What Are Rich People Thinking?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: kennyg2 @ 11/10/2008 5:08:52 PM

    Sunshine, Kennedy is still alive someplace, the moon shot was faked, and if we wear aluminum foil hats, the government cant read our minds... We all know that there is one secret organization that runs the world so he had to have their approval to get there.

  • Posted By: AH1986 @ 11/10/2008 2:09:03 PM

    Marley07- - I agree wih you that the people who are making an above average income have worked hard to get there, but I have a question for you. What about all the others that are working just if not harder than these "rich" people but aren't being paid what they're worth? I know it's cliche, but i'm going to use myself as an example. I've been in the IT industry for 14 years, have a masters in network inrastructure design and am a certified engineer.. Sounds like I should be set, right? Well, let me tell you that with my knowledge, skills, and experience in my field I'm only making 44k this year......I have 3 kids and a mortgage too. Should I be penalized for the way that our current administration has shoved the "trickle down" mantra down the mouths of the public? Do I see any of that trickle down money in support to be able to start my own consulting firm? The answer is a resounding no. I was making 85k 5 years ago, but as time wears on and the pocketbooks grow tighter in our current economic strain, for professionals in my field, we're being cut back. It's like this across the market in many different sectors. I ask again is it fair that the wealthier pay a little more out of pocket to bring up the standard of living for the lower classes? in all honesty, no it's not, but the fact remains that it needs to be done, or crime, unemployment, and poverty rates will coninue to climb. I guess what I'm trying to ask you and all others who read this is have a heart and sacrifice your morning latte for a cup of folgers for crying out loud and help jumpstart our country again. Is it too much to ask?

    • Posted By: cleoj @ 11/10/2008 5:08:11 PM

      AH - Just wondering what part of the country you're living in. Perhaps $44k is a decent wage where you're from? I'm not trying to demean you but my husband works in IT as well and makes a lot more. After graduating with a degree that has nothing to do with IT, he has about 5 years of experience and made $65k before his company went bankrupt. He does have a CCNA. Perhaps that helps, I have no idea. However, we live in Orange County, CA and I suspect that if we lived in many of the other parts of the US, he would not be making quite as much.

  • Posted By: mcleodmn @ 11/10/2008 3:34:01 PM

    It's because most of them are educated and understand the ramifications of putting another religious zealot in the white house.

    In the age of information, time is not on the side of the religious right. Good riddance.

    • Posted By: spuddude @ 11/10/2008 5:05:52 PM

      The religious right have outlived every form of government devised by man for more than two MILLENIA!!! Don't make the mistake of believing that the hyper-conservative 'nuts' at whom you wag your liberal fingers constitute the conservative majority. A few street-corner preachers are not who passed the marriage protection amendment in California, nor were all of the 46 percent of voters that selected McCain/Palin rabid right-wing wackos.
      It was a previous 'age of information' that led to incredible spreading of the truth of Christianity, and the dispelling of then-modern day deceptions and half-truths, very similar to the current pseudo-scientific ramblings of the morally bankrupt anti-religious. Study up on Guttenberg and what came after the Bible was printed and made available to the masses.
      The current 'age of information' is a boon to religious thought, not its death-nell.

  • Posted By: Brammy @ 11/10/2008 5:04:16 PM

    I am happy that those who would be most affected by rolling back of tax cuts sa beyond themselves and understood what our constitution TRULY says. FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. That means ALL people! This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the American heart is in the right place even when its hard. Sunshine, get over it, I am sure you aren't even in that tax bracket you don't have enuff class.

  • Posted By: tile00 @ 11/10/2008 5:03:15 PM

    @ a midwest mom,
    where do you get your numbers? obama overran mccain in the popular vote 65.9M to 57.7M while bush best kerry by 62M-59M...and the electoral college was a landslide! get your head out of your red state and look around you.

    and i like the typical legislate from the bench hogwash that republicans use when court decisions go against you. just because you don't agree with the court decision, didn't mean the court legislated from the bench. live with it...its called a check against another branch. so under your view brown v. the board of education was not a valid decision, right? courts should not review and overturn laws that are passed regardless of what that law says...right? separate by equal is completely acceptable in a free society? yes? what? speak up...i can't hear you...

    that's what i thought....

  • Posted By: Sunshine1957 @ 11/10/2008 4:41:51 PM


    FORGET S O C I A L I S T - OBAMA IS C O M M U N I S T

    • Posted By: cwinebarger @ 11/10/2008 4:54:16 PM

      Your comment reveals your ignorance. Go ahead and communism for us, and explain why you think Obama is a communist. LOL, I can't wait for this.

      • Posted By: cwinebarger @ 11/10/2008 5:02:51 PM

        Woops, forget a word! "Go ahead and EXPLAIN communism..."

  • Posted By: laura.wahl@verizon.net @ 11/10/2008 4:22:39 PM

    The writer of this article needs to move on to new material instead of trying to insight the same old propaganda of Obamanomic's. Everyone will end up paying more taxes. The so-called rich of this country, already pay more than 70% of tax revenue in this country, that is insane!! Now he wants more from them .........Can you say SOCIALIST!

    • Posted By: cwinebarger @ 11/10/2008 5:00:36 PM

      Judging by your comment, you do not know what socialism is. Please educate yourself on the subjects you discuss. Start with the dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

      Our economy is VERY FAR from being government owned. Stop repeating FOX News / Rush Limbaugh like a parrot.

  • Posted By: tile00 @ 11/10/2008 4:53:42 PM

    maybe its worth a couple extra bucks to those that have it to be more respected around the world, have tighter oversight on our financial markets, and maybe help a few of your less fortunate citizens while you're at it. i'll be paying more when my tax cuts expire, but you know what? i'll be fine in the end and maybe my share helped a few extra people along the way get health care or a college education along the way. i'm good...

  • Posted By: jbentley4 @ 11/10/2008 4:52:52 PM

    Take one look at how the markets have performed under Bush and the GOP and you have your answer. Rich people like to make money just as much or more than anybody and they understand that the Republican way just wasn't working. They paid slightly higher taxes under Clinton, but made ten times more in the market and in their investments, and the national treasury was in healthy shape. It's an easy trade-off; a no brainer.

  • Posted By: marilynt44 @ 11/10/2008 4:52:20 PM

    Hmm... could it be that perhaps most of the "rich" live in California and the northeast... both of which are heavily Democrat and would have voted for Obama anyhow. I don't think there was any evidence presented here that these "rich" people would have voted Republican no matter who the candidate was. Just because a person is very rich does not mean that they will not elect a Democrat... that's crazy. What is crazy is saying that they voted for a Democrat knowing that the Democrat is going to raise their taxes and they will be less well-off. That's crazy because most very rich people find lots of ways of getting out of paying their taxes when the tax rates are higher. Rich people tend to pay more taxes when the rates are lower and they feel that it is more fair for them-- which explains why, under the Bush tax cuts, the rich have been paying more taxes... not just because of increased earnings but also because they didn't try to hide their money so as not to pay taxes on it!

  • Posted By: maureencat0 @ 11/10/2008 4:48:14 PM

    Did anyone bother to ask what could have been done to save the American Economy if Obama had used his extra campaign money to support fixing some of the problems instead of outspend everyone else?????

    • Posted By: cwinebarger @ 11/10/2008 4:51:31 PM

      Why would he have done that? WE donated that money specifically to his campaign for the purpose of winning the Presidency.

  • Posted By: walsto @ 11/10/2008 4:51:23 PM

    Most high income earners will do much better under dems. What they lose in taxes, they will more than make the difference with greater volume. walsto

  • Posted By: nyoped @ 11/10/2008 4:44:29 PM

    If you enforce a %30 tax rate for rich you are not socilaist but if you increase it to 35% then you become a socialist? that simple? this logic would make even ronald reagen look like a socialist (his rates were higher than Bush's).

    • Posted By: markmier @ 11/10/2008 4:49:26 PM

      Didn't you know? Between 1988 and 2007, Reagan switched parties and became a commie librul (tm). That's the only possible explanation.

  • Posted By: miketheknife @ 11/10/2008 3:38:38 PM

    It may be that many of these wealthy voters are not as motivated by self-interest we think. Maybe the choice came down to paying more taxes now, or leaving their kids a better Country. Maybe the choice was easy for them. Money or my children's future. When you boil it down - money isn't everything. Maybe these voters actually understand the importance of that lesson.

    • Posted By: marley07 @ 11/10/2008 4:04:02 PM

      there is a difference between the wealthy the media and you are thinking of and the line drawn in the sand by Obama. Very different. I am what Obama calls wealthy and you are thinking of Warren Buffett. Very different. Buffett is the richest man in the world. I work my ass off to pay my bills and keep my family healthy and put food on the table, yet I am considered wealthy.

      • Posted By: miketheknife @ 11/10/2008 4:46:54 PM

        No Marley, I am thinking of the reasons I voted for Obama. You see, I too, like yourself, am considered wealthy by the Obama standard. I too, work my butt off to feed my children. I just think they'll have a better life with Obama in the future. It's not a criticism of your choice, rather an explanation of mine.

  • Posted By: spuddude @ 11/10/2008 4:44:49 PM

    The wealthy voted for Obama because the wealthy understand money and politics. They know that when it comes to economics it really doesn't matter who's in the White House, what matters is how people feel about who's in the White House.

    Right now there is no real difference politically between Democrats and Republicans: each will say or do whatever is necessary to get elected and stay there. There is no ethical or moral imperitive for either party. Altogether a very sad state of affairs.

  • Posted By: copper454 @ 11/10/2008 4:28:07 PM

    Maybe rich people are realizing that a half-trillion dollar deficit-financed unjust war is going to hur their economic prospects long-term a lot more than a moderate hike in their income taxes.

    If the Republicans wake-up, regroup, and get back to financial responsibility and peace-oriented policies, they'll win back the investor class.

    • Posted By: Sunshine1957 @ 11/10/2008 4:44:37 PM


      FORGET S O C I A L I S T - OBAMA IS C O M M U N I S T

  • Posted By: Ken in WA @ 11/10/2008 4:43:59 PM

    I'm lucky enough to make more than $250K, and I'll see a tax increase, but that's OK. The Republicans have bought into this "government is bad, free enterprise is the answer to everything" philosophy. My business does better when EVERYONE is doing better, and people can afford to buy my services. It's really about fundamentals. Every bubble bursts, and it should be the government's job with monetary policy to prevent the wild swings in the economy we've seen over the past 6 years. They had the opportunity to do that and chose not to, instead making Wall St. like the wild west, and not we're all paying the price. The economy always does better over the long haul when Democrats are in charge.

  • Posted By: REALITY CHECK @ 11/10/2008 4:43:03 PM

    People of all income groups simply voted for "Change" without bothering to ask "what KIND of change?"
    If Obama can deliver meaningful "change" that the people agree with, he'll be OK. If not, then the Mid-Term elections are only 2 years away, and then the Republicans will do what the Democrats in Congress did for the last 2 years - Non-stop investigations and partisan bickering to make Obama look inept.

  • Posted By: Jerry in Austin @ 11/10/2008 4:25:51 PM

    This isn't' so hard. What counts is not a tax RATE. What counts is the actual $$$ you have left after paying taxes. They think about the earning environment, not the just the tax rates.
    Obama proposes a marginal increase of approx 5% on income over $250k to 39.6%. So, if one made $350k, that's about $5000 less (on the $100k over the limit) in your bank than under McBush.
    All one needs do is figure that the economy would be generally healthier under Obama such that your income would go up more than that that in a weaker environment than McBush.
    So,if you figured your income would rise 10% under McBush (to $385k gross) you would net $87.75K (35% current marginal rate) on the $135k over $250.
    But if you figured Obama's economy would make it easier to gross 15% more (to $402.5k) then you'd net $92.1k (60.4% on $152.5k). You're ahead $4k despite the higher tax rate.
    It's big picture vs small picture. That's one reason those people make so much money in the first place.
    Jerry in Austin

    • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 11/10/2008 4:40:39 PM

      That's assuming Obama sticks to what he said he will do, which so far in his campaigning he hasn't done very often.

      Obama's plan and supposed future policies don't sound bad at all. The problem is, he hasn't proven to be trustworthy in the least bit. The friends that he supposedly "threw under the bus" over the past several months will slowly be reintroduced as true friends indeed. Obama did exactly what he needed to do to get elected. The future remains to be seen. I trust Hillary more than Obama.

  • Posted By: snowfolk @ 11/10/2008 4:40:18 PM

    Do you suppose that these wealthy yuppies may be looking beyond their immediate economic self interests and were voting for the hopes of a better America under an Obama administration? Maybe they realize that self sacrifice is part of the bargain. If Mr. Gross was out looking for McCain Palin buttons, I'm not surprised he doesn't get that.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse