Ravenwood - 06/06/05 08:30 AM
The latest bit of class warfare from the New York Times talks about the "hyper-rich" and a disproportionate "concentration of wealth". And of course, it is all Bush's fault.
The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden...Yes, the rich are getting richer, and so are the poor. The Times doesn't dispute that. Instead they talk about the "income gap", as if the government should be setting policy to keep people from making too much money. Indeed, they even make the point that it's the government's money to be divvied out, and the rich are stealing more than their fair share.The Times set out to create a financial portrait of the very richest Americans, how their incomes have changed over the decades and how the tax cuts will affect them. It is no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everyone else behind is not widely known.
...some of the wealthiest Americans, including Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner, have warned that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators.Did you catch that? President Bush is putting too much of our money in their pockets. Wealth is not finite. It can be created and it can be destroyed. Rather than encourage people to create their own wealth, the Times would rather destroy that of other people.
Category: All Bush's Fault
Comments (5) top link me
Wait a minute, weren't lot of hyperrich created in the 1990s?
This is really Bill Clinton's fault.
Posted by: Brian J. at June 6, 2005 7:47 AMSince when is the liberal establishment concerned with any plight of the rich? It used to be that pretty much anyone making $50,000/year or more was rich, but now we have brand new, NY Times approved, categories of rich people - "hyper" and "merely".
We are expected to continue hating the "hyper"-rich, but begine to pity the "merely"-rich for having to shoulder most of the tax load.
But wait, I thought the tax cuts hurt the poor and middle-class most of all! Now they are telling us that the lesser-rich are the one's getting screwed. Are the tax cuts no longer hurting the middle class the most?
Interesting. It has a bit of the "Global Cooling suddenly (and with little explanation) becomes Global Warming" sort of feel to it...
Posted by: roger at June 6, 2005 9:01 AMThe Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden...
Disproportionate share? Not only does the upper class pay in more tax, they also pay a much higher rate of tax. The only fair way of taxation is a flat tax. Nothing like socialism, penalize the people who are successful.
Posted by: Derek at June 6, 2005 9:11 AMOf course, these commies don't seem to realize that a meritocracy that decays into an aristocracy is a self correcting mechanism in the long term, and in the meantime, the less than useful heirs shovel their ancestors hard earned cash back into the economy buying shit.
But since that concept isn't a plank of the commie manifesto (and disruping inheritance is), they conveniently forget that.
Posted by: geekWithA.45 at June 6, 2005 10:53 PMRead between the lines, folks. Its all doublespeak. They can't pass new tax laws by siding the poor against the rich and middle class so now they try to side the poor, lower class, and middle class against the rich. Mob rule will eventually show its ugly face.
Posted by: Rhett at June 7, 2005 1:56 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
