Rich people don't pay much in taxes (now in CR) - ProPublica

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

Tax policy is public policy.

Every U.S. citizen's tax records should be public information.

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Tax policy is public policy.

Every U.S. citizen's tax records should be public information.

Yeah, that's really fair to their children.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, that's really fair to their children.  

Fuck their children. No GOP.

[wildcat09 29,556]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok, so now do poor people. 

Do we want poor people to spend their first dollars of income on federal income taxes, or food and shelter?

[Brew 3,049]

 

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok, so now do poor people. 

I don’t think the tax system is the place for refundable credits, I think a flat zero should be the minimum unless we want to use it to promote the living wage concept where everyone is brought up to a minimum level. I also don’t think those below a set amount should be paying much of anything. They are already paying 7.65% to social security and Medicare. I don’t have a magic line in the sand where that should kick in, but I’m sure I could come up with one. Right now it is $27,000 or so if married with no kids which feels low. With kids it jumps. The inconsistencies in states throws that off too.

[Dahobbs 18,190]

37 minutes ago, Brew said:

I have zero comprehension of your second sentence. The federal tax code is an income based system. Whether you have a “lay” understanding or an in depth knowledge, it still is what it is. A progressive income tax system that taxes increasing income progressively. If you generate $5M in income, you pay a higher marginal rate than the guy at $1M than the guy at $500k than the guy at $100k and so on.

Yes, I completely understand the nature of our tax system. It is supposed to be a progressive income tax system. But, even if it generally works that way in practice as to income, it is still in its nature regressive because it leaves out other forms of property besides income. I've been very explicit on this, so I really don't understand what the disconnect is here. Let me try one more time:

If you limit your view to just income, then you can call it a progressive tax system (although one that isn't very good at that due to exemptions and loop holes). 

But, if you expand the picture to include total wealth, the overall tax structure is regressive because it taxes the dominant form of property for the lower classes and doesn't tax the dominant form for property for the higher classes. 

Quote

 

most income tax benefits go to the lower income ranges. There is a ton of stuff that phases out at income levels in the $150k-$250k range and things that phase in at the $400k-$500k range.

Oh come on, you aren't that naïve.  Yes, a lot of the direct exemptions phase out. But there are also a lot of exemptions that can only be utilized if you have a lot money and aren't a regular 9-5 employee. And obviously the person who receives most of their income via capital gains is going to be better off than the person who receives most of their income via labor. And, none of this even includes the various loop-holes that are available to the wealthy to avoid ever having to recognize any income. 

But, all of that is also sort of beside the point. Because, as I stated above, a tax that only includes income is almost always going to be regressive in that it excludes the dominant form of wealth maintained by the rich. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Brew 3,049]

10 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Tax policy is public policy.

Every U.S. citizen's tax records should be public information.

Screw that, income is a private matter. Do you know what everyone in your company makes?

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

10 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Tax policy is public policy.

Every U.S. citizen's tax records should be public information.

Yeesh, I don't know about that.  

[immamac 44,199]

2 minutes ago, Brew said:

Screw that, income is a private matter. Do you know what everyone in your company makes?

This is so stupid and one of the reasons for wage depression. 

[Biff Tannen 46,061]

Motion to take the (no CR) out of the thread title, since this got moved to CR as we all knew it would.  @immamac

[Guest Lobo]

actually, finding out the pay bandwidths of most positions at publicly traded companies is incredibly easy to find out.  Once you get up to EVP/SVP and C-levels and there's a lot of non-income comp. (NQSO, ISO, equity vehicles, etc.)...it gets a little harder.  But any sophomore journalist student can find out what 90% of employees at a Fortune 500 company make with 30 minutes of google and phone calls.  

[TwiceHorn 31,987]

Discussing your compensation at biglaw firms is grounds for termination.  Or used to be.  More of them are lockstep now.

[Brew 3,049]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I completely understand the nature of our tax system. It is supposed to be a progressive income tax system. But, even if it generally works that way in practice as to income, it is still in its nature regressive because it leaves out other forms of property besides income. I've been very explicit on this, so I really don't understand what the disconnect is here. Let me try one more time:

If you limit your view to just income, then you can call it a progressive tax system (although one that isn't very good at that due to exemptions and loop holes). 

But, if you expand the picture to include total wealth, the overall tax structure is regressive because it taxes the dominant form of property for the lower classes and doesn't tax the dominant form for property for the higher classes. 

Oh come on, you aren't that naïve.  Yes, a lot of the direct exemptions phase out. But there are also a lot of exemptions that can only be utilized if you have a lot money and aren't a regular 9-5 employee. And obviously the person who receives most of their income via capital gains is going to be better off than the person who receives most of their income via labor. And, none of this even includes the various loop-holes that are available to the wealthy to avoid ever having to recognize any income. 

But, all of that is also sort of beside the point. Because, as I stated above, a tax that only includes income is almost always going to be regressive in that it excludes the dominant form of wealth maintained by the rich. 

Explain these loopholes to me that favor the wealthy and keep them from ever paying taxes again outside of what I’ve already agreed with that is limited to .00001 of taxpayers and the reduced CG rates. Those can easily be closed up by increasing CG rates which I’ve said and including all comp as income whether realized or unrealized annually. As someone that runs a firm that prepares about 25,000 tax returns a year, I think my partners would be interested in this tax planning mystery that we aren’t familiar with. I have rich people ask me every year how to pay less tax and their avenues are sometimes less than the guy at $150k.

[Brew 3,049]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is so stupid and one of the reasons for wage depression. 

Income is typically a taboo subject to discuss openly. Not sure what you find stupid about that, but feel free to post your paystubs ala Rocko any time.

[Brew 3,049]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

actually, finding out the pay bandwidths of most positions at publicly traded companies is incredibly easy to find out.  Once you get up to EVP/SVP and C-levels and there's a lot of non-income comp. (NQSO, ISO, equity vehicles, etc.)...it gets a little harder.  But any sophomore journalist student can find out what 90% of employees at a Fortune 500 company make with 30 minutes of google and phone calls.  

You can find it at any governmental entity also, it comes with the job. I’m not sure what that has to do with the rest of the workforce.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

13 minutes ago, Brew said:

Screw that, income is a private matter. Do you know what everyone in your company makes?

Who does that benefit in a free market system that obstensibly champions the concept of competition? 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

3 minutes ago, Brew said:

Income is typically a taboo subject to discuss openly. Not sure what you find stupid about that, but feel free to post your paystubs ala Rocko any time.

Taboo is the key word here.

[Brew 3,049]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Taboo is the key word here.

Clearly. It happens to be one as an owner in multiple business ventures I don’t have a problem with. I think it would create more negatives than positives and for the most part at least in our business people know what the market rates are. They don’t know that Jane beside them makes a few extra thousand because she’s worth it, but they know the market for them is in the $X-$Y dollar range. I don’t see much benefit in the governmental sector where it’s a race down to their pay scale rather than a race up to the next one. That may be more that it is based on years rather than merit though.

[hayden_horn 11,401]

13 minutes ago, Brew said:

Income is typically a taboo subject to discuss openly. Not sure what you find stupid about that, but feel free to post your paystubs ala Rocko any time.

i was raised this way, but i don't feel this way any longer. if employers are keeping salary pay bands secret, then someone is getting fucked over.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i was raised this way, but i don't feel this way any longer. if employers are keeping salary pay bands secret, then someone is getting fucked over.

In my experience, a lot of people get fucked over. We used the “bands system” and it’s pretty much ambiguous because it allows fuckery

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

1 minute ago, Brew said:

 They don’t know that Jane beside them makes a few extra thousand because she’s worth it, but they know the market for them is in the $X-$Y dollar range. 

If you believe in competition, the cornerstone of capitalism, you would support all this info being available as an example of what is possible with drive and initiative. 

[Brew 3,049]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i was raised this way, but i don't feel this way any longer. if employers are keeping salary pay bands secret, then someone is getting fucked over.

It’s compensation, someone always thinks they are getting fucked over. Every graduate I hire now wants a title and big money along with wanting to know when they can make partner, doesn’t mean it’s going to work out for them.

I don’t think I have an issue with bands, we pretty well publicize that information inside the company now including averages on partner compensation. I do have a problem with someone specifically knowing what someone else makes. Our partner group doesn’t even know what the guy beside them makes because it became a problem and everyone views different things as highest priority. All the old guys believed seniority was #1, others though rainmaking, etc. They all know quartiles, averages, etc. and where they are in relation, but they don’t know where the guy beside them is. 

How many of you that actually run anything put out everyone’s payroll information?

[Hornius Emeritus 12,780]

21 minutes ago, Brew said:

Income is typically a taboo subject to discuss openly.

True, but what tickles me is that it isn't this way in all cultures.  Vietnamese people, for example, are very open when it comes to this.  My step-mother is Vietnamese.  My step-cousin (also Vietnamese) brought a new boyfriend over to "meet the family."  Guy's name was Mike and he was a geologist. First question out of my stepmother's mouth after being introduced was "how much money do you make?" He was taken aback. Then she and my step-aunt and my other step-cousins grilled the poor guy. What  followed was a discussion among the clucking old Vietnamese women (in Vietnamese so the guy couldn't understand) was whether whatever amount he said he earned was enough for him to be considered marriage material.  

[Bevo 13,825]

44 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Tax policy is public policy.

Every U.S. citizen's tax records should be public information.

I had a friend who as a kid had to learn how to recognize pipe bombs, mail box rigs and such. His dad was an oil exec at Exxon (in England at the time). He later became a pitcher at Texas. Had another friend at Texas whose dad was an executive at Coca Cola Bottling in Mexico City. The dad was kidnapped, ransomed and cut into pieces and stuffed into the trunk of a car.  Publishing income/tax records is a great way to put the wealthy in danger.

[Brew 3,049]

5 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

If you believe in competition, the cornerstone of capitalism, you would support all this info being available as an example of what is possible with drive and initiative. 

I’m 42, worked my way up from intern to the #1 spot.  It didn’t make any difference to me what the guy beside me was making. I didn’t measure myself against him, I measured myself on a promotion standpoint and how quickly I moved up the ladder and against the guys at the top. We publish averages and other numbers on partner comp to show what is available, seeing the exact number Jane makes beside them doesn’t seem like it promotes that much drive.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I had a friend who as a kid had to learn how to recognize pipe bombs, mail box rigs and such. His dad was an oil exec at Exxon (in England at the time). He later became a pitcher at Texas. Had another friend at Texas whose dad was an executive at Coca Cola Bottling in Mexico City. The dad was kidnapped, ransomed and cut into pieces and stuffed into the trunk of a car.  Publishing income/tax records is a great way to put the wealthy in danger.

Mexico is a great example of what happens when you have the extremely rich and the extemely poor living in the same society and is the destination our trajectory is taking us. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

I’m 42, worked my way up from intern to the #1 spot.  It didn’t make any difference to me what the guy beside me was making. I didn’t measure myself against him, I measured myself on a promotion standpoint and how quickly I moved up the ladder and against the guys at the top. We publish averages and other numbers on partner comp to show what is available, seeing the exact number Jane makes beside them doesn’t seem like it promotes that much drive.

If you were doing the same amout of work your coworker did and he/she made double what you did, it wouldn't affect you.

Ok. 

[Brew 3,049]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

If you were doing the same amout of work your coworker did and he/she made double what you did, it wouldn't affect you.

Ok. 

That’s a stupid, unrealistic comparison, because one of us would clearly be way outside market. A few thousand difference I would give you. You also have to take into account market rates and the fact that the free market dictates if I’m worth more I can probably get it elsewhere especially right now.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,619]

...but the point you're trying to extrapolate from your " It didn’t make any difference to me what the guy beside me was making"- that income and taxes, fair game when it comes to running for office but somehow taboo when discussing individuals' lives, which you just did when it suited you, in as few words as possible- doesn't make any sense.

It's just "randomly" taboo.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Brew 3,049]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

...but the point your trying to extrapolate from your " It didn’t make any difference to me what the guy beside me was making"- that income and taxes, fair game when it comes to running for office but somehow taboo when discussing individuals' lives, which you just did when it suited you, in as few words as possible- doesn't make any sense.

It's just "randomly" taboo.

Damn, some of you don’t read and just look for apparent wholesale agreement without being able to have a functioning discussion. Scrolling up through the page, I think I’ve typed plenty of words (especially in relation to you not giving any specific reason why it should be) and have explained my position on it.

However, I’ll summarize in one place. I think the disclosure of bands and disclosure of upper level management comp ranges are reasonable. I don’t think it is a benefit to disclose specific employee comp. Most employees think they are worth more than they are in relation to the person next to them. I don’t know that I’ve ever sat down with anyone that thinks they are overpaid. Most employees have differing viewpoints on value, workers think the generation of work is the most valuable and rainmakers think the picking up of new work is the most valuable. If you  are paid less than you are worth and the market agrees, you’ll be able to get it somewhere especially right now. If you are worried about competing with the guy beside you, you are looking the wrong direction as you should be competing with the guy above you. I can keep going, I’m sure it will not matter though.

I’ll ask again, how many that run a business disclose exact compensation?

[elfenix 34,658]

20 hours ago, Incredulity said:

It will never be enough for the “fair share” crowd.  Note, they never define what is a fair share.  More, always more.  They are the twisted failure side of the greed they pretend to decry.

i wonder if i'll get tired of posting this image?

 

[elfenix 34,658]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

This is so stupid and one of the reasons for wage depression. 

no fucking shit.

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Income is typically a taboo subject to discuss openly. Not sure what you find stupid about that, but feel free to post your paystubs ala Rocko any time.

among white people.  because wealthy white people don't want all their employees to look around and start thinking they could be paid more. 

 

  

1 hour ago, Brew said:

They are already paying 7.65% to social security and Medicare.

it's closer to, if not, 14.2%, but who's interested in economic burdens?

Edited June 11, 2021 by elfenix

[Dahobbs 18,190]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Explain these loopholes to me that favor the wealthy and keep them from ever paying taxes again outside of what I’ve already agreed with that is limited to .00001 of taxpayers and the reduced CG rates. Those can easily be closed up by increasing CG rates which I’ve said and including all comp as income whether realized or unrealized annually. As someone that runs a firm that prepares about 25,000 tax returns a year, I think my partners would be interested in this tax planning mystery that we aren’t familiar with. I have rich people ask me every year how to pay less tax and their avenues are sometimes less than the guy at $150k.

As far as loopholes go, I wouldn't go so far as to say avoiding ever paying taxes, but rather from avoiding paying taxes on the bulk of their true assets. I'm mainly referring to what we discussed before on that particular issue. Although, I think you underplay the number of people that can take advantage. For instance, I know certain avoidance strategies are used by a large percentage of the top end of the Plaintiff's bar. These are very successful attorneys, but not billionaires by any stretch.  In our current system, the upper middle class and/or the lower end of the upper class probably bear the highest tax burden as a percentage of their overall wealth. 

At any rate, I feel like you're misconstruing what I'm saying and taking it personally. If you actually look at what I've bolded above, that is exactly what I've been proposing. I've just pointed out that once you start taxing unrealized gains, you aren't really operating with an income tax system anymore, but rather an overall property/wealth tax. And that's exactly what I think we should do.  

[Nivek 17,330]

Damn, some of you don’t read and just look for apparent wholesale agreement without being able to have a functioning discussion. Scrolling up through the page, I think I’ve typed plenty of words (especially in relation to you not giving any specific reason why it should be) and have explained my position on it.
However, I’ll summarize in one place. I think the disclosure of bands and disclosure of upper level management comp ranges are reasonable. I don’t think it is a benefit to disclose specific employee comp. Most employees think they are worth more than they are in relation to the person next to them. I don’t know that I’ve ever sat down with anyone that thinks they are overpaid. Most employees have differing viewpoints on value, workers think the generation of work is the most valuable and rainmakers think the picking up of new work is the most valuable. If you  are paid less than you are worth and the market agrees, you’ll be able to get it somewhere especially right now. If you are worried about competing with the guy beside you, you are looking the wrong direction as you should be competing with the guy above you. I can keep going, I’m sure it will not matter though.
I’ll ask again, how many that run a business disclose exact compensation?

I have met people who were overpaid and claimed to be. I have met people who claimed to be underpaid and they were.

I tend to believe that most people know the value they bring to a firm and want a fair wage for that value. We should just dismiss them as whiners because it cannot possibly be true.

I mean Wulaw Horn thinks $15/hr is a good wage in Houston and then left the discussion when I broke down the cost of living, savings, and mentioned how the person needed to socialize their living (roommates, Market place insurance), etc. and we left out a shit ton of women specific expenses because well, I don’t know them.

[Nivek 17,330]

I had a friend who as a kid had to learn how to recognize pipe bombs, mail box rigs and such. His dad was an oil exec at Exxon (in England at the time). He later became a pitcher at Texas. Had another friend at Texas whose dad was an executive at Coca Cola Bottling in Mexico City. The dad was kidnapped, ransomed and cut into pieces and stuffed into the trunk of a car.  Publishing income/tax records is a great way to put the wealthy in danger.

What do you think drives people to extreme actions?

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Again, personal anecdote, but when a group of us coworkers all finally compared salaries, and we were relatively equally qualified etc, there were huge discrepancies. We got it rectified but there is a reason salary is not talked about or taboo, or policies against it, because then people would realize who was getting fucked 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

True, but what tickles me is that it isn't this way in all cultures.  Vietnamese people, for example, are very open when it comes to this.  My step-mother is Vietnamese.  My step-cousin (also Vietnamese) brought a new boyfriend over to "meet the family."  Guy's name was Mike and he was a geologist. First question out of my stepmother's mouth after being introduced was "how much money do you make?" He was taken aback. Then she and my step-aunt and my other step-cousins grilled the poor guy. What  followed was a discussion among the clucking old Vietnamese women (in Vietnamese so the guy couldn't understand) was whether whatever amount he said he earned was enough for him to be considered marriage material.  

So did he pass the test? 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Hey what happened to all the DT posters in this thread? Where they go? 

[workswithseed 2,201]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Hey what happened to all the DT posters in this thread? Where they go? 

I had more fun with the " if you need a state to deem something as property, and if your body is your own property. Did you ever understand what I said?

22 hours ago, workswithseed said:

We don't want a fascist economy. 

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I had more fun with the " if you need a state to deem something as property, and if your body is your own property. Did you ever understand what I said?

 

No. Not really.
 

Never quite understood what a “fascist economy” is either but I’m all ears 

[fattyflattie 4,640]

14 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Hey what happened to all the DT posters in this thread? Where they go? 

I’m here. Thinking. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m here. Thinking. 

Hellooo neighbor. 

[immamac 44,199]

I have no problem sharing what I have as income. I've been extremely open about the finances of this site in the relevant threads. I've been open about properties I own, I talk openly about lots of things. 

The main reason I don't tell people what I make is because they kind of already know and it comes off as belittling or douchey when I hang out with my 30 something friends who aren't at the same place in their career. At work or with friends in the same place career wise I very openly talk about it and we often solicit advise from each other when we negotiate compensation. 

I told everyone at drillmap what I made when I was the co-founder. 

Not talking about your income openly only benefits the people paying you. It is taboo so people don't know how hard they are really getting fucked. 

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

I tend to believe that most people know the value they bring to a firm and want a fair wage for that value. We should just dismiss them as whiners because it cannot possibly be true.

This post is kind of the crux of the disagreement on things like income, wealth, taxes etc.  

You seem to think that if a person works for a firm and thinks they should make more money that it is the fault of the firm for not paying them more.  I could not disagree more and the real world and human nature and a capitalistic system could not disagree more.  If a person thinks that they are under paid in their job then they should ask for more.  If they do not get it, then they should leave and go somewhere where they can make more or at least have the opportunity to make more.  Because if they just stay where they are and complain, then they are, in fact, whiners.

If a person thinks they deserve more in salary from their current firm but can not find any other firm to pay them more then, by definition, they are making what they are worth.  If I think my house is worth $1M and I put it up for sale and only get offers of $750K then it is worth $750K.

And if you a person still thinks they are under paid then they should start their own firm.  

[workswithseed 2,201]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No. Not really.
 

Never quite understood what a “fascist economy” is either but I’m all ears 

"Everything within the state." means they have control or socialize the people and will let you work as you please, but will put the sword of Damocles over your head if you do something the state doesn't like. The state will subsidize you if you lose, but take it away if you go against the state.

 Think of Jack Ma.

 

[Bevo 13,825]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

What do you think drives people to extreme actions?

The numbers don't show that poverty or wealth disparity is the driving force unfortunately. Belgium has the highest kidnapping rate followed by Canada. Slovenia and Switzerland had the lowest kidnapping rate. But we were talking about open record reporting wealth, anyway. I would never want anyone to know my income or my net worth. And I would never want to know the net worth or income of any other individuals.

[sheeeit 129]

19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Um.  Patents.  Courts to enforce them,  Contracts and same.  Highways on which to transport things.  Electricity and internet to sell them with.  Trade agreements to make it possible to do business with China while only partially losing your ass.  Capital markets that, while they spend excessive amounts of time evading laws, could not exist without them and a robust court system.  A government that simultaneously enables their existence and is a massive consumer of their services.

All of these high-falutin, "independent" money-making things are excessively dependent on the systems of government and it's "products" to make them go.  A poor person may need welfare benefits occasionally, and is dependent on social security for retirement, but big business is the principal consumer of of the most fundamental government services.

"Relative poors," which include the less than say 5-10% may appear to be the largest consumers of government services, but that's only because they constitute 90-95% of the population.

Like the Obama quote you referenced, there are different ways of looking at things.  No sane person doesn't recognize that we have an infrastructure in place that makes it possible to achieve things.  The founders and subsequent political leaders all decided that it is better for the overall good of the country to have these services paid for and maintained by the govt.

So the debate is not whether Bezos benefitted from our system, the debate is why did Bezos get farther ahead than his peers?  He was certainly not born rich.  I don't know a ton about his background but I have read a few articles about him and i do know he worked the breakfast line at a Mcdonalds when he was 16 or so.  So when Obama says "he didn't build that" he is technically correct that Bezos had the inherent benefits of our society.  But so did all of his peers.  There were zero special benefits provided by the state that were somehow available to Bezos and no one else.  So I think it is just petty jealousy from some and excuse making from some and political grandstanding by Obama when they try and discount the successes of some people.  

Now it is undeniable that certain races, especially blacks, faced obstacles in the past that a Bezos did not face.  But those are largely gone today.  I do not think a poor white person born in 2021 has a built in advantage for success over a poor black person born in 2021.   And i also think it is great that extra advantages exist in 2021 for a poor black person versus an equally poor white person.  

[wildcat09 29,556]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

I had more fun with the " if you need a state to deem something as property, and if your body is your own property. Did you ever understand what I said?

 

People aren't property.

[workswithseed 2,201]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

People aren't property.

Do you not own yourself? What do you believe in then if that's not the case.

Edited June 11, 2021 by workswithseed

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Like the Obama quote you referenced, there are different ways of looking at things.  No sane person doesn't recognize that we have an infrastructure in place that makes it possible to achieve things.  The founders and subsequent political leaders all decided that it is better for the overall good of the country to have these services paid for and maintained by the govt.

So the debate is not whether Bezos benefitted from our system, the debate is why did Bezos get farther ahead than his peers?  He was certainly not born rich.  I don't know a ton about his background but I have read a few articles about him and i do know he worked the breakfast line at a Mcdonalds when he was 16 or so.  So when Obama says "he didn't build that" he is technically correct that Bezos had the inherent benefits of our society.  But so did all of his peers.  There were zero special benefits provided by the state that were somehow available to Bezos and no one else.  So I think it is just petty jealousy from some and excuse making from some and political grandstanding by Obama when they try and discount the successes of some people.  

Now it is undeniable that certain races, especially blacks, faced obstacles in the past that a Bezos did not face.  But those are largely gone today.  I do not think a poor white person born in 2021 has a built in advantage for success over a poor black person born in 2021.   And i also think it is great that extra advantages exist in 2021 for a poor black person versus an equally poor white person.  

When I was young and dumb I would have agreed with your last paragraph so I can’t really criticize since I don’t know you. But I can say now that I’m older and wiser that last paragraph is completely 100 percent wrong.