It bothers me not that a political candidate or public figure is wealthy.

One of my favorite spots on Earth is the Beaverkill River inthe Catskills. There's great fishing for trout and poor guys like me have as much access as millionaires. Rich guys saved the Beaverkill. The State of NY was going to use the riverbed as a route for NY 17.

Men who have earned their wealth through constructive labor have my highest regard. But a Romney, who runs a shady, legally grey area operation, well that's another can of worms. Particularly when his specialty was busting companies out.

It is not waht a person has ofe income but rather what they did to make it and what they do with the wealth they earn, that I find instructive. That's different than todays' rightie that are so lost in greed how the money is made and spent is irrelevant to them. If you're wealthy you are the righties personal deity.

So when St Patrick whines about Warren's income it seems just silly to me.

<<<<Men who have earned their wealth through constructive labor have my highest regard. But a Romney, who runs a shady, legally grey area operation, well that's another can of worms. Particularly when his specialty was busting companies out.>>>>

I didn't know Romney was running anything these days. And when was Staples "busted out"?

Well I, for one, do not whine about E Warrens income. It's always nice to see a Native American do well.

Men who have earned their wealth through constructive labor have my highest regard. But a Romney, who runs a shady, legally grey area operation, well that's another can of worms. Particularly when his specialty was busting companies out.

It is not waht a person has ofe income but rather what they did to make it and what they do with the wealth they earn, that I find instructive. That's different than todays' rightie that are so lost in greed how the money is made and spent is irrelevant to them. If you're wealthy you are the righties personal deity.
___________________________

Any person of wealth, be it s/he inherited it, won a lottery or worked for it and what they do with their money is none of your business or mine. Assumptions of how money was earned is nothing more than a show of pure jealousy and anger of the person and their wealth.

"Any person of wealth, be it s/he inherited it, won a lottery or worked for it and what they do with their money is none of your business or mine."

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Of course it's important how the money was made. On a practical level, we have estate taxes, gift taxes, windfall taxes, trusts, etc. which are taxed differently for different reasons. And no one takes any job with a salary assuming their gross is their take home.

My best friend inherited almost a million from his grandmother. My wife and I cashed out some options a few years back for quite a bit.

Ours were cases of basically "free" money - my friend and I did nothing in particular to earn that money. Tax it significantly.

There is a moral and civic equation to wealth. When the right learns this, they might get more votes without gerrymandering the south.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. Of course it's important how the money was made. On a practical level, we have estate taxes, gift taxes, windfall taxes, trusts, etc. which are taxed differently for different reasons. And no one takes any job with a salary assuming their gross is their take home.

___________________________

If the money came honestly and obligations as far as taxes etc. are paid as per the law their money is none of our business.

The fact someone is rich
==========================

Irritates the hell out of liberals.

"If the money came honestly and obligations as far as taxes etc. are paid as per the law their money is none of our business."

Sounds like we can never change tax rates then.

"Honestly" is always going to be in the context of current rules. Someone can "honestly" bank money in the Caymans and develop a trust structure in which they owe no taxes.

Tax rates should be what we decide they are, according to our priorities as a country.

The fact someone is rich
==========================

"Irritates the hell out of liberals."

Not at all. I'm quite happy that some would consider me 'rich', although I am not there yet to my satisfaction.

I doubt Buffett, Gates, and thousand of other rich liberals are irritated about it either. Quite a dumb statement you made.

Irritates the hell out of liberals."

LMAO

When wealth is used to subvert the body politic, as is so often the case, (K Street ring any bells) that is another matter all together.

But how wealth is obained is very important. The absolute key to free market economics is that wealth is the result of of productivity to the economy. When an economy starts rewarding people who produce nothing, the economy is in trouble. The risk is even greater at the top of the income scale than the bottom.

"Honestly" is always going to be in the context of current rules. Someone can "honestly" bank money in the Caymans and develop a trust structure in which they owe no taxes.

_______________________________

You do know the prez has investments in Chinese companies, investments outside the United States and has investments through a Caymans trust, don't you?

http://www.examiner.com/article/trouble-paradise-obama-has-o...

"You do know the prez has investments in Chinese companies, investments outside the United States and has investments through a Caymans trust, don't you?"

In my world, even if it's the president, it's still wrong.

But maybe you're still of the Nixon mindset "when the president does it..."

But I don't have any doubt who would be more likely to close offshore tax haven loopholes.

"You do know the prez has investments in Chinese companies, investments outside the United States and has investments through a Caymans trust, don't you?"

In my world, even if it's the president, it's still wrong.

But maybe you're still of the Nixon mindset "when the president does it..."

But I don't have any doubt who would be more likely to close offshore tax haven loopholes.

__________________

In my world the word legal takes precedence, not because I don't like it.
Who would be most likely to close offshore loopholes? Most likely someone who does not take advantage of 'em.

"In my world the word legal takes precedence, not because I don't like it."

My goodness, you are quite the authoritarian aren't you. We're talking about if you don't like a law, or think it morally wrong, or wrong on a practical level. Would you have been yelling at the abolitionists?

We're talking about if you don't like a law, or think it morally wrong, or wrong on a practical level.

________________________________

Talk all you want.

A person has found loopholes to avoid paying some taxes and invests abroad to take advantage of the loophole. You find it morally wrong. The loophole is legal and your moral thermometer doesn't amount to a hill of beans any more than my conviction abortion is morally wrong.
Both are legal and it is our moral obligation to abide by the Law whether we like it or not.

"Both are legal and it is our moral obligation to abide by the Law whether we like it or not."

No, it's our legal obligation.

But besides, the law changes at the beginning of the year. I guess tax rates can be changed after all.