National Economics: Keynes or Hayek? Or something else?

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utah

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

---

Because most American's don't view themselves as "middle America". More like "temporarily embarassed millionaires".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utah

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

---

There are a lot of reasons why these policies are what they are, but I think the most compelling is that there are very powerful and beneficial reasons why we as a society want to incentivize people to 1) earn a lot of money, and 2) invest a lot of money. High earners and investors provide enormous benefits to our economy. You are proposing some very strong disincentives for both of these practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scratch

There are a lot of reasons why these policies are what they are, but I think the most compelling is that there are very powerful and beneficial reasons why we as a society want to incentivize people to 1) earn a lot of money, and 2) invest a lot of money. High earners and investors provide enormous benefits to our economy. You are proposing some very strong disincentives for both of these practices.

---

Plus if we taxed the top 1% at 80% the additional revenue produced would not amount to enough to finance big increases in public outlays. At least that's what I have read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by U-Ute

Because most American's don't view themselves as "middle America". More like "temporarily embarassed millionaires".

---

Wow. Truth bomb there. Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Plus if we taxed the top 1% at 80% the additional revenue produced would not amount to enough to finance big increases in public outlays. At least that's what I have read.

---

Why would taxing the top 1% equal big increases in public outlays? It wouldn't shock me if it actually decreased public outlays.

For example, how many small businesses were put out of business by WalMart? How many Americans making $60-80K as a small business owner lost their jobs and became Walmart employees and dependent on the government welfare?

I'm not so sure cutting incentives for the very few would hurt everyone. In fact, I wonder if cutting incentives for the top 1% might actually even the playing field and raise the rest of the ocean.

Kind of like how long distance phone calls used to be insanely expensive...then the 1% was knocked out and now it's free.

Anyways, I'm just spitballing here. Just thinking out loud. Not trying to offend anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scratch

There are a lot of reasons why these policies are what they are, but I think the most compelling is that there are very powerful and beneficial reasons why we as a society want to incentivize people to 1) earn a lot of money, and 2) invest a lot of money. High earners and investors provide enormous benefits to our economy. You are proposing some very strong disincentives for both of these practices.

---

The reality is that most people cannot make a ton of money, because most people can't compete with WalMart, IHC, McDonald's, etc.

The other reality is that most people aren't investing a lot of money. In fact, I'd argue most of the problems are caused by the Baby Boomers...people that have had more wealth than any other generation ever, and all they did was buy McMansions and SUV's...and now have no savings, no retirement, and are filling up jobs, raising student loans rates, and using up medicare.

Like the long distance phone example, maybe cutting the head off the top would lead to more opportunity and more wealth for everyone. Yeah, the Walton's would have to get a job, but 1.4 million walmart workers would get off food stamps.

I think I'd take that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utah

Anyways, I'm just spitballing here. Just thinking out loud. Not trying to offend anyone.

---

LOL. If you had offended anyone here you would have heard from the Offense Committee. So far that Committee has never acted.

Attachment 1781

I like other's opinions. I want to learn. I'm starting to blame Reagan for the death of the middle class. I think that dude may have destroyed small businesses with his policies. So, I want to learn. See if I'm pointing in the right/wrong direction here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utah

I like other's opinions. I want to learn. I'm starting to blame Reagan for the death of the middle class. I think that dude may have destroyed small businesses with his policies. So, I want to learn. See if I'm pointing in the right/wrong direction here.

---

Destroyed small businesses? In 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the U.S. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utah

I have a question, and this is probably not the right place to ask it, but the conversation has brought up some points in this area....but here goes:

Why do we care if someone making over a million dollars is taxed at 50%? Why do we care if Sam Walton's kids get taxed at 80% of their inheritance? If does not affect us. Who cares if Sam Walton's kids only get 10 million instead of 149 BILLION dollars? Those kids did NOTHING for that money, other than be the right sperm at the right time. Why do they get more money than 42% of Americans COMBINED?

Most of America is middle class. Why they defend the rights of people to screw them over befuddles me. The Waltons use more government aid than anyone in the country. They use more food stamps, more medicare, more interstates, more tax breaks, more every benefit the government has, yet we argue that they should get MORE breaks?

Blows my mind. It's pretty simple: We have a problem in this country, and taxing the bottom 50% isn't going to fix it.

So why don't we tax the Waltons at 80% and pay our teachers $100,000 a year? Why don't we make minimum wage $15/hr and get the 1.4 million people on food stamps that work at walmart off food stamps? Why don't we tax Wall Street at an effective tax rate of 29% instead of 15% and ease the burdens of student loans?

It makes too much sense. It really does. What we are doing right now...that makes no sense.

If trickle down worked, Wal-Mart employees would be making $20/hr.

---

First, I'm no economist, so take this all with a grain-o'-salt. The effects of the changes you list above would have massive ripple effects, the breadth and scope of which would be impossible to predict. But there are some big effects that may be predictable.

I believe France recently started taxing the rich at a very high rate. The immediate noticeable effect it had was that most of the rich left the country (they are the one class of people that have the means to do so).

Taxing corporations at at higher rates definitely dis-incentivizes growth and expansion. You can't tax corporations higher, make them pay employees more, mess with the healthcare market to jack up benefit rates, and still expect growth and innovation. Corporations have to show profits to lure investors. If profits are eaten up by taxes, benefits, and higher wages, how will they pay dividends, or meet or exceed market expectations to lure investors to buy their stock? Without investment capital, how will companies innovate and grow?

I haven't thought much about inheritance tax. But something doesn't seem right to say that that money earned by me can't be left to my family when I die. Why should the government or society have claim to 80% of what I earned when I die?

I'm not saying our current system is perfect, and that some change isn't needed. But how often do we see the government step in to "fix" something, only to have unintended consequences overshadow the intended effect (cough, cough, ACA).

Edit: BTW, if this conversation continues, can we move to its own thread in a more appropriate forum?

I'm wondering if you think Sam Walton opened his five and dime store as a $450 billion dollar business, or, maybe, he cut his teeth as a stocker and manager of Ben Franklin stores, found a niche market, risked his life savings, and worked his a$$ to the bone to expand his business.

Being somewhat familiar with the NWA area, I can assure you the Walton's are directly responsible for creating thousands of middle-class millionaires....secretary's, admins, managers, accountants, etc..... They've also invested in many philanthropic ventures through both the family foundation, and the walmart stores foundation.....billions of dollars. There's two sides to every coin my friend.

Look, I get it. You're pissed that some people are wildly successful and others aren't. Taking a dump on those that have the skills to make gobs of money doesn't fix a thing.

This is where we'll put the interesting discussion that our bother poster Utah started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mUUser

I'm wondering if you think Sam Walton opened his five and dime store as a $450 billion dollar business, or, maybe, he cut his teeth as a stocker and manager of Ben Franklin stores, found a niche market, risked his life savings, and worked his a$$ to the bone to expand his business.

Being somewhat familiar with the NWA area, I can assure you the Walton's are directly responsible for creating thousands of middle-class millionaires....secretary's, admins, managers, accountants, etc..... They've also invested in many philanthropic ventures through both the family foundation, and the walmart stores foundation.....billions of dollars. There's two sides to every coin my friend.

Look, I get it. You're pissed that some people are wildly successful and others aren't. Taking a dump on those that have the skills to make gobs of money doesn't fix a thing.

---

Dead on. Those folks who want to punish the successful businessmen/women because they became successful simply don't understand basic economics and capitalism.

Go look at Venezuela as the latest example of a government controlled economy or "socialism". Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better than any other system.

I pay over a third of the income I receive in some form of tax. I certainly pay a fair share of taxes. I come from parents who never graduated form college and were truly middle class. I graduated from college and graduate college. Through a lot of work and effort I am now considered upper middle class. Everybody I work around came form similar backgrounds and have similar success stories, but they all had to work their asses off to get where they've gotten. Fortunately, this country still incentivizes hard work and education.

Massive attempts to redistribute wealth does nothing to assist the overall economic growth of this nation. It's down right unamerican, short sited, stupid and harmful. But it sure sounds good. Kind of like promising to put soda in the drinking fountains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two Utes

Dead on. Those folks who want to punish the successful businessmen/women because they became successful simply don't understand basic economics and capitalism.

Go look at Venezuela as the latest example of a government controlled economy or "socialism". Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better than any other system.

I pay over a third of the income I receive in some form of tax. I certainly pay a fair share of taxes. I come from parents who never graduated form college and were truly middle class. I graduated from college and graduate college. Through a lot of work and effort I am now considered upper middle class. Everybody I work around came form similar backgrounds and have similar success stories, but they all had to work their asses off to get where they've gotten. Fortunately, this country still incentivizes hard work and education.

Massive attempts to redistribute wealth does nothing to assist the overall economic growth of this nation. It's down right unamerican, short sited, stupid and harmful. But it sure sounds good. Kind of like promising to put soda in the drinking fountains.

---

This is spot on. I made partner a couple of years ago (and thanks to that I'm approaching the upper middle class after spending years in the lower class while in school and then was just able to buy a single family home after living the previous 18 years in small apartments and a condo), and as a very small owner in a business that employs over 50 people I can assure you that we know exactly what it costs to bring on a new employee and we can do a pretty good job of estimating how much revenue that employee will generate, so there is no doubt that as our costs to hire people increase the number of people we hire decreases. It has been pretty shocking to see how various laws and policies directly impact our job creation.

And by the way, for what it's worth the majority of our employees are not lawyers, and many of them do not have college degrees, but I believe the lowest-paid employee here is making the equivalent of about $24 per hour. These are the types of jobs that we want our economy to produce and are also the types of jobs that are being severely limited by government policies.

The biggest problem I have with our current tax structure is this: people who have enough money to invest and live off of the returns as income then get that income taxed at a lower rate than someone who has to make their income in a more traditional fashion. Furthermore, the way that businesses are structured, shareholders and executives reward each other with ever increasing stock prices and options instead of investing in their business. Meanwhile all of this profit is taxed at the lower rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sancho

The part that bugs, though, is that others have worked just as hard or far harder without the same reward. Others still have done relatively little and are riding high on 6 figures. Then others are up in 9 figures, which is just silly no matter how much work they've done.

So, yeah, it may be the best system out there, and it's been really good to me, but it's not remotely fair. We should remember that luck played a large role in getting us to a point in life where we can post economic ramblings on a football message board during work hours.

---

What in life is fair?

The general idea that all things in life should be fair is bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sancho

I disagree. I think justice is always worth striving for or at least thinking about.

---

Fair and just are two entirely different things.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sancho

The part that bugs, though, is that others have worked just as hard or far harder without the same reward. Others still have done relatively little and are riding high on 6 figures. Then others are up in 9 figures, which is just silly no matter how much work they've done.

So, yeah, it may be the best system out there, and it's been really good to me, but it's not remotely fair. We should remember that luck played a large role in getting us to a point in life where we can post economic ramblings on a football message board during work hours.

---

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisrenrut

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.

---

You are right. And life isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two Utes

You are right. And life isn't fair.

---

There you go again, bursting my bubble.

This is an interesting take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-politics-envy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisrenrut

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.

---

True. And getting help from the government to the detriment of your competition helps, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisrenrut

First, I'm no economist, so take this all with a grain-o'-salt. The effects of the changes you list above would have massive ripple effects, the breadth and scope of which would be impossible to predict. But there are some big effects that may be predictable.

I believe France recently started taxing the rich at a very high rate. The immediate noticeable effect it had was that most of the rich left the country (they are the one class of people that have the means to do so).

Taxing corporations at at higher rates definitely dis-incentivizes growth and expansion. You can't tax corporations higher, make them pay employees more, mess with the healthcare market to jack up benefit rates, and still expect growth and innovation. Corporations have to show profits to lure investors. If profits are eaten up by taxes, benefits, and higher wages, how will they pay dividends, or meet or exceed market expectations to lure investors to buy their stock? Without investment capital, how will companies innovate and grow?

I haven't thought much about inheritance tax. But something doesn't seem right to say that that money earned by me can't be left to my family when I die. Why should the government or society have claim to 80% of what I earned when I die?

I'm not saying our current system is perfect, and that some change isn't needed. But how often do we see the government step in to "fix" something, only to have unintended consequences overshadow the intended effect (cough, cough, ACA).

Edit: BTW, if this conversation continues, can we move to its own thread in a more appropriate forum?

---

Also, we are talking about effective tax rates. Eisenhower taxed the uber rich at 90%...yet their effective tax rate was 50%. Also, maybe the super rich would leave America...but where would they go? We like to bang on our country, but how many places have free speech? Freedom of religion? Right to bear arms? Not many. Where would they go?

And let's be real. If the Waltons left the US, how would that hurt us? They are being taxed at <15%. It's not that big of a chunk that is leaving. And that is my whole gripe. Why am I taxed at 29% and they are taxed at <15%? Even it out. Tax me at <15%. Or tax them at 29%.

I don't agree that corporations growing and expanding is necessarily a good thing. How many small businesses were put out of business by Walmart? How many employees were making more money and not on food stamps working at local electronics shop that were put out of business by Walmart and are now making $8/hr and on food stamps?

Also, if profits are eaten up we will see a drop...but then it will stabilize, Americans will innovate, and profits will rise again and the economy will survive.

About the inheritance tax. Let's go back to the Waltons, because they are the easiest to attack. They haven't done anything. They were born and won the lottery. YET, they use federal roads more than anyone, they use food stamps more than anyone, they use medicaid more than anyone. Their whole business model is about hiring people, putting them on food stamps, then having them work for them then pay them with taxpayer money for walmart goods. So, while their dad did some amazing things, he did it with the help of the government, yet he gives back less than any of us.

Also, the thing about the inheritance tax...I'm not talking about you or me. You and I will leave our kids...what??? 10 million? Divided by three kids? So 3 mill each? Don't tax that.

Look at it this way: America is the country where you can be anything. You can create anything. With hard work and determination, you can do it all. That is changing. I'm not saying take everything. What I am saying is this:

$400,000 a year puts you in the top 1% on income. $10,000,000 allows you to live on $400,000 a year conservatively and have that income for the rest of your life. So, why not give the Waltons $10,000,000 each? That puts them in the top 1% of income. That gives them opportunity that you and I will never have. If they want, they can turn that $10,000,000 into 1 billion like their dad did...if they want to work for it. OR they can live off $400,000 a year and live better than 99% of America.

What that also does, is that allows dad to pay America back for the roads that he used. For the water works he used. For the electrical lines he used. For all the taxes he never had to pay that every other small business had to pay. It allows dad to pay America back for all the food stamps his employees used, and all the medicaid that his employees needed because he paid them so little.

We aren't "stealing" or "taking" anything from Sam Walton. America gave Walton a lot of what he has. This allows him to pay America back and take care of his kids for the rest of their lives.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the right answer is. I do know that allowing the corps to run everything though lobbyists, super PAC's, tax breaks, etc will not work long term.

Remember AT&T and PacBell? Remember how expensive long distance used to be? Then the government stepped in, broke up the monopoly, and now long distance is free.

Capitalism is great, when restrictions are in place. Regulations has become a bad word today, but they are not bad. Not at all. Unregulated capitalism creates a system where one guy owns everything and that is anti-American.

Bring back the American dream to everyone, not just the Millers and Waltons, etc.

And, for the record, I'm all for more taxes, as long as they are across the board. I'll pay my share. All I am asking for is that those above me pay their share. The fact that I pay 29% of my income and Romney pays 13% in taxes...do you not see the issue with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mUUser

I'm wondering if you think Sam Walton opened his five and dime store as a $450 billion dollar business, or, maybe, he cut his teeth as a stocker and manager of Ben Franklin stores, found a niche market, risked his life savings, and worked his a$$ to the bone to expand his business.

Being somewhat familiar with the NWA area, I can assure you the Walton's are directly responsible for creating thousands of middle-class millionaires....secretary's, admins, managers, accountants, etc..... They've also invested in many philanthropic ventures through both the family foundation, and the walmart stores foundation.....billions of dollars. There's two sides to every coin my friend.

Look, I get it. You're pissed that some people are wildly successful and others aren't. Taking a dump on those that have the skills to make gobs of money doesn't fix a thing.

---

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. COMPLETELY. The Waltons get more government aid than anyone...yet they give the least back. I want them to pay their share. That's it. It's not stealing or taking or being pissed at someone that has the "skills' (even though the Waltons don't necessarily have the skills to make money...they were born into it).

Also, do you think Trump has the "skills" to be successful? Do you realize that when he received his fortune, had he put it into a money market account and done NOTHING the last 30 years, he would have the same amount of money? Does Trump have the "skills" to be successful, or was he just lucky enough to inherit 40 million?

And that is my issue. Here we have Trump running for president...because he dad was rich. There is nothing to show that he has any special talent or skill. He was just born into money. Is that the system you want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two Utes

Dead on. Those folks who want to punish the successful businessmen/women because they became successful simply don't understand basic economics and capitalism.

Go look at Venezuela as the latest example of a government controlled economy or "socialism". Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better than any other system.

I pay over a third of the income I receive in some form of tax. I certainly pay a fair share of taxes. I come from parents who never graduated form college and were truly middle class. I graduated from college and graduate college. Through a lot of work and effort I am now considered upper middle class. Everybody I work around came form similar backgrounds and have similar success stories, but they all had to work their asses off to get where they've gotten. Fortunately, this country still incentivizes hard work and education.

Massive attempts to redistribute wealth does nothing to assist the overall economic growth of this nation. It's down right unamerican, short sited, stupid and harmful. But it sure sounds good. Kind of like promising to put soda in the drinking fountains.

---

I love the buzzwords. You throw socialism out there...No one has asked for socialism. Did you realize that un-regulated capitalism creates monopolies that ends up with one or two dudes...or dudettes running everything? Look at our elections right now:

Trump is leading. The guy has done nothing other than inherit money.

I want regulation.

I mentioned the long distance example above. Perfect example of why we need regulation.

I'm curious, are you a small business owner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scratch

This is spot on. I made partner a couple of years ago (and thanks to that I'm approaching the upper middle class after spending years in the lower class while in school and then was just able to buy a single family home after living the previous 18 years in small apartments and a condo), and as a very small owner in a business that employs over 50 people I can assure you that we know exactly what it costs to bring on a new employee and we can do a pretty good job of estimating how much revenue that employee will generate, so there is no doubt that as our costs to hire people increase the number of people we hire decreases. It has been pretty shocking to see how various laws and policies directly impact our job creation.

And by the way, for what it's worth the majority of our employees are not lawyers, and many of them do not have college degrees, but I believe the lowest-paid employee here is making the equivalent of about $24 per hour. These are the types of jobs that we want our economy to produce and are also the types of jobs that are being severely limited by government policies.

---

Your post is exactly why we NEED regulation. Your lowest paid employee gets $24/hr. Walmart pays $8/hr. Small businesses take care of their employees. Corporations do not.

You guys act like I'm attacking small businesses and middle class Americans. I'm not. I'm talking about the 0.01%. They guys making millions of dollars a year and paying 13% in taxes.

You make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. You have employees. You take care of them. I want to empower you. All I want is the upper, upper class to pay their share. Why do you pay 29% in taxes and they pay 13%?

You pay your employees better. You have a better working environment. You don't put your employees on welfare. You aren't as quick to fire an employee. So, why are you penalized for doing all those things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sancho

The part that bugs, though, is that others have worked just as hard or far harder without the same reward. Others still have done relatively little and are riding high on 6 figures. Then others are up in 9 figures, which is just silly no matter how much work they've done.

So, yeah, it may be the best system out there, and it's been really good to me, but it's not remotely fair. We should remember that luck played a large role in getting us to a point in life where we can post economic ramblings on a football message board during work hours.

---

Exactly. Trump, the Waltons, Huntsman...those guys are where they are because they were the right sperm at the right time. Yet, we want to shelter, protect, tax them less...why? I don't understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diehard Ute

What in life is fair?

The general idea that all things in life should be fair is bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Life will never be fair. BUT, if we don't try to level the playing field, then one or two will rule all.

Let's apply this to sports. Without salary caps, without revenue sharing, without all the teams looking out for one another, LA would win every title and there would only be 4-5 professional teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisrenrut

Hard work is not the only factor that determines financial success. Decision making, risk taking, timing, and luck all contribute as well.

---

The problem is, it is quickly becoming "did you inherit enough" to become successful.