Does It Really Cost This Tea Party Congressman $200,000 to Feed His Family?

[Robert Snow]

One acre. 45 year old home. 5 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, about 3,000 square feet.

High taxes for sure! I thought it might be several acres, which would make the taxes more reasonable, I would think.

 

[Matt Black]

In case anyone here thinks this is socialist/ communist, apart from taking some time to learn a bit more about what socialism and communism really are, you might want to reflect on the fact that the welfare state and progressive tax system was first implemented in Germany about 100 years ago precisely to avoid a communist revolution, and then copied by other western governments for the same reason, rather than from any altruistic notions of helping the poor particularly. Those European countries that did institute a welfare state managed to avoid a communist revolution by making working pay and conditions better through such systems. Those that didn't eg: Russia, didn't.

Flowing from the above, you might also find this article instructive. You may not agree with the commentary but the bald stats show that the top 1% in the US are keeping shedloads of their wealth whilst the poorer 99% are getting poorer; the gap between rich and poor is widening and, just in case you think that's because of the recession, has been doing so significantly since the 1980s. Contrast that with the 1950s, when the top rate of income tax in the US (>$250000 = >$3 million in today's money) was 92%: infrastructure, services and education were the envy of the world (cp today, when friends of ours in California have to buy books for their children's school and are returning to the UK in part because of that), the wealthy were still rich but there was much more social mobility.

 

[targus]

Because it helps that there is a vested interest in governments bringing tax dollars into the Treasury coffers; government-sponsored prosecutions however are much more likely to (a) collide with the aforementioned vested interest because it is a direct attack on that individual and (b) be criticised as politically-motivated. Taxation policies are broad-brush and don't target any particular rich individual and so are less likely to come up against that form of opposition (that doesn't stop them squealing of course like Fleming). In short, it's a lot easier for governments to trim the wings of the rich and powerful through fiscal measures than through the judiciary.

So in other words, it's not a matter of justice after all.

It's merely about the government getting the money.

 

[Matt Black]

It's not an either/or zero sum game.

Elizabeth Warren sums it up for me:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along

One might add to the factors listed by Warren the blessing of God or good fortune if you want, in which case give thanks to the Lord for it.

The other point is that fair <> equal. Equality of taxation actually results in greater unfairness for the poor because poorer people have to pay a higher proportion of their income on necessities just to get by, resulting in a much lower level of disposable income than the likes of Fleming, despite his whingeing. The rich also benefit from, as a rule, using the more expensive public services such as law, finance and banking far more than the poor, so it seems to me right and proper that they put more into society's pot.

 

[Eric B]

I am sorry but that is just weird.

I'm responding to your analogies (robbing a "corrupt" man), and you don't get it.

This is so convoluted I cannot follow it.

You claim one statement is "warped"; I try to clarify it, and now it is "convoluted". You still haven't explained why. What it looks like, is any perspective beside your own is totally impossible to understand.

That is what you want, take from the rich to redistruibute their wealth because you are afraid they obtained it by dishonest means.

Which is a farse. The justice you think you give to one becomes and injustice to another.

That's actually not what I want; but we do still need to be at least wise to this, and stop pointing blame in the other direction, when that's clearly not where all the money is going.

If they did not contribute to earn what they have then it is a free ride. There is not other way to see it.

But my point was, this wasn't about them. (Real or imagined).

Yes you do because the same is done by the left where the rich are concerned. And to add to the lefts blown out of proportion claim of dishonest gain by the rich once you get past the false notion that is the more than a few then your economic justice argument falls apart.

No it's not, because the right seems to completely deny that there's a problem with the rich at all. We get lectures on how they "deserved" it all, and then scolding of the poor for their "wrong choices" or outright "laziness".

And it's not even necessarily about "dishonesty", as an individual action. As you can see from Matt Black's posts, it's the way the entire system has been set up, to favor people who already have some sort of power.

sure you did:

No I didn't. I said He might allow it, just like He allows any other problem or injustice.

The poor are brought up by folks like your self to demand higher taxes on the rich. You you all will quit bringing them up so will we. Of course then you have no reason to unfairly tax the rich at a higher rate.

Uh, no. In this thread, the OP and its article was about one rich person. Sag is the one who first threw "wealth envy" into it, and your first post here also echoed that, and then Crabtown responded to that, and it became more about the poor.

You're so busy trying to throw the charge back, that you don't even see that you yourself are the one primarily engaging in it.

 

[billwald]

An indication that $600K is middle management/professional salary

http://heraldnet.com/article/20110922/BLOG48/709259999

If untenured college profs can pull down over a half million . . . .

From the URL, probably will not format:


Rank Agency name Name Job title 2010 gross earnings
1 University of Washington SARKISIAN, STEPHEN A COACH-FOOTBALL $1,982,918.28
2 University of Washington ROMAR, LORENZO COACH-BASKETBALL $1,147,050.22
3 Washington State University BONE, KEN HEAD BASKETBALL COACH $746,415.70
4 University of Washington HOLT V, NICHOLAS ASSISTANT COACH-FOOTBALL $652,228.78
5 Washington State University FLOYD, ELSON PRESIDENT $625,000.08
6 Washington State University WULFF, PAUL L HEAD FOOTBALL COACH $551,669.81
7 University of Washington WOODWARD, DAVID SCOTT ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT $550,008.00
8 University of Washington SEKHAR, LALIGAM N PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $547,980.00
9 University of Washington REYES, JORGE DIONISIO PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $521,303.88
10 University of Washington MILLER, DONALD W PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $516,552.00
11 University of Washington SPISSO, JOHNESE M. VICE PRESIDENT $515,196.00
12 University of Washington EMMERT, MARK A PRESIDENT $492,177.90
13 University of Washington FERGUSON, KEITH R PROFESSIONAL STAFF - CONTRACT P3 $473,000.00
14 University of Washington REISTAD, GARTH K PROFESSIONAL STAFF - CONTRACT P3 $441,750.00
15 University of Washington MURRAY, CHRISTOPHER J PROFESSOR $441,192.18
16 University of Washington JIAMBALVO, JAMES DEAN $436,248.00
17 University of Washington PELLEGRINI, CARLOS A. CHAIR $429,912.01
18 University of Washington MAIER, RONALD V PROFESSOR $421,392.00
19 Washington State University BAYLY, WARWICK M PROVOST & EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT $382,056.99
20 University of Washington VERRIER, EDWARD D. PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $381,120.00
21 University of Washington NELIGAN, PETER CAMILLUS PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $378,636.00
22 University of Washington JURKOVICH, GREGORY J. PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $376,680.02
23 University of Washington FERGUSON, BRUCE ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT/PROVOST $373,632.00
24 University of Washington MORTON, THOMAS H PROFESSOR $372,330.86
25 University of Washington MAHAN, RUTH M. DIRECTOR $370,272.00
26 University of Washington HOLMES, KING K. PROFESSOR $369,756.02
27 University of Washington ODA, DOLPHINE PROFESSOR $366,618.86
28 University of Washington ZIENIEWICZ, STEPHEN P DIRECTOR $359,436.00
29 University of Washington KRAVAS, CONSTANCE VICE PRESIDENT $353,064.00
30 University of Washington TESTY, KELLYE DEAN $352,008.00
31 University of Washington WHALEN, EILEEN DIRECTOR $352,008.00
32 University of Washington SALMON, MARLA E DEAN $337,008.00
33 University of Washington O'DONNELL, MATTHEW DEAN $336,768.00
34 University of Washington BURGSTAHLER, DAVID C PROFESSOR $336,733.53
35 University of Washington MULLIGAN, MICHAEL S PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $335,940.20
36 University of Washington VEDDER, NICHOLAS PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $335,003.78
37 University of Washington SOMERMAN, MARTHA J DEAN $330,948.00
38 Washington State University BOSE, ANJAN REGENTS' PROFESSOR $329,907.60
39 University of Washington HUNTSMAN, LEE L PROFESSOR $329,171.92
40 University of Washington KLEIN, MATTHEW B. ASSOC PROFESSOR WITHOUT TENURE $323,903.88
41 The Evergreen State College PURCE, THOMAS LESLIE PRESIDENT $318,532.50
42 University of Washington HARFORD, JARRAD PROFESSOR $318,033.08
43 University of Washington AVOLIO, BRUCE PROFESSOR $316,444.48
44 University of Washington WISE, PHYLLIS M PROVOST $316,422.00
45 University of Washington ROBINSON, LAWRENCE R. ASSOCIATE DEAN $316,284.00
46 University of Washington BRANSFORD, JOHN D PROFESSOR $315,984.00
47 University of Washington KUHL, PATRICIA K PROFESSOR $315,966.71
48 University of Washington MITCHELL, LORI HOSPITAL-ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR SENIOR $315,722.00
49 University of Washington CAUCE, ANA MARI DEAN $315,000.00
50 University of Washington WARREN, V'ELLA A. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT $313,500.00

 

[rsr]

Not that it matters much, but I think you'll find many (if not all) of the untenured professors are doctors.

 

[billwald]

Good thought. Thanks.

But from another post:

>It's not an either/or zero sum game.

Exactly why not? Possibly because of money inflation. You all complain that the Fed invents new money. But as some of you have noticed, the invented money does not seem to filter down and distribute itself equally. Have any of you gained from the last 3 trillion the Fed has invented? I haven't. The rising tide raises all boats but not equally.

But what about hard asset inflation? When is the last time God increased the world's inventory of view property, usable waterfront, metal ores, the clean water inventory, oil and coal?

The super rich own hard assets and infrastructure. The top 20% owns 80%. What will life be like when they own 99%? The Ford myth about paying his employees well so they could buy his cars never did hold water. The Rolls Royce employees didn't buy the care they made.

You all think that our owners will pay us enough to buy the products manufactured by their factories. When they own all the land, all the power, all the clean water, all the arable land why should our owners care if anyone buys the mass produced trash we all buy? Did Rolls and Royce care if their employees bought Fords?

Look at it this way. As long as they still have employees to make Jaguars, why should they care if factories make Fords?

You all know that the starvation in Ireland didn't occur because of the potato rust. Yes, it killed much of the crops but there was still sufficient left to feed all the people in Ireland. The people starved because the English owned the farm land and exported THEIR potatoes. They were not potatoes owned by the people who grew them.

When the super rich own all the food . . .why do any of you they will care more about you than the English did about the Irish?