Now, I don't claim to have all the answers to the world's problems, as many of them are a lot more complicated than you'll ever get from any one opiner or news source anyways.
It seems to me, that many of society's problems are now tied so closely to politics anymore than ever before. This politician or that politician has THE answer to solving the world's problems. And then people take the finite number of ideas and pick a side, either based on their own values or depending on which political party they choose to follow wholeheartedly.
Now when it comes to politics, I don't follow the strict teachings of any one party. Inevitably members of all parties come up with some of the dumbest ideas on how to deal with things, but I suppose I don't have nearly enough time in my life to get to all that such a conversation might encompass before dying of boredom or a stress induced stroke or heart attack. I probably lean more republican than democrat, or rather I should say conservative as opposed to liberal, in my viewpoints. It's not that I don't get the liberal point of view as to what needs to be fixed, but I often question the liberal viewpoint in how to fix many of the identified problems.
The subject I intend to cover here today is the concepts of race and poverty. while poverty affects people regardless of race, it is often the minority groups that suffer the highest amount of poverty, percentage-wise. Now many people, wen it comes to political viewpoints seem to have pigeonholed themselves and each other into two different camps:
Republicans: Whether by self-design, or accusations, seem to be completely in the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do it yourself" camp. The whole idea of everyman for himself. They spit out the names of many people who had nothing and rose to wealth and power on their own merit, so why shouldn't we let the poor and minorities do the same?
Democrats: By the same parameters, democrats are all about we need to solve this problem by throwing everyone's money at it, haphazardly, and without regard to the will of the people. It also seems that many of those in poverty identify best with the democratic party. Is it because the democrats care about them, are them, or keep shoving money and benefits their way?
Both sides have their merits and their flaws.
My proposal is partially outlined at http://mike4ccr.wordpress.com This is a secondary page for me, as I start to put ideas towards solutions out there. Granted its all raw ideas, but if you would go visit the page, leave me some comments there with your critiques, comments, or other ways to help develop the ideas before I put the plans into reality and action.
Essentially, I see the problems that exist in the form of race relations witht he overall human community, and I see the issues of poverty. Can I solve, or help to solve all the problems involved in these aspects? No, and I wouldn't claim to. But I do feel my ideas would be a good start on creating a starting point for solving some of the more technical aspects. The aspects of humanism involved with points of view are on the heads of each and every individual. All I can do is offer an outlet to solve the technical stuff, and with enough people behind the project, maybe, just maybe, we can sway some opinions as to what works and what doesn't.
The main idea is that we funnel money into the system to address issues of poverty in poor and minority neighborhoods. Unlike the democrat-based ideas, we use privately volunteered money only, and refuse government (taxpayer-funded) monies that seem to cncentrate on bureaucratic funding over solution based funding. Unlike the republican-based ideas, we help provide the support of those who have for those who don't, and involve ourselves in the solutions, instead of handing over some money and forgetting about it.
I propose to use the financial backing mostly from those who have it, along with some efforts fo those who care. And on the receiving end, lesser financial backing will occur, but I expect to see more of a concerted effort to re-build their communities, physically as well as socially. Through educational proposals at all levels, mentorship and activity programs, neighborhood beautification through the efforts of local residents, it is a wide-scope program I propose. With less money going into the administrative side of things, and more going toward fixing the problems directly.
It is no short-term solution by any means. I understand that once the program really starts working, we will still only be at the beginning stages, as on-going efforts will be needed to sustain any progress seen in the beginning. So before I lose my train of thought or any clear direction, please go visit my other page for Creative Community Renewal
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Senate Passes Bailout version #2
So the senate has passed a new version of the bailout bill. With some new little perks, most of which still do not benefit those who will spend their lives footing the bill to save those who couldn't fix their own problems.
See my last posting to know my view on pretty much any bailout bill. Borrowing nonexistent money at a huge cost to clear up the books of lost money so that these already powerful people who have plenty of their own personal money can get a little more of each.
Inevitably I see some version of a bailout bill passing, but its satill a bunch of money being thrown to cover up a problem without actually taking care of the root problems, just the results. Many countries have been advised by us before to let the markets correct themselves, and keep government out of it. But, as usual our government couldn't contemplate such a concept for us, the ones who should matter a little more considering our overall wealth and power throughout the world. Instead, we'll go against our own advice, and use the problematic people to oversee how to fix all our woes, which they helped to create in the first place, to an even larger degree than all the other countries we advised before.
I heard someone mention, I think it was Glenn Beck (whether they were his words, or quoting someone else), that Oct 29, 1929 wasn't the Great Depression, but was an anomaly that would;ve corrected itself and registered as a minor economic blip in the course of our history, but that the Great Depression actually happened because of all the well-intentioned government programs set up and designed to "rescue" our economy. Too bad that 10 years into the programs our country still saw 20% unemployment....so much for a good rescue. Why is it I see the same (while maybe not 20% unemployment)type of recovery this time around if our own leaders in the government can't keep their mittens out of this proverbial oven?
And one more question- aren't there 100 senators in the senate??? With a total tally of 99 votes going yay or nay, who didnt vote (or just vote themselves present)?
See my last posting to know my view on pretty much any bailout bill. Borrowing nonexistent money at a huge cost to clear up the books of lost money so that these already powerful people who have plenty of their own personal money can get a little more of each.
Inevitably I see some version of a bailout bill passing, but its satill a bunch of money being thrown to cover up a problem without actually taking care of the root problems, just the results. Many countries have been advised by us before to let the markets correct themselves, and keep government out of it. But, as usual our government couldn't contemplate such a concept for us, the ones who should matter a little more considering our overall wealth and power throughout the world. Instead, we'll go against our own advice, and use the problematic people to oversee how to fix all our woes, which they helped to create in the first place, to an even larger degree than all the other countries we advised before.
I heard someone mention, I think it was Glenn Beck (whether they were his words, or quoting someone else), that Oct 29, 1929 wasn't the Great Depression, but was an anomaly that would;ve corrected itself and registered as a minor economic blip in the course of our history, but that the Great Depression actually happened because of all the well-intentioned government programs set up and designed to "rescue" our economy. Too bad that 10 years into the programs our country still saw 20% unemployment....so much for a good rescue. Why is it I see the same (while maybe not 20% unemployment)type of recovery this time around if our own leaders in the government can't keep their mittens out of this proverbial oven?
And one more question- aren't there 100 senators in the senate??? With a total tally of 99 votes going yay or nay, who didnt vote (or just vote themselves present)?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Millionaires, Tax Rolls and Tax Cuts
"Some 10 million households have a net worth above $1 million, excluding home equity, almost double the number in 2002."
So if in 6 years we can double the amount of seemingly wealthy households, how is it that ONLY the rich get richer, as many people seem to want to believe? Is it possible that people can actually find a way into this club, from a more moderate income bracket?
"Don Crane, a small-business owner in Santa Rosa, Calif., certainly sees the value of everyday saving. "We can afford just about anything," he says, adding that his net worth is over $1 million. But he and his wife both grew up on farms in the Midwest — where nothing was wasted — and his wife clips coupons to this day. In fact, most millionaires come from middle-class households, and roughly 70 percent have been wealthy for less than 15 years, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey"
"So how do you join the millionaires' club? You could buy stocks or real estate, play the slots in Vegas — or take the most common path: running your own business. That's how half of all millionaires made their money, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey. About a third had a professional practice or worked in the corporate world; only 3 percent inherited their wealth."
Hmmm....so most rich people went out and created their own wealth, and not having it all handed to them...interesting. Any particular trait that might be found amongst these people??
Millionaires are also seemingly undaunted by failure. Crane, for example, now runs a successful company that screens tenants for landlords. But his first business venture, a real estate partnership, went bankrupt, costing him $20,000 — more than his house was worth at the time. "It was the most depressing time in my life, but it was the best lesson I ever learned," he says.
When asked to list the keys to their success, millionaires rank hard work first, followed by education, determination and "treating others with respect." They also say that what they absorbed in class was less important than learning how to study and stay disciplined, says Jim Taylor, vice chairman of the Harrison Group.
Perserverance....a good quality to have if you want to be successful in this world. I suppose learning a lesson from your failures and moving on instead of complaining about how bad things are can be a big way to overcome the money trap many people fall into. Now a lot of business people may not be the nicest guys when it comes to putting their businesses together. Bill Gates, was ruthless in creating the largest software firm in Microsoft. John D Rockefeller, of Standard Oil, threatened his competition with bankruptcy, in order to buy them out and absorb them under his umbrella. These are a couple examples of how business practice isn't for the weak-hearted. However:
Most millionaires share the values of their moderate-income parents, says Lewis Schiff, a private wealth consultant and Prince's coauthor: "Spending time with family really matters to them." Just 12 percent say that what they want most to be remembered for is their legacy in business, according to the AmEx/Harrison study.
They are not all bastards in this bracket of wealth. And for those who say the rich don't pay their taxes, well most millionaires do pay taxes. In fact, the top 1 percent of earners paid nearly 40 percent of federal income taxes in 2005 — a whopping $368 billion — according to the Internal Revenue Service. On top of that, well, last year, individual Americans gave $306,390,000,000 to charity. No other country comes anywhere near us. Not as a percentage of income, GDP or actual dollars. Think about that for awhile....between PERSONAL charitable contributions and the top 1% of taxpayers, you're looking at over $700 Billion dollars that contribute to the services of our government, and to all the causes of those who have little and need help, sometimes these things overlap.
Meanwhile, during 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. the number of tax returns with zero or negative tax liability has risen steadily over the past decade. However, it accelerated sharply between 2000 and 2004 due to the effects of tax changes during President Bush's first term of office. Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.
So increasingly now, we find that while the lionshare of tax rolls are held by the one singular set of Top 1 Percenters, the tax cuts, are now enabling exactly what many of the lower class people and democrats are calling for...that the rich pay their fair share...which we see, as they take on more and more of the total tax rolls. And not just the same people who have been paying for decades on their family wealth, but more and more new households add themselves to this "elite" status, from the not-so-elite ranks they came from...
They work hard to get where they are, and yet millions who have very little, if any at all, tax liability continue to complain how these producers aren't doing there part?
I find it all interesting....
So if in 6 years we can double the amount of seemingly wealthy households, how is it that ONLY the rich get richer, as many people seem to want to believe? Is it possible that people can actually find a way into this club, from a more moderate income bracket?
"Don Crane, a small-business owner in Santa Rosa, Calif., certainly sees the value of everyday saving. "We can afford just about anything," he says, adding that his net worth is over $1 million. But he and his wife both grew up on farms in the Midwest — where nothing was wasted — and his wife clips coupons to this day. In fact, most millionaires come from middle-class households, and roughly 70 percent have been wealthy for less than 15 years, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey"
"So how do you join the millionaires' club? You could buy stocks or real estate, play the slots in Vegas — or take the most common path: running your own business. That's how half of all millionaires made their money, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey. About a third had a professional practice or worked in the corporate world; only 3 percent inherited their wealth."
Hmmm....so most rich people went out and created their own wealth, and not having it all handed to them...interesting. Any particular trait that might be found amongst these people??
Millionaires are also seemingly undaunted by failure. Crane, for example, now runs a successful company that screens tenants for landlords. But his first business venture, a real estate partnership, went bankrupt, costing him $20,000 — more than his house was worth at the time. "It was the most depressing time in my life, but it was the best lesson I ever learned," he says.
When asked to list the keys to their success, millionaires rank hard work first, followed by education, determination and "treating others with respect." They also say that what they absorbed in class was less important than learning how to study and stay disciplined, says Jim Taylor, vice chairman of the Harrison Group.
Perserverance....a good quality to have if you want to be successful in this world. I suppose learning a lesson from your failures and moving on instead of complaining about how bad things are can be a big way to overcome the money trap many people fall into. Now a lot of business people may not be the nicest guys when it comes to putting their businesses together. Bill Gates, was ruthless in creating the largest software firm in Microsoft. John D Rockefeller, of Standard Oil, threatened his competition with bankruptcy, in order to buy them out and absorb them under his umbrella. These are a couple examples of how business practice isn't for the weak-hearted. However:
Most millionaires share the values of their moderate-income parents, says Lewis Schiff, a private wealth consultant and Prince's coauthor: "Spending time with family really matters to them." Just 12 percent say that what they want most to be remembered for is their legacy in business, according to the AmEx/Harrison study.
They are not all bastards in this bracket of wealth. And for those who say the rich don't pay their taxes, well most millionaires do pay taxes. In fact, the top 1 percent of earners paid nearly 40 percent of federal income taxes in 2005 — a whopping $368 billion — according to the Internal Revenue Service. On top of that, well, last year, individual Americans gave $306,390,000,000 to charity. No other country comes anywhere near us. Not as a percentage of income, GDP or actual dollars. Think about that for awhile....between PERSONAL charitable contributions and the top 1% of taxpayers, you're looking at over $700 Billion dollars that contribute to the services of our government, and to all the causes of those who have little and need help, sometimes these things overlap.
Meanwhile, during 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. the number of tax returns with zero or negative tax liability has risen steadily over the past decade. However, it accelerated sharply between 2000 and 2004 due to the effects of tax changes during President Bush's first term of office. Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.
So increasingly now, we find that while the lionshare of tax rolls are held by the one singular set of Top 1 Percenters, the tax cuts, are now enabling exactly what many of the lower class people and democrats are calling for...that the rich pay their fair share...which we see, as they take on more and more of the total tax rolls. And not just the same people who have been paying for decades on their family wealth, but more and more new households add themselves to this "elite" status, from the not-so-elite ranks they came from...
They work hard to get where they are, and yet millions who have very little, if any at all, tax liability continue to complain how these producers aren't doing there part?
I find it all interesting....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)