnow @ 11/10/2008 5:30:25 PM

    to be fair this article describes my type perfectly except I'm not old enough to a yuppie. I voted with my heart not my wallet. Either way the economic disaster that we are currently experiencing will have a much larger impact on my wallet than taxes ever will.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/10/2008 4:05:38 PM

    Make up your mind Gross. Pre-Obama and it was ''Why Do Corporations Like Republicans''? Now its Why They Voted For Obama.

    As one can readily see by the back-in -business atttiude among lobbyists getting to work with their old Clintonista pals again,we are viewing the same lineup of old pros from the business/corporate world who will be cutting deals with Obama while Podesta and Emmanuel work the ''power behind the throne''angle working alongside with the various giants already lining up for a crack at the trough,a means of inside access. Vernon Jordan will be the administrations go-to lobbyist guy who will continue to cement the Clinton brand on the dealings between government and the business world,having cruised in both seas. Clintonista lobbyists Joe Lockhart and Tom ''Mack''McClarty have already taken up positions in Washington within a sticks throw of the White House. And this is only in one area.
    Clintonistas Rubin,Gorelick and Summers are already waiting in the wings. Obama would do well to trim the Bubba fat and cut loose the two most odious of the three,Jamie Gorelick,whose outrageous ''Wall Memo'' and loot-raking while helping run FANNIE MAE to the tune of tens of millions are both enough disgraces in and of themselves to disqualify her for running Justice as AG.
    Rubin is the other. Although enough revisionism regarding his role in killing GLASS-STEAGALL has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, in order to illogically protect this person,it is the weight of actual history in its documents,interviews,and testimonies that settles upon Rubin as the chief culprit,with a greater role than even Sen. Gramm by far, in bringing forth corporate lending mergers that would become a main genesis of the great American mortgage disaster. Eric Holder,admittedly another Clintonista,would yet be superior to Gorelick,Summers to Rubin. Obama is already in uncharted waters filled with Arkansas mafia sharks. This is not a portion of the ''change'' anticipated by the disciples of this man. Indeed,it eerily looks like another Clinton presidency.

    SALON Nov.10,2008:''Podesta: The Shadow President''

    PBS FRONTLINE May.04,2003:''The Decline Of GLASS-STEAGALL[interview with Robert Rubin]. And:

    ''Testimony Of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin To The Senate Banking Committee,'Reform of GLASS-STEAGALL Act'' Feb.24,1999.

    www.senate.gov

    The Center for Responsive Politics ''The Public Eye'' www.opensecrets.org

    • Posted By: miketheknife @ 11/10/2008 4:11:16 PM

      Before you get your blood pressure up, we'll just have to wait and see. It's amazing that you're frothing at the mouth when the man has not even been sworn in yet. Why not do yourself a favor and just withhold your judgment until he actually does something. You've got plenty of time to go beserk about how he ruins the Country - if he actually does something to ruin the Country. Don't put the cart in front of the horse.

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/10/2008 5:27:48 PM

        If this was ''frothing at the mouth'',I would hate to see it when I have apoplexy or some such. You forget a few details. Namely that we have been down this road before,it is deja vu,all over again. If you can refute a scintilla of the records of several of Obama picks that I have helpfully illuminated, then by all means do so.
        The point remains in clarity that these picks represent a continuing business-as-usual product eminating from Washington. A theology that is already firmly entrenched in the Democrat-dominated Congress with their bailout pork and their handouts to Detroit. And this even leaves out the influence of Chicago politics upon the new administration,infinately more cunning than the Clinton machine. Already,the Chicago Tribune in todays op-ed will gauge the willingness of the Obama administration to hew to ''post -partisan'' and ''change''politics by whether or not he bows to pressure to eject Asst.US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and thus eliminate this man from his Elliot Ness perch in dealing with the Chicago and Illinois political machines.

      • Posted By: copper454 @ 11/10/2008 4:37:19 PM

        There is some truth to his heated rant.

        Obama does appear to be bringing in a whole host of Clinton-era Washington insiders and lobbyists/former lobbyists.

        I thought he'd go for some "outsider" people given his message of change, but no, it'll probably be the same old Democrat regime...

        ...which may or may not be better than the same old Republican regime. Hard to see how it'd be worse. We'll see.

        Either way, don't expect to see magical wonderful Hope and Change falling from the rainbow. Obama's just another politician, not the Messiah people thought they were voting for.

        At least he knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite, though, unlike some other candidates this fall...

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 11/10/2008 5:26:53 PM

    IF you have an Ambitious to hold as "PUBLIC OFFICE BEARERS",But doesn't have any Qualification or Smart Brain, Just Join the "Republican party" But you must poccessed the abilities for blatant lies, rallies inciting anger, and even in the face of facts out there continues to lie about all of it. You're just the perfect requirements for the future Republican Candidates.

  • Posted By: tedepstein @ 11/10/2008 5:26:38 PM

    You don't get it. Your "Bushenfreude," to the extent that it exists, is only part of the picture. The much bigger reality is that these wealthy people did much better in a Clinton economy, which emphasized tax policies that simply worked, than they did in a Bush enconomy, which was motivated by Republican ideology.

  • Posted By: miketheknife @ 11/10/2008 4:58:09 PM

    "During 32 years of 5 Republican administrations, measured in linked 2000 dollars, average annual GNP growth was 2.7%. During the 20 years of 3 Democratic administrations, average annual GNP growth was 4%, again measured in real dollars. So the Democrats were 50% more successful growing the economy during their terms, and did so without busting the budget every year."

    • Posted By: ppenguin95 @ 11/10/2008 5:22:45 PM

      Interesting point. But, don't forget that it isn't the administration its the congress. The only thing an Administration can do is suggest policy and veto. Only when the Congress majority and Administration are the same can the Administration really be given credit for a positive or negative effect on the economy. I haven't looked at the numbers, but if you look at it from that perspective I would be interested in the results.

  • Posted By: jerzyboy349 @ 11/10/2008 4:12:51 PM

    As a Jew, I officially disown the 75% of Jewish voters who voted for Obama. I don't know them and don't ever want to know them!

    • Posted By: copper454 @ 11/10/2008 4:33:29 PM

      As an African-American, I officially disown the 96% of my ethnicity who voted for Obama. I voted for Ron Paul.

      • Posted By: t2jones @ 11/10/2008 5:17:34 PM

        As an African American who copper454 just disowned two sentences for you "Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And take all the other self haters with ya."

    • Posted By: markmier @ 11/10/2008 4:30:48 PM

      You are totally an anti-semite. :)

  • Posted By: ppenguin95 @ 11/10/2008 5:12:34 PM

    I think you are incorrect and that in fact the rich voted for Obama for several reasons. First, they have always found the loop-holes and that won't change. So, not much of an effect. Second, the ulta-rich understand that for legislation to truly affect them, it will be a huge battle in the Senate and House. Third, McCain has never been popular among Republicans, especially the rich. Remember, he is the guy that worked with Democrats to get campaign finance reform and stop "pork-barrel" spending. That isn't in line with what the rich folks want. Forth, some of the rich may have voted for Obama because they are hoping for a jump in the short term in the stock market where they are heavily involved and could make a huge chunk of cash. Fifth, some of the rich may have voted for Obama because they are opposed to the war and its financial cost to the economy and feel that Obama will end the war in Iraq much sooner than McCain would have.

    Allo of these are logical reasons why the rich voted for Obama. This may not carry over in 2010 and 2012 elections but only time will tell.

  • Posted By: t2jones @ 11/10/2008 5:12:26 PM

    As an African American, I'm glad NOT be counted with anyone who voted for Ron Paul.

  • Posted By: Perryj12 @ 11/10/2008 4:20:16 PM

    No matter how you say it the people that voted for Obama supported abortion. Obama made misstatements during the debate. He support sFOCA and partial Birth abortion. Aids tragically kill 21,000 people a year. Breast cancer tragically kills 41,000 woman a year. Abortion of over one million children, tears the child aprat by pulling off armsn and legs, they crushes their skulls and suck out their brains. They feel death and pain during everystep. This is what one that voted for if they voted for Obama. The murder of tens of millions of children. Truly barbaric.. If you voted for Obama please go to Priets for Life and look at the children you killed. Don't you owe them at least this much so that you could get a $500.00 tax refund.

    • Posted By: danib60 @ 11/10/2008 5:10:01 PM

      We already have WAY TOO many people on this planet (which is the root problem, although no one will admit it). Too many people too feed, too many to have good jobs for everyone, too many for everyone to have a home with a white picket fence, etc.
      Now add to that another (what was it?) MILLION (and don't forget, unwanted) more mouths to feed! Our persistent pursuit of immortality is putting such a strain on our limited (we only have ONE planet) resources already! People need to learn to accept that our lives are finite, and people get sick and die, and get old and die, or have accidents and die. We are meant to die to make room for future generations, but no one accepts that...
      So don't worry about all of the unborn fetuses which are aborted responsibly and in a medical facility, worry about what's going to happen when the planet is no longer able to support the most obnoxious and demanding living thing to ever populate it... humans!

    • Posted By: mencik @ 11/10/2008 4:53:35 PM

      Voting is not, and should never be, a single issue decision. One must always balance all the issues and vote for the least objectionable candidate.

    • Posted By: obiwan @ 11/10/2008 4:51:50 PM

      That's news to me. You're right, I wasn't thinking about the money that's vanished from my portfolio in the stock crash, the impending recession, the lies to take us to war in Iraq, outing a CIA agent, Katrina, TORTURE, failing to catch Bin Laden, illegal wiretaps & constitutional violations, religious & political thuggery, gay bigotry, the bungled war in Afghanistan, that's 2 wars republicans haven't been able to win don'tcha know, gross incompetence, a flip flopping angry old man and his vacuous snowbilly sidekick with racist shouts in the rally background who offered no good solutions to our situation. You are right, my vote was all about your one religious agenda item on which I made my decision. How many soldiers have died in Iraq for those lies?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse