Mona Charen: You can be forgiven for thinking this is parody: "I'm For The Rich"

[cali]

<snip>

Well, I'm for the rich, and not just because the top 1 percent of earners in America paid 38 percent of income taxes in 2008. And not just because I suspect that attempting to tax the rich more will only lead to more tax avoidance, not more tax revenues for the federal government. I'm for the rich because, with some exceptions, they've earned their money. A Prince and Associates study found that only 10 percent of multimillionaires had inherited their wealth.

In the process of earning their wealth, the rich have created products, services and whole industries that have dramatically improved my work life, my family life and my health. I'm so grateful to them for the GPS, iPads, non-drowsy antihistamines, smartphones, XM radio and The Teaching Company courses -- to name only a few advances of the past decade or two.

I'm for the rich because nearly all of the rich people I've met are extremely public-spirited. They volunteer. They form committees to improve things in their communities. And they are incredibly generous with their money. As Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute notes, "The top 10 percent of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all charitable donations." In general, I think they probably make wiser choices in their charitable giving than the federal government would make if it took their money and spent it.

I'm for the rich because they create the dynamism and energy of a growing economy. The rich create businesses and hire people. A wealthy person gave me my first job. And I'll bet the same is true of you.

<snip>

http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2011/09/20/im_for_the_rich/page/2

[adhd_what_huh]

1. speechless.....nt

[bullwinkle428]

2. Executive summary of her column : "The rich are better than you or me!"

:banghead:

[Fumesucker]

3. Yes, Mona, the wealthy person just *gave* you that job out of the goodness of his heart..

In fact that wealthy person lost money on your ignorant and not overbright ass every day you came to work as has every employer you've had since so yes, I can see why you feel the way you do.

[SpiralHawk]

6. + 1,000

[Zywiec]

4. GPS? That was developed with tax dollars by DARPA. n/t

[JHB]

12. Just about everything she listed involved government funding at some point

GPS was developed for the military. iPads rely on the Internet and networking also originally developed for the military. Aren't you glad those non-drowsy antihistamines don't poison you? Government.

And the foundations for this were developed back when taxes on the rich were much higher. Not to mention how much non-government research was funded by by rich people not for entrepreneurism or the goodness of their hearts, but because it sheltered money from the tax man.

[trumad]

5. Hey--- I'm for the rich to and do not begrudge their success...

But I'm also for fair taxation and right now....we're not even close.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. "I'm for the rich because, with some exceptions, they've earned their money."

"A Prince and Associates study found that only 10 percent of multimillionaires had inherited their wealth."

Let me guess: Prince and Associates is a firm representing the rich. This is so clearly and obviously untrue that it is laughable on sight.

[Yavin4]

16. Wow, You Hit the Nail on the Head About Prince & Associates, Inc.

Russ Alan Prince has provided confidential consulting to numerous, very select, wealthy clients and their advisors during the course of his career. The following is a representative list of the pioneering and customized solutions he delivers for his clients.

Family Office & Hedge Fund Compensation

Converted a multi-family office from a retainer-based compensation system to a contingency fee and project-based compensation model, helping to double the number of new families with assets in excess of US$100 million in less than 24 months.
Developed a contingent compensation model for a single-family office with US$1.8 billion under management, enabling ordinary income to be converted into capital gains. Additionally, the model used a captive insurance company as part of the solution helping the family to achieve prescribed benefits, including closer alignment between the wealthy family and the Executive Director, the COO/CFO and the Chief Investment Officer.
Implemented a contingent compensation structure for a US$6.1 billion hedge fund to retain and reward key employees. The structure enables the key employees to profit as the hedge fund profits but does not provide ownership in the management company. Additionally, 80% or more of the payments to the key employees are taxed as either capital gains or dividends as opposed to ordinary income.

Risk Management & Wealth Enhancement

Worked with a multi-family office and a private client capital markets specialist to assist their affluent clients in leveraging their hedge funds investments to mitigate risk while achieving greater returns.
Developed the negotiation protocols for a hedge fund to use when entering “private agreements” with single-family offices and large family-owned businesses. With the protocols in place, partnered with a team of private client tax attorneys to implement the private agreements allowing the firms to obtain liability insurance unavailable from traditional sources

http://www.russalanprince.com/

[truedelphi]

37. Maybe Prince and Associates believes that the rich HAVE earned their money.

After all, no matter how rich you are, you have to share the air you breath with the hoi polloi!

With those stinking up the world and lousing up the environment by wearing clothes bought at K Mart, and not in Paris at the runway shows.

With those who drive cars that are held together with rubber cement and a lot of hope, and not by the steel, chrome and gold of their Ferrarais.

With those who mind their own kids, and not just on weekends.

It must be a lot of work being rich.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. 10 percent of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money ....

.....contributed to charity.

Hmmmm. Assuming those numbers are correct. What percentage of wealth and income do they control? Versus 38% of taxes and 25% charity.

[newspeak]

24. do they consider "unthink" tanks like

the Heritage foundation charity?

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. Puke inducing.

:puke:

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Of course they'll seek to avoid tax.

Such as hiring people, donating to charities and making capital investments.

Win-win.

[Skidmore]

11. I sent her an e-mail....

which reads as follows:

"Ms. Charon, I'm fairly certain you are part of the 1% so your commentary made me chuckle. Now, if you would kindly talk to your fellows and let them know that we could use jobs in this nation for those of us in the 99% who are unemployed or underemployed, we'd greatly appreciate it. The 1% have had free rein for at least a decade now and all we have to show for it is decaying infrastructure, pillaged retirement funds, and precious little job creation in the USA. At some point, you--or someone else in the 1%--needs to come to grip with the fact that the 99% have been squeezed dry. If you don't want to participate in this economy, then move out and quit standing in the way of others who are more civic minded."

[jberryhill]

13. My first job was for a small non-profit organization

Sorry, Mona.

[spanone]

14. she's worthless

[Octafish]

27. Worth less than a stopped clock.

She runs and runs and runs and is always wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Yavin4]

15. BTW, GPS Systems, The Internet, Computers, Pharmaceuticals, Satellites....

all started off as direct GOVERNMENT research projects or GOVERNMENT funded projects.

Without GOVERNMENT, she would have NONE of the things that she listed.

[AverageJoe90]

31. Well, mostly..........

Most of the computer industry and the original Internet got started privately, though. (DARPANET didn't go online until 1972)

[Yavin4]

32. Origin of the Internet

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory.<1>

Packet switching, today the dominant basis for data communications worldwide, was a new concept at the time of the conception of the ARPANET. Data communications had been based on the idea of circuit switching, as in the traditional telephone circuit, wherein a telephone call reserves a dedicated circuit for the duration of the communication session and communication is possible only between the two parties interconnected.

With packet switching, a data system could use one communications link to communicate with more than one machine by collecting data into datagrams and transmit these as packets onto the attached network link, whenever the link is not in use. Thus, not only could the link be shared, much as a single post box can be used to post letters to different destinations, but each packet could be routed independently of other packets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

The whole idea of the internet was for a system that could still communicate after a nuke attack. It was research done by the Defense Dept or funded by the Defense Dept.

Here's the history of GPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System


Suffice to say that few advances in technology did not have some early GOVERNMENT financing and/or research. Few rich people and/or corporations (see Apple) like to spend money on R&D. They're rich. They don't give a damn about advancements in tech.

[Bigmack]

17. The rich got rich...

because of two things:

Luck... the lucky ovum explanation. They inherited it. Luck can also consist of being at the right time with the right product... irrespective of your talent. You can be the best businessman in the world, but if you make buggy-whips.... If you are a computer geek working on something in your mom's basement and it turns out to be a breakthru... you're a genius.

Protection.... The government that so many of them hate made it possible to start a business, make a product, keep profits, etc. without unfair competition or strong-arm interference. You can't do business without the protection of the laws, cops, courts, etc.. You can't do business without a trained work force to start with.. the government provides that.

They got rich because of those two things... the Bullshit about "making it on their own" is just vanity.

[newspeak]

22. actually some of the rich got rich

from using and stealing from others. For instance, Goodyear, spent his life and his meager funds working on his rubber products-tires, buttons. Wealthy businessmen here and from europe went to him promising money-they wanted to sell his fantastic inventions. But, apparently, they didn't pay him the money and he died impoverished. When his children brought a case against these businessmen, they told the court of course they paid him, he just misspent it--being these arseholes had more POWER and influence than the family, they won. But, goodyear was a frugal man, not lavish and spent almost all of his time working on his inventions. Then there was the colonel who worked for the oil industry, invented the oil drill. Made the oil barons very rich, when he became disabled and could no longer work-they wouldn't even help him, because it was charity. Of course, after he died, they spent thousands on a statue for him, but wouldn't help him when he was living. I've got a book full of stories of people screwed by the so-called "deserving wealthy."

This woman is delusional if she thinks that most just rolled up their sleeves and put their nose to the grindstone. They might have put a few noses to the grindstone, but in most cases it wasn't theirs.

[Swede]

18. I'm for the rich paying their fair share in taxes.

That income tax was repealed in 1872 and after some Supreme Court cases and an amendment to the Constitution (16th), income taxes reappeared in 1913, which corresponds with the start of the historical tax rate chart above.

1918: The top rate was in fact 77%, as the chart said, because tax rates were raised in order to help pay for World War I. Tax rates started to fall in the years afterwards.

1932: Rates had been falling the past few years until 1932 when the top rate was 63% (if you think this is bad, wait until the US was deep into World War II). This rate increased in the years leading up to and including World War II.

1945: 94% tax on income over $200,000 – absolutely astounding. It stayed over 90% until 1964 when it was lowered to 77% and had been consistently falling until …

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/a-look-at-historical-federal-tax-brackets.html

[newspeak]

26. and the point is you don't lower taxes on the wealthy

when you are at war. Especially, wars that most of the wealthy make even more wealth from war profiteering, corporate interest and speculation.

[TwilightGardener]

19. That is absolutely barfy.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[EC]

20. WOW, is she saying that an additional 3% or 4% more in

tax from them will be enough to stop them from doing all that she listed? So we pay a higher percentage of our income for taxes and we have a hard time just affording living. But if they pay the same percentage that we do, it'll cause them great hardship and they can't afford to invest in business? Is that what she is saying?

[TwilightGardener]

21. That's their threat. The rich assholes will all just take their ball and go home

if they have to contribute more to society.

[Blue_Tires]

25. I always wonder what their hypothetical "home" is...

They are getting taxed no matter where they go in the developed world...

[HughBeaumont]

23. The myth of the "self-made millionaire" . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

What Forbes means by "entirely self-made" is that the fortunes were not inherited but derived from business activity. Does this make the Forbes definition of "entirely self-made" reasonable? After all, if someone starts with modest resources, does well in business, and makes a fortune, isn't it fair to attribute that wealth to individual merit? Not really, though Forbes would like us to think so.

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
Public schools or employees educated in public schools
Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
Mail systems built and operated at public expense
Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
Police and fire protection provided at public expense
Public libraries and parks
Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
Government contracts
Government-provided business incentives
Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
A government-granted license permitting the exclusive use of a broadcast channel
The Internet
A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

Oh, and that whole "Charitable" thing? NAWP!!

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0318useconomics_easterbrook.aspx

Now subtract Buffett and his generous gift from the group, and the rest of them begin to look downright miserly, handing to others a mere $7 billion of a combined net worth of $584 billion—or just over 1%. Numbers from the philanthropy watch organization Giving USA show that Americans as a whole annually give away about 0.5% of their net worth. So, except for Buffett, society's top givers donate to others at only a tad higher rate than the population as a whole. That's, well, pathetic. And that's just counting top givers, not the super-rich who give away little or nothing.

Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, net worth $16 billion, gave away $53 million in 2006, according to Slate—one-third of 1% of his fortune. Software magnate Lawrence Ellison, net worth $20 billion, gave away $100 million—half of 1%. Pierre Omidyar, founder of EBay, net worth $7.7 billion, gave away $67 million—less than 1%. Nike tycoon Philip Knight, net worth $7.9 billion, gave away $105 million—slightly more than 1%.

Poor people spending money gave everyone their first job, not some rich man who had a sense of noblesse oblige. He hired because there was this little thing called DEMAND.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. Wow, how did I reach 51 and never get hired by a "rich" person?

Sorry, Mona, all my employers have been small business owners who made a modestly comfortable living. Not a millioniare among them. :shrug:

[EstimatedProphet]

29. But you're not a repub pundit.

[Buns_of_Fire]

30. ...and if prepared properly, they make a tasty and nutritious main course!

Sorry Mona. Anybody referencing the AEI for their economic data is, as my mother would say, as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. (Which is also the problem with most of the super rich, which is why it's important that they be cleaned properly before cooking.)

[deutsey]

33. I, for one, welcome our new feudal overlords.

:evilfrown:

[marmar]

34. Please, someone reclaim all the oxygen she's stolen.

nt

[EmeraldCityGrl]

35. "I want the opportunity to become rich"

These fools actually believe they are going to win some sort of lottery, invent the next better mousetrap,

get on some reality show and become RICH! They are so sure they will someday join that 1% and are already

protecting all that money they will never own.

Good luck with that one lady.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

36. Richard Mellon Scaife uses Mona Charen's books for mulch

- Al Franken