Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.
Cut a check and shut up, they said.
If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.
Tired of hearing about it, they said.
Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them. The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (Jaws of Life tools are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.
What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry .
And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios. They keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totally at their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you .
The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
Here’s another crock of fresh bullshit delivered by the right wing of the Republican Party (which has become, so far as I can see, the only wing of the Republican Party): the richer rich people get, the more jobs they create. Really? I have a total payroll of about 60 people, most of them working for the two radio stations I own in Bangor, Maine. If I hit the movie jackpot—as I have, from time to time—and own a piece of a film that grosses $200 million, what am I going to do with it? Buy another radio station? I don’t think so, since I’m losing my shirt on the ones I own already. But suppose I did, and hired on an additional dozen folks. Good for them. Whoopee-ding for the rest of the economy.
At the risk of repeating myself, here’s what rich folks do when they get richer: they invest. A lot of those investments are overseas, thanks to the anti-American business policies of the last four administrations. Don’t think so? Check the tag on that T-shirt or gimme cap you’re wearing. If it says MADE IN AMERICA, I’ll … well, I won’t say I’ll eat your shorts, because some of that stuff is made here, but not much of it. And what does get made here doesn’t get made by America’s small cadre of pluted bloatocrats; it’s made, for the most part, in barely-gittin’-by factories in the Deep South, where the only unions people believe in are those solemnized at the altar of the local church (as long as they’re from different sexes, that is).
The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don’t ask me why; I don’t get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can’t seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I’ve gotten the same reaction myself, even though I’m only “baby rich” compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.
In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God’s sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope’s balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!
I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said. in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money —is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay —in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head.
In high-tax countries (like the U.S. Canada, and most of Western Europe), some people realize that the rich would pay more taxes if the tax rates were lower. This ironically increases the reported difference in income between the rich and the poor, because it makes it cheaper (per dollar of declared income) for the rich to declare income. (When marginal tax rates are above 50 percent, it makes more sense to work to lower one's taxes than to increase one's income.) – Jasper Dec 9 '14 at 23:49
@Roman Dryndik You really should wait a while, like a day at least, before accepting an answer. Note that the word "rich" is an adjective in both #1 and #2, because it can be modified by adverbs, such as "extremely": compare "the extremely rich" and "the extremely rich people". But now, what is the sense of anyone writing a new answer post since you have already accepted an answer? (shrugs) – F.E. Dec 10 '14 at 0:19
In Sentence 1, the word rich functions as a mass noun. In Sentence 2, rich is an adjective modifying people.
To express it in a more natural way, you really should remove the word "the" from the second sentence:
1.Some people think that the rich don't pay enough tax .
2.Some people think that rich people don't pay enough tax .
When used as a mass noun, we use the word "the" in front of the word "rich." The same goes for poor.
You will always have the poor among you. (Matt 26:11, NLT)
but this article gets omitted with the word is used as an adjective modifying people :
Everything was shiny and new. Even the sun seemed brighter. There were no poor people here. Where had they gone? (Charles Fleming, 2004)
Check out the Macmillan entry for rich for more on this:
rich (adj ) 1 owning a lot of money, property, or valuable possessions. *His invention has made him a rich man._
a. the rich people who have a great deal of money, property, or valuable possessions. a tax-cutting program that will only benefit the rich
(the) rich and (the) poor. the increasing gap between the rich and the poor
In sentence (1) we have a determiner plus adjective combination, where the is the determiner and rich is the adjective. According to writers like Huddleston & Pullum et al (The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 2002) this is a type of Noun Phrase - even though, as they say, it has no nouns in it!
We can clearly show that rich is an adjective here, not a noun. Most importantly, we cannot use adverbs to pre-modify nouns, but we can use them with adjectives:
There does not seem to be any limit to the type of adverbs we can use to modify rich in this way:
All of the above can function as the subjects or objects of sentences and are perfectly grammatical.
This type of construction must have the determiner the. If it does not, the sentence will be ungrammatical:
In sentence (2) rich is an adjective modifying the noun people. This sentence is grammatical. However, at the moment it does not mean exactly the same as sentence (1). The reason is that, when we want to talk about things in general, we do not use the definite article with normal Noun Phrases. We use no article at all:
At the moment sentence (2) doesn't refer to rich people in general. It refers to a specific group of rich people. We know this because it uses the definite article the. Maybe it is referring to the rich people in a particular town, or the rich people in the entertainment industry. It isn't talking about people in general though. If we want to make the sentence have a similar meaning to sentence (1) we need to remove the article:
Notice that the grammar for this sentence is different from sentence (1). We can use constructions like the rich or the lucky to refer to rich people in general or lucky people in general.
Hope this is helpful!
Topic: The government must collect high taxes from the rich to help the poor.
Please help me assess my essay and let me know the mistakes that I have made this essay. Thank you very much.
There are different opinions regarding whether collecting high taxes from the rich is absolutely necessary for economic equality. It is a widely accepted fact that it is the rich people who are going to invest and create jobs. In other words, the poor can become richer only by making the rich richer. Therefore, some people say that the government should not collect high taxes from the rich. Even so, from my every experience and observation, I strongly believe that collecting tax from the rich is necessary for economic equality.
First, making the rich richer doesn�t make the rest of us richer. Many people claim that collecting high taxes from rich is not the best way to increase economic growth. They say that the best way is to invest much of the government� budgets on big companies and the rich such as Microsoft, General Motors, Nike and greater investors and shareholders. However, all of these ways for the rich has nothing to do with helping the poor. For example, although the government invests much of its budgets on big companies, they do not increase their workers� wages and create more jobs. This is because the companies tend to cut workers� wages to give more benefits to their shareholders and investors. Therefore, the government should help the poor with taxes collected from the rich.
Second, the rich does not have the right to refuse the government� demand for high taxes. Nowadays, it has reported that there is nothing unfair about economic inequality, unless it arises without force or fraud, through the choices people make in a free market economy. Therefore, some people claim that taxing the rich to help the poor is unjust just because it interferes with a fundamental right. However, nobody can become richer by themselves. For example, Michael Jordan does not play alone. If he had shot free throws by himself on an empty court, people would not have paid a great amount of money to watch that. He could never have made all that money without teammates, coaches, trainers, referees and stadium maintenance workers. This is why he owes a debt to those who contribute to his success. Therefore, the rich have the duty to help the poor who contribute to their success. Thus, the government definitely deserves to demand high taxes from the rich.
In conclusion, in order to prevent our society from the huge gap between rich and poor and also to increase economic growth, the government should collect high taxes from the rich.
Joined: 10 May 2011
#2 ( permalink ) Fri May 13, 2011 14:22 pm Re: The government must collect high taxes from the rich to help the poor.
Hi, you have written an outstanding essay. I was only able to find a few mistakes.
Topic: The government must collect high taxes from the rich to help the poor.
Please help me assess my essay and let me know the mistakes that I have made this essay. Thank you very much.
There are different opinions regarding whether collecting high taxes from the rich is absolutely necessary for economic equality. It is a widely accepted fact that it is the rich people who are going to invest and create jobs. In other words, the poor can
become<"be made" sounds better> richer only by making the rich richer. Therefore, some people say that the government should not collect high taxes from the rich. Even so, from my every experience and observation, I strongly believe that collecting tax[es] from the rich is necessary for economic equality.
First, making the rich richer doesn�t make the rest of us richer. Many people claim that collecting high taxes from [the] rich is not the best way to increase economic growth. They say that the best way is to invest much of the government� budget
s on big companies and the rich such as Microsoft, General Motors, Nike and greater [their rich] investors and shareholders. However, all of these ways [benefits] for the rich has [have] nothing to do with helping the poor. For example, although the government invests much of its budget s on big companies, they do not increase their workers� wages and create more jobs. This is because the companies tend to cut workers� wages to give more benefits to their shareholders and investors. Therefore, the government should help the poor with taxes collected from the rich.
Second, the rich do
es not have the right to refuse the government� demand for high taxes. Nowadays, it has [been] reported <". it is assumed" sounds better> that there is nothing unfair about economic inequality, unless [as long as] it arises without force or fraud, through the choices people make in a free market economy. Therefore, some people claim that taxing the rich to help the poor is unjust just because it interferes with a fundamental right. However, nobody can become richer by themselves. For example, Michael Jordan does not play alone. If he had shot free throws by himself on an empty court, people would not have paid a great amount of money to watch that. He could never have made all that money without teammates, coaches, trainers, referees and stadium maintenance workers. This is why he owes a debt to those who contribute to his success. Therefore, the rich have the duty to help the poor who contribute to their success. Thus, the government definitely deserves to demand high taxes from the rich.
In conclusion, in order to prevent our society from
the [developing a] huge gap between rich and poor and also to increase economic growth, the government should collect high taxes from the rich.
Joined: 08 Apr 2011
Location: Nashville TN, USA
‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams, in his WSJ essay last weekend, shared some of his ideas about ways the government can squeeze more money from the rich .
They were, in short, terrible. In fact, that was the point. The “bad version,” he explains, is a television-writers’ technique to stimulate imaginations to engineer better solutions. And if the U.S. is wanting for anything in this moment of choking deficits, a deus ex machina for our budgetary woes certainly fits the bill.
The problem is that the current political structure–think short campaign cycles and 24/7 news– doesn’t allow for much room to brainstorm bad ideas, and thus, come up with better ones. So Adams turned the task over to his readers, in hopes that some of his “bad ideas” would inspire better ones.
Readers took his bait. The Tax Blog reviewed some of the hundreds of ideas and comments Adams inspired, and the subsequent live chat he fielded. We picked a few of the more popular and thought-provoking (if not always feasible) approaches readers thought Uncle Sam could take to make the rich less tax-averse.
Knowing the destination of your dollars. In his live chat, Adams noted that many of his readers “liked the idea of linking payment with some clear and observed use.” Adams’s own “bad idea” involved redesigning the tax code to funnel taxes on the rich to social services like health care and social security. The structure would incentivize the rich to reduce the need for those services, or make them more efficient and cost-effective. Readers offered up several derivatives of his idea, from paying for a year’s worth of a specific family’s health care (with feedback) to letting top earners pick the federal-program recipient of their tax dollars.
Taxing Democrats and Republicans at different rates. Call it “getting what you pay for.” If you want to enjoy the benefit of government services, or believe your fellow Americans should, pay the taxes to fund them. If not, don’t—and you’ll be roadblocked from access to certain government services. Outrageous? Sure. Creative? Definitely.
Taxing “vices.” Tax fast food to pay for the medical costs of obesity. Tax alcohol to pay for liver treatments. This reader’s idea wasn’t too far flung from a proposal already gaining traction in California. The California Cancer Research Act, now on the state’s 2012 ballot, proposes increasing tobacco taxes by $1 per pack, and using the revenue to fund cancer research and tobacco prevention and enforcement programs.
Donations. Some readers suggested donating time on the job–say, two weeks’ work and the wages you’d get–to the government. The unemployed would volunteer two weeks’ work (and the subsequent salary) in green industries. Everyone would be required to donate the same amount of time. After all, an hour is an hour, no matter how fat your wallet is. The exercise would be one of shared pain, that is, a burden we despise less if everyone bears it equally, says Adams.
Other ideas: a flat tax, a consumption tax, paying for naming rights to monuments and structures, taxing celebrities and professional athletes at a special (higher) rate, and the list goes on. WSJ is asking readers to vote on its top six picks .
Readers, what “bad” ideas can you add to the dialogue?
The Tax Blog brings together a team of award-winning tax journalists from the Dow Jones network and around the web to examine the tax issues, changes and legislation that affect families, investors and small business owners. Our contributors include Tax Report columnist Laura Saunders (WSJ), Tax Guy columnist Bill Bischoff and senior reporter Jilian Mincer (SmartMoney.com), retirement-focused reporter Anne Tergesen (WSJ), wealth management writer Arden Dale (Dow Jones Newswires), TaxWatch columnist Eva Rosenberg and personal finance reporter Andrea Coombes (MarketWatch), and reporter Alyssa Abkowitz (SmartMoney). They’ll provide the latest news and insight, mine the tax code for tips and loopholes, and answer your questions about tricky tax situations.Partner Center
Rich get Richer and Poor get Poorer
In today's world people want to be healthy, happy and well educated and most want to own some type of capital. They also want to be well paid for the work that they do and they prefer to pay as little tax as possible. While everybody is happier when the rate of inflation is low and when the economy is growing and everyone is getting better off. In booming economic times, such as we recently have enjoyed, the only problem is that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Because company profits have been down but the head executives are still getting all the perks, like, stock options, and bonuses that's capitalism and that is the American dream.
Poverty is a problem the government has been trying to fix. Many welfare programs help the poor, whom are individuals who lack food, shelter, and clothing, with food stamps, and assistance for both transportation and childcare.
From 1996 to recent years the policies on welfare reform have become more stringent on receiving benefits, the government has been working harder on training and placing individuals in the work force.
An article by Martin Hattersley says that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty, and 1.3 million are homeless, a 100% increase in the past ten years. Over a fifteen year period, the family incomes of the lowest 20% of the U.S. population have shrunk by more than a fifth. The incomes of the highest 20% have risen by thirty per cent and the poorest fifth of the United States population have less than one twenty-fifth of the country's total income: the highest fifth have approximately half. This means the gap between the rich and poor has broaden throughout the.Citation styles:
Why the rich get richer and poor gets poorer. (2003, July 29). In WriteWork.com. Retrieved 03:13, February 21, 2017, from http://www.writework.com/essay/why-rich-get-richer-and-poor-gets-poorer
WriteWork contributors. "Why the rich get richer and poor gets poorer." WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 29 July, 2003. Web. 21 Feb. 2017.
WriteWork contributors, "Why the rich get richer and poor gets poorer.," WriteWork.com, http://www.writework.com/essay/why-rich-get-richer-and-poor-gets-poorer (accessed February 21, 2017)Reviews of: "Why the rich get richer and poor gets poorer." :
I liked this essay a lot more than very many that I have read. It was well formulated and showed the writer was at a significant writing level, unlike many on this web page! Thanks for submitting this essay.
10 out of 11 people found this comment useful.
Good essay! Your points of view are excellent. Besides, I think the government should educate the youngs that sharing hands to others is important. So more people in future will willing to help others, there will be less poorer.
5 out of 9 people found this comment useful.
The essay is very interesting and organized well. If the writer gave more analysis into the content would be much better.
3 out of 9 people found this comment useful.More Businesss Research Papers essays:
the Rich are getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer" to categorize American workers. He divided all jobs into three boats: routine producers, in person servers, and symbolic analyst. Reich continues to explain each job and how they are affecting the economic.
4 pages 150 2 Jan/2003 4.6
rich become richer and poor become poorer. E. Interest Rates and Repayment. Now, let us consider interest rates, which enterprises have to pay as a payment to the banks for lending money. For example, interest rates of NSBK are determined in dependence with concrete case and.
15 pages 74 May/2005 5.0
and, the government. These are the people with the power. The whole system revolves around private gain rather than the interests of everyone in a community. Since the rich are in control of the economy, their decisions result in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
3 pages 189 Jan/1996 4.7
and the second, to remove all agricultural tariffs and subsidies. The main problem surrounding subsidies is it allows first world exporters to drastically reduce the prices of their goods and, thus have a commercial advantage over the farmers of poorer nations. The.
9 pages 24 May/2008 3.0
and those things are essential health and education infrastructure and the new green economy'. Basically a reduced rate of tax helps rich people more than the poor or people with less income as of course the major proportion of tax revenue is collected from the citizens earning high income. On the.
37 pages 49 May/2010 0.0Students & Profs. say about us:
"Good news: you can turn to other's writing help. WriteWork has over 100,000 sample papers"
Prof. Jacob Leland, Phd
"I turned what i thought was a C+ paper into an A-"