From WaPo (//%22http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/12/mccains_tax_plan_aids_wealthy.html%22)
quote:
McCain's Tax Plan Aids Wealthy, Says Group
An analysis of both campaigns proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with incomes between $66,354 and $111,645, Obama's proposals would cut their taxes by more than $1000, compared to around $300 under McCain's plan. But for Americans with incomes above $603,402, Obama would raise their taxes dramatically, by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.
Kids, this is why working people vote Democrat and why Fat Cats vote Republican.
Trickle down economics are really tinkle on.
You really need to read the fine print when politicians start talking tax cuts and increases. Is there still a marriage penalty under Obama's plan?
I knew we could count on the "have nots" on this board complaining that the "haves" have too much and should have it taken away. After all, we have to punish those who dare achieve the American dream. Vote Democrat!
Here's a take on the "nonpartisan Tax Policy Center", the entity that provided the analysis for this article:
http://fallingpanda.blogspot.com/2008/06/jeanne-sahadi-shows-cnn-bias.html
"Non-partisan" and "balanced" are two of the biggest misnomers in Washington.
The Tax Policy Center sounds about like the sham American Hunters and Shooters Association which exclusively backs libs for office.
Woohoo! I've made it, I'm a Fat Cat. I didn't know that, but glad to hear it. Also, Kathy Taylor and John Kerry are not working people AND billionaires. Stereotypes are great.
But really, I want everyone to pay a fair share. I don't care what that implies, but simply making more should not mean you pay a higher PERCENTAGE of your earnings. Notice how little is said about the real back door riches earned - capital gains taxes, honorariums, trusts, and foundations are still able to garner HUGE incomes for the wealthiest of Americans at lower tax brackets than I pay (I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination).
While I don't wanted punish the production of wealth, it doesn't seem entirely fair that those with wealth have means of achieving more wealth at a lesser tax rate than everyone else. Why doesn't anyone complain about that?
The Fair Tax would remedy that problem. As well as the problem of the alternative minimum tax, taxes on Americans stuck in poverty, the marriage penalty, and transfers of wealth. But, it would also effectively eliminate the governments ability to play favorites with the rich, hand pick industries for tax breaks, and to keep track of our bank accounts.
On a different note, we need taxes to run the country. Most people are the middle class... most people should have to pay taxes to run the country. We are close to having a majority of Americans NOT actually paying taxes (by some account we are already there). We don't want to cut spending, but we need more revenue. So we take the assets of other people so the other 50% can get their government for free (and STILL run a deficit).
Sorry, reality here again. We need to either cut spending or raise taxes. And not just on the rich (PLEASE cut spending).
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
We need to either cut spending or raise taxes. And not just on the rich (PLEASE cut spending).
Abso-freakin-lutely.
Oh, and welcome to the Fat Cat club, whatever that class warfare terrminology crap means.
I was surprised when I learned I was upper income. But I'm a Democrat that realizes my economic well being is tied to the health of my community.
Cannon and Guido and Conan are doing what the Republicans have done since 1980: They tie the taxes of working people to the taxes of fat cats and say they are one and the same thing. That's how the Republicans have gotten working people to vote against their own self interest.
Cannon and the Reaganites, strumming same old tired tune. Can't you guys come up with anything new? The air was let out of Reaganomics a long time ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Cannon and Guido and Conan are doing what the Republicans have done since 1980: They tie the taxes of working people to the taxes of fat cats and say they are one and the same thing. That's how the Republicans have gotten working people to vote against their own self interest.
Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I was surprised when I learned I was upper income. But I'm a Democrat that realizes my economic well being is tied to the health of my community.
Cannon and Guido and Conan are doing what the Republicans have done since 1980: They tie the taxes of working people to the taxes of fat cats and say they are one and the same thing. That's how the Republicans have gotten working people to vote against their own self interest.
Cannon and the Reaganites, strumming same old tired tune. Can't you guys come up with anything new? The air was let out of Reaganomics a long time ago.
Oh that's right. We need new economic, tax thinkers such as Michelle Obama, who tells us:
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Sounds like nothing more than pure wealth redistribution. Is that the Democrat tax policy?
And by the way, enough of the "working people" BS. My wife and I worked darned hard to get to where we are today, and we continue to work hard to provide for our family. I dare say there are similar "working people" out there who believe the same way I do.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I was surprised when I learned I was upper income. But I'm a Democrat that realizes my economic well being is tied to the health of my community.
Cannon and Guido and Conan are doing what the Republicans have done since 1980: They tie the taxes of working people to the taxes of fat cats and say they are one and the same thing. That's how the Republicans have gotten working people to vote against their own self interest.
Cannon and the Reaganites, strumming same old tired tune. Can't you guys come up with anything new? The air was let out of Reaganomics a long time ago.
Oh that's right. We need new economic, tax thinkers such as Michelle Obama, who tells us:
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Sounds like nothing more than pure wealth redistribution. Is that the Democrat tax policy?
And by the way, enough of the "working people" BS. My wife and I worked darned hard to get to where we are today, and we continue to work hard to provide for our family. I dare say there are similar "working people" out there who believe the same way I do.
You just don't understand the theory of entitlement. When you accept that everyone is entitled to happiness (not the just pursuit of happiness), you will be glad to buy into the Democratic party's philosophy of taxes:
How much did you make?
Send it in.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I was surprised when I learned I was upper income. But I'm a Democrat that realizes my economic well being is tied to the health of my community.
Cannon and Guido and Conan are doing what the Republicans have done since 1980: They tie the taxes of working people to the taxes of fat cats and say they are one and the same thing. That's how the Republicans have gotten working people to vote against their own self interest.
Cannon and the Reaganites, strumming same old tired tune. Can't you guys come up with anything new? The air was let out of Reaganomics a long time ago.
HT,
I don't have a problem paying taxes for essential goods and services which should be expected from government. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars going to food stamps to feed the children of an unemployed man who is looking for work. I do realize there is a percentage of our population, who through no fault of their own, are incapable of working and I accept that they can be given a stipend from the government so that they can live.
What I do have a problem with is all the damn layers of government administration which bloat payrolls to the point that we need to pay so much in taxes. I dare say, the amount of money spent to administer SSI, welfare, and other entitlement programs probably rivals the dole itself.
Instead of a true reformer coming in, examining every budget and cutting out all the waste, we keep voting for candidates who promise us even more without cutting out the schlock we have in the budget now.
My conservative thinking is this:
Don't come to me with another damn tax increase until you've shown me you can cut the federal budget by 15 to 20% and you really do need the money to pay down debt, or we have finally figured out the magic panacea for health care. Fine.
By the same token- don't give me another tax cut or rebate simply to try and buy my vote next November whilst wasting $40 some million on an advertising campaign that suggests the majority of Americans are too stupid to open their mailbox or check their bank account for direct deposit information.
The tax bracket I'm in has no bearing on my thinking on taxes. The government has not earned the right to ask for more taxes at this point.
Our government simply doesn't have to be so big. We fail to keep track of every beurocracy which gets created with every new need. Think of this: there would have been a river commission, had we passed the 10/09 proposal. Now there will be streets oversight commission, construction manager, project manager, you can wrap a few mill into administrative costs alone on major construction projects for a city or county.
Well, I'm nowhere near a fat cat! I'm barley "middle class."
Tax cuts across the board seem like a far better solution to our current problems than increasing taxes on anyone (and businesses that operate under an LLC).
Now I'm not a fan of the "trickle-down" theory, but I do understand common sense economics (something that seems to elude some).
Here's the deal:
Money in the economy makes more money, and generates sales tax revenue (especially because sales taxes are levied several times for every product and service, not that that is really fair).
Money acquired by the government, before, during, and after distribution, is reduced in value, and creates no mechanism for sustainable business (government programs must operate at a loss, to retain funding).
When you cut taxes you increase total government tax revenue as long as government spending is kept a constant.
Sales tax revenue is collected at a far more efficient rate than income tax revenue.
To break it down further, when you cut the taxes on a business or an individual at any level, that person will invest, buy, hire or spend. It really doesn't matter what they invest in, what they buy or who they hire. The expansion of human enterprise takes place either way. The only concern would be that they keep most of the money domestic.
When you increase taxes on any entity, that entity will cystate. This basically means they will spend less, produce less, seek more efficiency, and work less because any increase in taxes (especially on upper income brackets) reduces hiring and business expansion and increases reliance on government services such as unemployment, medicade.
Additionally as people and businesses at any level begin to seek efficiency they shelter activity, eliminate jobs, or move essential activities to lower wage or taxed regions (or out of country).
This is just basic first year economics. There is nothing here that can be challenged, but give it a go.
There are only three reasons that tax-fans exist.
1. To win votes, it is popular among the lower and middle class to see successful people punished (but only for those who view success as greed).
2. Those within government see tax increases as job security. Increased programs are the jet fuel for the stationary government engine. Increased revenue is not. Increased government revenue threatens government jobs, because it is an indicator of national prosperity.
3. Economic cystation promotes liberal voting. The lower the income of an individual, the more perceived reliance they have for a government safety-net or enhanced government programs. The more they vote for these programs and increases in taxation the more the need grows, the lower the GNP falls, and more cystation takes place. This manifest destiny is very hard to escape.
Obama is very smart in the way he has put together this system. This tax proposal has the potential to keep his party in power for a very long time.
I'm afraid that McCain may lack the charisma or patients to be able to provide the economic education necessary to enlighten anyone on the matter.
I also don't think he will be able package his plan with enough of a cut or simplification to our current program to make much of a difference.
Good post Gaspar
1st HT, I tell you AGAIN that I'm not a Republican. You keep trying to shove me into molds by telling me to "stay in my ORU circle" or drop my "Reagonomics." I am very clear in my positions and do not fit into those stereotypes.
- - -
I know where I sit on the income ladder and I'm proud to say it is in the middle of the road for a college educated family of three. So by definition we would be middle class. My wife and I both work 50 hours a week, we live in a $100,000 house, have ~$80,000 in student loans (Some 13 years of college between us, argh - just paid off my wife's loans! ), drive a Taurus and a Pathfinder. We don't go on lavish vacations. I don't have fancy boats, jet skis, lake houses, RVs, motorcycles or 4 wheelers. I'm not describing a rich family, I'm perfectly happy... but not rich.
Let me know if what I'm describing makes me a "fat cat" please.
AND I can afford to pay my way. Even while paying $500 a month in student loans, I can live perfectly comfortably. So I'll go ahead and assume that many other people can afford to pay taxes. Now, if I lived in a $250,000 house in a gated community and drove a fancy car - I probably couldn't afford to pay any more in taxes. But that's a choice...
So why would I vote to give myself more tax cuts when we are having record deficit spending? I'd be DAMN happy to pay less taxes. But in reality we are spending the money and sooner or later the government is going to come and take it from me anyway. So why wait until they do it with interest?
I guess I could say "I'm average, go take more money from someone else." But I feel I have some obligation to my community and my nation to contribute. I don't agree with about $1 Trillion of the federal spending we have and would love to be able to have those in favor of entitlement pay for it all... but that's not the way the system works.
If someone in the United States is struggling to survive, they don't pay any taxes. They, in fact, receive HUGE tax benefits from the government that I pay for. I'm OK with that. Getting people back on their feet or ensuring the underclass can make a better life for themselves is better for all of us. What I'm not OK with is people who are able to live comfortably and want more - so they demand that the government take what someone else has. Or people who are content in their lifestyle so long as they don't have to work.
AGAIN, I am not saying struggling single mother who makes $24,000 a year should be taxed at 35%. But a family of 4 making $100,000 a year can afford to pay some taxes. Certainly the family of 4 Barrack described making $250,000 a year can afford to pay some taxes.
When we get the mentality that people with more than us deserve to have it taken away and that we are entitled to have government services for free... we are on a slow road to bankruptcy as a nation. And welcome aboard.
PS. I am discussing the merits of the issue with my thoughts and ideas. I did not call anyone names nor imply they are biased. I did not imply that my idea was better and that you have been duped.
I'd appreciate the same.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Good post Gaspar
Thanks. Unfortunately it will only make thinkers think.
One of these posts Mr. Little is going to sweep in here and demolish all of you warmed over Reaganites. But meanwhile, between bites of my leftovers, let me say:
Before Republicans mounted their hate campaign against government, we understood that no one else does the job government does, it is essential, noble, and supporting it is the responsibility of each of us.
Reaganomics never really happened. It never made it out of committee and according to its architect, David Stockman, both Republicans and Democrats nipped it in the bud. All we ever got were the tax cuts and deficits (until Clinton delivered welfare reform and a budget surplus).
The truth is that all along we have practiced Keysian economics that recognizes the importance of government spending as a means to leverage market forces. Government and its spending picks winners and losers everyday. This has gone on uninterrupted during my life.
Now, direct money to the lower and middle classes and you get a flowering of new businesses and meat and potato spending like purchases of household appliances. Money given to working people percolates throughout the economy.
On the other hand, if you direct money to folks with plenty of it, you generally get unproductive capital and excesses like $100 Million paintings. That's why the economist that invented profit sharing also proposed a Maximum Wage and the creation of citizen capital accounts funded by the overages. There is a counterproductive pyramiding effect with capitalism that, if left uninterrupted, has a drag on an economy.
Gaspar, I like the part where you say none of this can be challenged. God didn't hold back on self esteem when he created you, did he? Here's a tip: You would appear more knowledgeable if you would understate rather than overstate.
Cannon, I know you aren't a fat cat. It would have weakened my statement by saying "'some' are fat cats." What you are is a working slob that has been mind f***** by Republican strategists. You bought it mister, no questions asked. And you are still looking for Reagan's imaginary Welfare Mother living the life of Riley. While, apparently it is just fine with you if billionaires make off with your lunch. That's just the natural order of things.
All the things you advocate have never trimmed a budget or extracted a savings; all it has ever done is shift the burden from those who could easily manage it to those who cannot.
Gaspar and CF, fantastic posts. Let's see how the logic WILL be twisted. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
That's why the economist that invented profit sharing also proposed a Maximum Wage and the creation of citizen capital accounts funded by the overages.
Egad! That sounds like communism to me. I don't purport to have answers to all of this, but did Clinton reform welfare or was it at the prompting of the Republican Gongress. I'm asking a serious question here in the interest of a good debate.
I forget the economist's name; I look it up every so often. He described himself as a radical capitalist and he pioneered profit sharing.
Welfare reform: Clinton provided leadership. Many Democrats were voted out of office after voting for it. Clinton co-opted a Republican issue and crafted a compromise between left and right.
Republicans talked the talk but couldn't deliver.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
Gaspar and CF, fantastic posts. Let's see how the logic WILL be twisted. [;)]
Yeah, that Ben Stein is certainly one of those class warfare types... [:(!]
from 2006...
In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning By BEN STEIN
Published: November 26, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
...the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton's merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush's tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again.
By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue. To be fair, corporate profits taxes have increased greatly, as corporate profits have increased stupendously. This may be because of the cut in corporate tax rates. Anything is possible.
------------------------------------------------
"Don't raise taxes. Cut spending."
The sad fact is that spending rises every year, no matter what people want or say they want. Every president and every member of Congress promises to cut "needless" spending. But spending has risen every year since 1940 except for a few years after World War II and a brief period after the Korean War.
The imperatives for spending are built into the system, and now, with entitlements expanding rapidly, increased spending is locked in. Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt — all are growing like mad, and how they will ever be stopped or slowed is beyond imagining.
Gross interest on Treasury debt is approaching $350 billion a year. And none of this counts major deferred maintenance for the military.------------------------------------------------
"deficits don't matter."
There is something to this. One would think that big deficits would be highly inflationary, according to Keynesian economics. But we have modest inflation (except in New York City, where a martini at a good bar is now $22). On the other hand, we have all that interest to pay, soon roughly $7 billion a week, a lot of it to overseas owners of our debt. This, to me, seems to matter.
Besides,
if it doesn't matter, why bother to even discuss balancing the budget? Why have taxes at all? Why not just print money the way Weimar Germany did? Why not abolish taxes and add trillions to the deficit each year? Why don't we all just drop acid, turn on, tune in and drop out of responsibility in the fiscal area? If deficits don't matter, why not spend as much as we want, on anything we want?
------------------------------------------------
People ask how I can be a conservative and still want higher taxes. It makes my head spin, and I guess it shows how old I am. But I thought that conservatives were supposed to like balanced budgets. I thought it was the conservative position to not leave heavy indebtedness to our grandchildren. I thought it was the conservative view that there should be some balance between income and outflow. When did this change?
Oh, now, now, now I recall. It changed when we figured that we could cut taxes and generate so much revenue that we would balance the budget. But isn't that what doctors call magical thinking? Haven't the facts proved that this theory, though charming and beguiling, was wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
That's why the economist that invented profit sharing also proposed a Maximum Wage and the creation of citizen capital accounts funded by the overages.
Egad! That sounds like communism to me. I don't purport to have answers to all of this, but did Clinton reform welfare or was it at the prompting of the Republican Gongress. I'm asking a serious question here in the interest of a good debate.
Gee, I guess that would make my grandparents' generation a buncha commies......
History...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/06/3003/
---After the Republican Great Depression,
FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II.
It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.---
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that
Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that,
Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
One of these posts Mr. Little is going to sweep in here and demolish all of you warmed over Reaganites. But meanwhile, between bites of my leftovers, let me say:
Before Republicans mounted their hate campaign against government, we understood that no one else does the job government does, it is essential, noble, and supporting it is the responsibility of each of us.
Reaganomics never really happened. It never made it out of committee and according to its architect, David Stockman, both Republicans and Democrats nipped it in the bud. All we ever got were the tax cuts and deficits (until Clinton delivered welfare reform and a budget surplus).
The truth is that all along we have practiced Keysian economics that recognizes the importance of government spending as a means to leverage market forces. Government and its spending picks winners and losers everyday. This has gone on uninterrupted during my life.
Now, direct money to the lower and middle classes and you get a flowering of new businesses and meat and potato spending like purchases of household appliances. Money given to working people percolates throughout the economy.
On the other hand, if you direct money to folks with plenty of it, you generally get unproductive capital and excesses like $100 Million paintings. That's why the economist that invented profit sharing also proposed a Maximum Wage and the creation of citizen capital accounts funded by the overages. There is a counterproductive pyramiding effect with capitalism that, if left uninterrupted, has a drag on an economy.
Gaspar, I like the part where you say none of this can be challenged. God didn't hold back on self esteem when he created you, did he? Here's a tip: You would appear more knowledgeable if you would understate rather than overstate.
Cannon, I know you aren't a fat cat. It would have weakened my statement by saying "'some' are fat cats." What you are is a working slob that has been mind f***** by Republican strategists. You bought it mister, no questions asked. And you are still looking for Reagan's imaginary Welfare Mother living the life of Riley. While, apparently it is just fine with you if billionaires make off with your lunch. That's just the natural order of things.
All the things you advocate have never trimmed a budget or extracted a savings; all it has ever done is shift the burden from those who could easily manage it to those who cannot.
You rewrite history my friend.
First of all, "Welfare reform" known formally as The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was part of Gingrich's Contract With America. It was introduced by Rep. Clay Shaw from Florida. Originally Clinton and the Democrats were opposed to it, until public pressure for individual states rights in the regulation of welfare began to mount (starting in Wisconsin). He was highly criticized by his fellow democrats, because it went against everything the party stood for. Only after receiving the accolades of the people, did he begin to tout his penmanship on this important legislation.
I don't condone tax breaks to the wealthy! I condone tax breaks to everyone! Everyone should pay their fair share! The emphasis should be on "Fair."
If you can provide a single example of where growing government, and shrinking private capital ever grew an economy please provide it. Please!
Your examples are hideous.
If you direct money to people, regardless of their income, they will use that money for their individual goals. Who cares if they buy a 100 million dollar painting or a 20 million home. That money moving in the economy makes money. People need to sell paintings and build homes too.
That's all I'll address, it's obvious where you are coming from.
1983. The joke then was, if you paid income taxes this year...fire your accountant! Wasn't really that funny at the time.
I saved an article in the Tulsa World editorial pages by Paul Greenberg dated Monday, November 5, 1990 which had references to the Federal income after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Paul stated that Federal revenues went up - by $1.1 trillion. Unfortunately, spending went up even more - by $1.9 trillion. He quoted Warren Brookes ("one commentator on the economy who can be trusted"), "From 1981 to 1987 the income taxes actually paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose by 49 percent ... while the bottom 50 percent paid 15 percent less."
"From 1981 to 1987 the income taxes actually paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose by 49 percent... while the bottom 50 percent paid 15 percent less."
"
Ummm. Yeah, a HUGE redistribution of wealth from poor to rich will do that to you... gee, thanks Reagan.
Here's The Reagan legacy...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm
Salaries and benefits of corporate CEOs as a multiple of the average factory worker's
1980 30 times
1991 130-140 times
Executive Compensation as a Share of Corporate Profits
1953 22%
1987 61%
Percent Increase of Combined Salaries by Income Bracket, unadjusted for inflation (1980s)
Income Bracket Percent Increase
$20,000 - 50,000 44%
200,000 - 1 million 697%
Over $1 million 2,184%
***Viewing the above chart more broadly, the total wages of all people who earned less than $50,000 a year -- about 85 percent of all Americans -- increased an average of 2 percent a year from 1980 to 1989, which did not even keep pace with inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires shot up 243 percent a year.
So who gets ahead, and who gets left behind? The single most decisive factor is education:
Education, Experience and Wages
Percentchange in earnings
New Workers (1-5 years experience)
from 1979 to 1987
Less than 12 years of school -15.8%
High school degree -19.8
16 or more years of school +10.8
Old Workers (26-35 years of experience)
Less than 12 years of school -1.9
High school degree -2.8
16 or more years of school +1.8
I suppose we could start a statistics war but I expect we both have better things to do.
I prefer the concept of bringing up everyone economically rather than bringing up the bottom by lowering the top. Creating new wealth (not just printing money) will allow this. Simple redistribution of existing wealth will not.
Be careful what you wish for when trying to equalize wealth. Several people here have found to their surprise that they are in the wealthy category. Granted, they aren't living in cardboard boxes along the river but they do not have enough money to be worry free.
Accumulation of great wealth is not always bad. I know I couldn't finance the research that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are sponsoring. Andrew Carnegie and others that we know the names of would probably be just a name in the history books if they only had a moderate amount of money. I know in some cases the fabulously wealthy got that way on the backs of the workers. Who knows why they finally decided to give back to society. It's hard to be a philanthropist without money.
At the other end, if we ignore the needs of the poor, we will earn another French Revolution.
The answer is somewhere in the middle. Republicans and Democrats will probably always disagree on how to get there.