SavvySugar

Frugal Tip Monday-10 Things Millionaires Won't Tell You

FashionWithoutGuilt — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:24:41 -0800

Money, without it we are not able to enjoy the necessities in life, let alone the luxuries. Loving shopping and fashion as much as I do, I always have a passion for finance and building wealth. By building true wealth you have to be a conscious spender, according to Ramit Sethi of Iwillteachyoutoberich. Aside from being a frugal/savvy shopper, I am concerned about building my wealth for years to come. You hear all these fancy terms and ways you should spend but sometimes I love hearing the real-life scenarios that separate the Poor from the Wealthy. I came across this great article, "10 Things Millionaires Won't Tell You" and immediately a eagerness to see what the story was about. These are some very great points to adapt to your everyday life.
10 Things Millionaires Won't Tell You
“You may think I’m rich, but I don’t.” Real millionaires understand that 1 or 2 million will not take them through the next 30 years.
“I shop at Wal-Mart . . .” Most millionaires how they got there was by buying smart and saving money by clipping coupons. Not shopping at what I like to call "Boutique Supermarkets".
“. . . but I didn’t get rich by skimping on lattes.” Most millionaires,by statistics made their millionaires by being a entrepreneur, not skipping the Starbucks line.
“I have a concierge for everything.” Let's worry about a concierge when you make you millions, average folks can't afford that.
“You don’t get rich by being nice.” I agree with this 100%. Being nice will never get you to the top. You will have to say "no" and mean it. Walk away from things that are not profitable but at the end of the day always keep your integrity. Never burn any bridges but try to get to the top is a lonely road and lots of enemies will come.
“Taxes are for little people.” Plainly put millionaires under taxes and file under capital vs. middle class because middle class is taxed 15% more than capital gain.
“I was a B student.” Clearly states that the straight "A" student is mostly likely not going to be your boss nor business owner, so that means there is hope for me. YYYIIIPPPEEE!!!
“Like my Ferrari? It’s a rental.” They do not spend money on things that are not of true value. Why buy when you can rent?.
“Turns out money can buy happiness.” Research shows that wealth does bring happiness. Roughly 65% of millionaires say that money “created” more happiness for them.
“You worry about the Joneses - I worry about keeping up with the Trumps.” What more can I say to that.
So let me know what you think? Do you Agree or DisAgree? Let me know your thoughts?
Photo Source: Changeyouractions

10 Best Tidbits On The 'New Moon' DVD/Blu-ray

athena4rob — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:44:24 -0700

1. Rob on Robmania
In part one of the extensive six-part documentary (titled "Life After Twilight"), New Moon's cast talk about the craziness that ensued after the first film debuted and how the fervent fandom changed their lives. Between shots from the Twilight premiere and the infamously raucous Comic-Con panel, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner, Justin Chon, and more of their co-stars reminisce from the New Moon set on how Twilight changed everything. Best of all, Rob addresses his fans, who have come to worship Edward Cullen so much that they now, as he says, "defend my honor in reality."
2. The cast roasts Chris Weitz
Part 2 of the documentary focuses on New Moon director Chris Weitz, which is really just an opportunity for his actors to gently tease him about everything from his hairiness to the distinguished way he carries himself on set. We get plenty of behind-the-scenes peeks at Weitz's directing style, and it's clear that he's endeared himself to his cast: Lautner calls him a "goofball," Jamie Campbell-Bower accuses Weitz of secretly wanting to be British, and Michael Sheen describes his unshaven-yet-elegant look as "a cross between a wolf and a vampire."
3. Bella runs full-speed into Edward's arms
The doc offers a wealth of footage of nearly every set and big scene in New Moon, but our favorite is the behind-the-scenes footage of Bella's run through the Volterra square that bookends the film. In the movie we only see it in slow-motion, but here you can see what it looks like at full speed: Kristen Stewart pushes her way frantically through the crowd, speeds through the fountain, and nearly knocks Robert Pattinson over as she jumps breathlessly into his open arms.
4. Jacob's parkour scene, sans special effects
Taylor Lautner may have been wired for safety when he leapt and twisted his way into Bella's second story window, but Weitz says it was all Taylor doing the stunt. We get to see Lautner perform the trick in one fluid, impressive motion. (Another fun fact from New Moon's costume designer: Lautner's t-shirts were all taken in and made smaller to show off his muscles.) Elsewhere there's a great look at the fight choreography and filming of Edward's fight with Felix that shows Pattinson and Daniel Cudmore going at it with wires and break-away props.
5. KStew celebrates her birthday on-set
I'm not so fanatical as to remember Kristen Stewart's birthday (okay, it's April 9) but the cast and crew didn't forget during production on New Moon - and a camera was there to capture the celebration. Watch as Stewart is surprised in the Forks High School parking lot by a birthday cake celebration while filming Bella's birthday morning scene with Pattinson and New Moon's human teens. (Later, Pattinson gets a birthday celebration of his own while filming in the Volturi chamber.)
6. See the "break-up scene" play out in alternate takes
Ah, the break-up scene. It's the source of Bella's heartbreak and one of the most emotional scenes to watch ? and hilariously, the actors had to battle swarms of mosquitoes to deliver just the right dramatic pitch while filming in a thicket of trees. Later, we get to watch the scene through playback monitors as Pattinson tries out different tones and line deliveries, breaking up with Bella over and over again in various ways.
7. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson ad-lib "I love you"
I dare you to hear this story and not squee deep down inside: in the scene before Edward dumps Bella, she tells him she loves him, a line Weitz explains came from the actors themselves. His take is that it gives the scene to come more emotional weight because it's a sad sort of "I love you," which makes their break-up all the more tragic.
8. Vampire sparkling explained!
We can all agree that Edward's sparkling skin in New Moon was a giant leap forward from the effects in Twilight, and here we learn the thinking behind his new look; think sparkling marble instead of diamonds, which is what Weitz and his effects team came up with. To achieve the look, Pattinson's face and body were scanned to create a full-body 3D model (to answer your next question, the feature sadly doesn't show said body scan).
9. Chris Weitz and Peter Lambert's commentary track
Unfortunately, none of the cast are included in the audio commentary; instead, director Weitz is joined remotely by editor Peter Lambert for a lively, if mostly technical, discussion of New Moon's production. Weitz seems aware that viewers may not be familiar with filmmaking terms, and takes time to explain things like framing or camera tricks for the uninitiated. The pair also explains certain elements that eagle-eyed fans may have noticed, such as why Edward's car is black and not silver (it's on purpose!) and how his framing of the early parking lot scenes with Bella, Edward and Jacob foreshadow the character dynamics to come. Basically, the commentary covers all the little details you ever wanted to ask Weitz, including where the idea for Face Punch came from, although many of his comments are repeated in the six-part documentary.
10. Somewhere in the world there's a 3-hour cut of New Moon!
Okay, that somewhere is most likely only on editor Peter Lambert's computer. But fans can dream, can't they? Lambert and Weitz discuss how their first cut ran an uber-long three hours before they whittled it down to cut out the "breathy beats." (Come on, we love the breathy beats!) Weitz and Lambert reveal that there were originally more funny lines from actress Anna Kendrick, a "karate death chop" pose by Michael Sheen's Aro, and a dream sequence with Edward and a live wolf.

A Postmodern Christian perspective on social justice: Part 1 - What is social justice?

UnDave35 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:06:52 -0700

In light of Glenn Beck's recent comments regarding social justice and the Church, there has been a lot of controversy, and speculation for that matter, regarding what a truly biblical view of social and economic justice should look like. Some, like Beck, would argue that God isn't the least bit interested in American or global political matters and politics, therefore, they should have no part of our religion. There are others, however, who believe that not only are Christians called to care for the poor, but that social and economic justice for the poor is fundamentally central to the heart of the Christian faith.
Although Beck incorrectly attributes the term "social justice" to Father Charles Coughlin, the phrase was actually used almost a hundred years earlier in the 1840s by the Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli (and found even earlier than that) and was based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Father Coughlin (1891-1979) was a quite controversial Roman Catholic priest, who reached the zenith of his radio-broadcasting career in the 1930s, "preaching" about political and economic issues rather than religious ones. Although an early proponent of Roosevelt and the New Deal, Coughlin quickly became one of FDR's harshest critics (because he and the New Deal weren't liberal enough) and eventually used his radio program to espouse his extremely controversial anti-Semitic and extreme Socialist beliefs, as well as to empathize with and justify the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. The slogan for Coughlin's campaign and radio program was unfortunately, "Social Justice." And for some unknown reason, this is the specific context and skewed definition of social justice that Beck has chosen to focus upon. While there may be a small number of politicians and "progressives" (as Beck refers to liberal Christians), who dishonestly use the term "social justice" in an attempt to corrupt America with Socialist ideology (as Beck fears), it should be overtly obvious that to the vast majority of Christians today what Father Coughlin espoused is not a true biblical perspective on social justice.
Ok, so let's go straight to the source…what does God have to say on the subject then?

Psalm 140:12 I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor.

Psalm 31:8-9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Jeremiah 22:3 Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

Proverb 29:7 The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.

1 John 3:17 But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

And that's just five of literally hundreds of verses regarding God's concern for the poor! It should be obvious, even to the casual reader, that God's heart for poor is one of the most essential and fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. As John Wheaton puts it in his article, A Biblical View of Social Justice, "In matters of social concern, the biblical Christian should know God's heart well. God has a special interest in the welfare of those at the lowest end of the social ladder: widows, orphans, legal aliens, and others who are oppressed or disadvantaged in society." Now that being said, my guess is that you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who didn't believe that we are called to care for the poor. So, if that is the case, then why all of the controversy over social justice?
The biggest dispute regarding social justice between more traditional Christians and more Postmodern (progressive) Christians seems to stem not from the fact of whether or not we are called to care for the poor, but rather how that "care" should look and what form should it take. Before we get into that, however, a good definition of biblical social justice is necessary. Interestingly, I have found that when you ask people to define "social justice," they usually talk about providing food for the hungry, clothes to the naked, homes for the homeless, etc. I would counter, though, that these acts are acts of charity and not social justice. Charity, by definition, is generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless. Social justice, on the other hand, put into the simplest terms is this: people getting what they are due (what is right and proper) in the context of their own people and community. It does not mean that everyone in world will or should have the exact same. It does mean, though, that everyone in the world should have the same basic human rights of clean water, food, shelter, medical care, security, and dignity - if for no other reason than they too were wonderfully made in the image of God. Allow me to state this as unambiguously as possible - social justice is not Socialism, Communism, Nazism or any other -ism. It is not a call for the "redistribution of wealth" that Beck, and others like him, assume it to be and are so fearful of. The term "social justice," when used today by the body of believers, untainted, in its purest, biblical sense simply means setting out to right the systems of this world that are wrong - to make just that which is unjust. It is simply the phrase that we Postmodern "progressives" use to describe the unique mandate given to us by God to care not just for the physical needs of the "weakest of these," our brothers and sisters here in American and throughout the world, but "to do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed."
The next three articles in this series will cover these three social justice questions: 1) What are the systems of this world that are unjust? 2) How should we go about fixing them? 3)Why should it matter to us?

http://www.examiner.com/x-38182-Indianapolis-Postmodern-Christianity-Examiner~y2010m3d18-A-Postmodern-Christian-perspective-on-social-justice-Part-1--What-is-social-justice

Ordinary Joes

Shopaholichunny — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:11:32 -0700

!!!***PUBLIC POST***!!!

By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer Adam Geller, Ap National Writer – 2 hrs 44 mins ago

NEW YORK – The war of words waged by John McCain and Barack Obama for the votes of plumbers and other average Joes is a reminder of the nation's long-standing doubts about concentrated wealth - and its qualms about doing something about it.

Americans have voiced concerns about putting too much wealth in to too few hands since the country was founded, but the public's views also come with contradictions.

Now it's clearer than ever - thanks to Obama's much scrutinized talk about taxes with a certain Ohio voter and McCain's dogged criticism - that these mixed feelings about income inequality are a long way from being resolved.

"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama told the man - maybe you've heard of him - Joe the Plumber.

The remark may have sounded pretty innocuous. But McCain has lambasted his rival's words as sounding "a lot like socialism," and turned the criticism into a central theme of his campaign's final round. Obama's remarks, McCain says, are emblematic of a tax plan to confiscate wealth and give it to the poor that would make the IRS "into a giant welfare agency."

The comments of both presidential candidates touch nerves in American politics - longtime concern about too much concentration of wealth, but also about the role of government and the individual. More than two centuries after Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and other early leaders warned about the hazards of too much in the hands of too few, Americans have developed complex views on the intertwining issues.

A substantial majority of Americans say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, opinion polls show. A growing number say the U.S. is becoming a nation of haves and have-nots.

The public's concerns reflect a shifting dynamic in recent years, as an increasing share of the wealth has gone to people at the top of the income scale. The top tenth of U.S. households now earn an average of 11.2 times what those in the bottom tenth make, according to the Census Bureau. That's up from a ratio of 8.7 three decades ago. The wealthiest fifth of U.S. households now take in 50 percent of all income, up from 44 percent in 1977. The differences are even more pronounced in analyses of incomes for the top 1 percent of households.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the U.S. population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself," then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in 2005.

But Americans are divided on whether government should be heavily taxing the rich in order to benefit those with less.

"It's a complicated area to try to understand American attitudes," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. "It's kind of like, in some instances, conflicting medical research ... There's no one answer."

A majority of Americans - 51 percent in a poll by Gallup this past April - said they support "heavy taxes" on the rich to redistribute wealth. That is significantly higher than when the same question was asked in 1939, at the tail end of the Great Depression, when 35 percent agreed.

But people's support for higher taxes on the wealthy are tempered by their own aspirations.

"Most Americans hope to some day be wealthy and as a result, the idea of kind of redistributing income is not as popular as (government policies resulting in) making a bigger pie so everybody does better off," said Dennis Jacobe, chief economist for Gallup.

The tension between those ideas runs through American politics in ways that don't always seem logical. Even many wealthy people support higher taxes on the rich. In a country that believes in itself as a place where anybody who works hard enough can make it, though, there's a certain wariness of taxes that might discourage hard work.

McCain's criticism of Obama's tax plan is "trying to go for this idea that, in the U.S., is much more popular than in other countries ... that you get ahead through your own efforts," said Bryan Caplan, author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," and an economics professor at George Mason University. "I think he's trying to tap into what is a distinctly American view."

That view is far from universal, but it does go way back. In fact, the debate over distribution of wealth has been going on since the U.S. was a brand new nation.

After years of being ruled by British royalty, the country's first political leaders argued that the U.S. must avoid creating its own aristocracy that would allow the wealthy to exert unfair power. But the party that touted itself as the true champions of economic equality was the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

"Of course, in actuality, many followers of Jefferson were also slaveholders and the greatest disparities in wealth concentration were right in front of their noses," said Robert E. Wright, who teaches economic and financial history at New York University's Stern School of Business.

Americans didn't face the first tax on personal income until 1861, when a Union government desperate for cash to fight the Civil War decided it had little choice. The tax was sold as a way of making sure the rich, most of whom who were not marching off to war, were bearing their fair share of responsibility, Wright said.

That tax - a flat assessment - survived until 1895, when it was declared unconstitutional.

The country's first experiments with income taxes were promoted as necessities, rather than as a way to shift wealth to where it was needed. Over time, economists came to embrace the concept of a progressive tax - one that levies higher rates in proportion to income - as a means of not just paying for government, but ensuring fairness.

And when the income tax was brought back with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the tax that was enacted was progressive. Rates began at 1 percent and rose to 7 percent for taxpayers with income above $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

A 2003 survey of U.S. economists found most endorse policies resulting in redistribution of wealth. The strongest support came from economists who identified themselves as Democrats, said Daniel B. Klein, a co-author of the survey. But self-identified Republican economists were near neutral, offering only mild opposition to the concept.

Misgivings about wealth are pretty universal. For most of economic history, people viewed the total amount of wealth in society as finite and those with less viewed those with more as having gotten it by unfair means.

That view has shifted in modern economies, as people have embraced the idea that policies that lead to growth can improve all fortunes. Still, in much of the world, proposals to share wealth more fairly by means of higher taxes on the wealthy would win wide support.

But the U.S. is a young nation with a highly developed economy, giving rise to a uniquely American strain of thought. Those with less look at those with more and try to figure out how to catch up.

"Here we call it 'keeping up with the Joneses,'" Wright said.

Americans do strongly favor higher taxes on those with more, and back efforts to help those with less.

When Americans were polled by Gallup in April, 68 percent said they believe money and wealth should be distributed more fairly. In a survey in July, 49 percent said the U.S. has become a nation of haves and have-nots, up from 37 percent who felt the same way four years ago.

But a majority of Americans also say the government is doing too much and should instead be leaving more to individuals and businesses. And when asked how government should fix the economy, people overwhelmingly said they favor policy to improve overall economic conditions and the jobs situation, rather than steps to redistribute income.

In retrospect, though, the question forced people to make a choice that now seems obvious, Gallup's Newport said. Who wouldn't favor policies to improve the total economy?

To him, the poll showing more than half of people favor "heavy" taxes on the rich is more revealing, given the strong wording of the question.

But even with such support, politicians have learned to walk a careful line in explaining the need for higher taxes.

"It's not like, 'Look, we're raising your taxes to (more evenly) distribute," income, Caplan says. "We're doing it because we need to raise money."

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_bi_ge/sharing_the_wealth

***I personally don't believe in "distributing the wealth" There's nothing Patriotic about it. I worked hard for my money I have every right to keep it. I refuse to give it to lazy people.***

Senator government

samantha999 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:46:42 -0700

Senator Government

By Larry Elder

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants you - to redistribute your wealth.

In Obama's highly publicized encounter with Joseph Wurzelbacher - aka "Joe the Plumber" - the candidate said he wanted to use taxpayers' money to "spread the wealth." A gutsy local Orlando television anchor interviewed Democratic vice presidential contender Joe Biden:

Anchor: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Anchor: "No."

Biden: "Or is that a real question?"

Anchor: "That's a question."

The none-too-happy Biden denied that Obama wants to "spread the wealth" - even though Obama used that exact term. When later given a chance on "Good Morning America" to retract, refute or moderate the statement he made to Joe the Plumber, Obama stood his ground.

Co-host: "Any regrets that you ... said 'spread the wealth'?"

Obama: "Not at all. Look, if John McCain's best argument is that he wants to continue the same Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans it will prevent the economy from recovering."

Now comes a 2001 Chicago radio interview with then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama. "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court," said Obama, " the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth? It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Redistribution of wealth? Essential constraints?

Calling it congressional overreach, the Supreme Court routinely struck down major portions of considered Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. They considered it an assault on the Constitution. Only when FDR threatened to "pack" the court with New Deal-friendly justices, did the court crumble and begin to interpret the Constitution through the eyes of Roosevelt's collectivist eyes.

The framers of the Constitution expected a limited federal government. They viewed the Constitution as a contract between citizens and government, designed to restrain the fed from undue intrusion into our bedrooms and our wallets. For example, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, vehemently objected to a 1792 congressional appropriation of $15,000 to assist some French refugees. Madison wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

But rarely does a politician - even a leftist Democrat - flat-out say he intends to take money out of Pocket A and put it into Pocket B in order to "spread the wealth." Usually politicians justify the money and power grab by calling it an "investment." Or they falsely and unconstitutionally call things like health care, education or job training "civil rights."

The issue to Obama turns not on whether government exists to redistribute the wealth, but on how it should be done. But he intends for it to be done.

Expect an Obama presidency to try and "spread the wealth" in two ways - through Congress and through the courts. He first wants to raise taxes - income, payroll, capital gains, dividends and estate - on the so-called rich. After all, he calls this a matter of "neighborliness." Biden calls it a matter of "patriotism." Second, Obama wants to appoint judges who view the Constitution not as a contract, but as an obstacle to circumvent. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy," he said, in describing his standards for Supreme Court justices, "to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Through the fed's so-called "bailout" of private firms and private actors - with the approval of both Democrats and Republicans - we now witness the greatest increase in federal power since the New Deal. More horrifying, America now stands on the brink of electing a filibuster-proof collectivist Democrat Congress with a nakedly collectivist Democrat president leading the charge.

Wurzelbacher told me that he plans to campaign - at his own request - for John McCain. Why? He calls Obama's "spread the wealth" plan "scary."

Wish we could say it ain't so, Joe.

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

skb9850 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:16:33 -0800

Here's the link to the article and the article itself. Bolding in the article is mine. What does everyone think of this proposal?

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/dems-target-private-retirement...

By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers personal retirement accounts including 401(k)s and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers Retirement Security, blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will strengthen and protect Americans 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans and the Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn't offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci's plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, exacerbates income and wealth inequalities because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals provide a much larger carrot to wealthy families than to middle-class families and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not earn a 3% real return in perpetuity. In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading the wealth.

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci's plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan. She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to force additional private savings, a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said self was the most important contributor, followed by government. When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the government was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked government last and self first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina's economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw in tax code incentives because they are provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.

Even people who don't pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all), Greenstein said.

Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time, Greenstein said, and reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci's proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller's biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of killing the 401(k) or of killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression, Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their spreading the wealth agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. The Constitution says only what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn't that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts, as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change, Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

3 Choices

Beachwalker — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:35:54 -0800

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A woman came out of her house and saw 3 old men with long white beards sitting in her front yard. She did not recognize them. She said 'I don't think I know you, but you must be hungry. Please come in and have something to eat.'

'Is the man of the house home?', they asked.

'No', she replied. 'He's out.'

'Then we cannot come in', they replied.

In the evening when her husband came home, she told him what had happened.

'Go tell them I am home and invite them in !'

The woman went out and invited the men in.

'We do not go into a House together,' they replied. 'Why is that?' she asked.

One of the old men explained: 'His name is Wealth,' he said pointing to one of his friends, and said pointing to another one, 'He is Success, and I am Love.' Then he added, 'Now go in and discuss with your husband which one of us you want in your home.'

The woman went in and told her husband what was said. Her husband was overjoyed. 'How nice!!', he said. 'Since that is the case, let us invite Wealth. Let him come and fill our home with wealth!'

His wife disagreed. 'My dear, why don't we invite success?'

Their daughter-in-law was listening from the other corner of the house. She jumped in with her own Suggestion: 'Would it not be better to invite Love? Our home will then b e filled with love! '

'Let us heed our daughter-in-law's advice,' said the husband to his wife.

'Go out and invite Love to be our guest.'

The woman went out and asked the 3 old men, 'Which one of you is Love? Please come in and be our guest.'

Love got up and started walking toward the house. The other 2 also got up and followed him. Surprised, the lady asked Wealth and Success: 'I only invited Love, why are you coming in?'

The old men replied together: 'If you had invited Wealth or Success, the other two of us would've stayed out, but since you invited Love, wherever He goes, we go with him. Wherever there is Love, there is also Wealth and Success !!!!!!'

The D.C. metro area is getting richer every year. That's a problem for the rest of America.

Grandpa — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:08:06 -0800

Washington's Wealth Boom
The D.C. metro area is getting richer every year. That's a problem for the rest of America.
Radley Balko | January 14, 2009

Take a look at this map. The areas shaded in red are the 100 wealthiest counties in America according to per capita income. At first glance, it's a little misleading, because in the American West, counties tend to be larger in geographic area. But look closely, and you'll see that after the New York City metropolitan area, the largest cluster of wealth in the U.S. is huddled around Washington, D.C.
If we look at household income, the picture grows starker. After the 2000 Census, the richest county in America was Douglas County, Colorado. By 2007, Douglas County had fallen to sixth. The new top three are now Loudon County, Virginia; Fairfax County, Virginia; and Howard County, Maryland. All three are suburbs or exurbs of Washington, D.C. In 2000, 14 of the 100 richest counties were in the Washington, D.C., area. In 2007, it was nine of the richest 20.
All of this is fine if you happen to live in the D.C. area. It's not so great for the country as a whole.
While the D.C. metro area hasn't completely escaped the recession, it's doing much better than most everywhere else. Real estate advisers Grub & Ellis Company recently ranked the D.C. metro area the top market in the country for commercial real estate investment. Investment advisers are high on D.C. area real estate even in down times, because they know the federal government's only going to get bigger. That means more federal employees, more grantees and contractors, and more wealthy lawyers and lobbyists setting up shop inside the Beltway-both to get a piece of the federal budget (or, more recently, the $7 trillion-and-growing pot of federal bailout honey), and, as the federal regulatory state expands, to lobby for regulations most favorable (or, least unfavorable) for their clients.
The problem is that, save for the tech corridor in D.C.'s Virginia exurbs, the Washington Metro area doesn't actually produce anything. Washington doesn't create wealth, it just moves it around-redistributes it. As government grows and takes control of more and more of the private economy-either through spending, regulation, or taxes-more and more wealth that's created elsewhere comes to Washington to be devoured.
The Washington wealth boom is the result of the massive expansion in government over the last 10 years, which has populated the region with an increase in well-paid federal employees, and wealthy federal contractors and lobbyists.
As for federal employees, according to the Bureau of Labors Statistics, as of January 2007, there were 284,000 federal employees living in the Washington, D.C. area, up from 268,000 in 2000. The Cato Institute's Chris Edwards estimates that in 2005, the average federal employee made $106,579 per year including benefits, about twice as much as the average person makes in the private sector. Federal wages are also rising at about twice the rate that wages are rising in the private sector.
What about contractors? New York University's Paul C. Light estimates about 7.6 million people earned their paycheck through federal government contracts in 2005, a 50 percent increase since 2002. That increase in contractors doesn't seem to be trimming the number of full-time government jobs, either. The civil service workforce increased over that period, too, though not nearly as dramatically. Taxpayers paid $400 billion to federal contractors in 2007, double what they paid in 2000. Less than half those contracts were won with competitive bidding.
And lobbyists? The Washington Post reports that the number of registered lobbyists in Washington doubled between 2000 and 2005, to nearly 35,000. Not coincidentally, federal outlays increased over that period from $1.79 to $2.29 trillion. The government put more money on the table, so firms were willing to pay more lobbyists higher salaries to go snatch a piece of it.
"People in industry are willing to invest money because they see opportunities here," one lobbyist told the Post. "They see that they can win things, that there's something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center." Well, not exactly. "Profit" usually means providing products or services their customers want, which leads to voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions that leave both parties better off. In Washington, companies pay lawyers to procure money the government has forcibly taken from taxpayers. The only ones better off there are the companies and the politicians-which is worth keeping in mind the next time you hear how public service is an endeavor filled with honor, while the private sector is a playground for the greedy.
National Journal reported in April that D.C. firms spent $2.79 billion lobbying the federal government in 2007, up 7.7 percent from 2006 - in a down economy. Companies spend money only when they're relatively certain they'll get a good return on their investment. I can only speculate what that $2.79 billion bought, but rest assured, its worth a lot more than $2.79 billion.
The outlook from here is grim. As bad as the Bush administration has been about expanding the size and scope of government, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress aren't exactly promising cutbacks. They've promised to expand the federal budget, the federal payroll, and the federal government's influence over the private sector. Obama's stimulus package calls for 600,000 new government employees.
And then there's all of that bailout money. At its core, the concept of a bailout is for the government to take money from people and businesses that didn't make mistakes, and give it to businesses that made lots of them. The waste comes not just from the initial cost to taxpayers, but also in all the money companies will then pay high-dollar lobbyists in Washington to procure a part of it.
America's wealthiest counties ring a city where the chief industry is government - and the entire region's only getting richer. That doesn't seem like a trend that bodes well for the health of a market-based economy.

Email I Received

jenious — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:05:04 -0700

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on an "Obama 08" tie.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.

I guess redistribution of wealth is easier to swallow in concept than in practical application.

how much is that voter in the window?

syako — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:37:10 -0700

Obama Sincerely Wants to Raise Taxes
By Jay Ambrose
Examiner Columnist | 10/8/08 6:33 AM

...the famed Democratic political machine [in NYC] there used to buy votes for $5 apiece, and I thought of that the other night when I saw a Barack Obama ad on TV....The candidate makes those old boys look like pikers.

His proposal, in case you haven’t caught this slick commercial or read about it, is to give families $1,000 if they elect him...

...look at the Obama policies as a whole, and you sense there could also be something ideologically sincere going on here, which could be even more dangerous for America.

Obama just may be as far left as any presidential candidate who has had a real chance of winning election, and one thing that leftism entails - as Sarah Palin put it in her debate with Joe Biden - is a “redistribution of wealth principle.”

The government already redistributes wealth...

According to various reports of the most recently available IRS figures, the top 1 percent of wage earners pay almost 40 percent of the income tax, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent and the top 50 percent pay 97 percent.

Millions of American workers pay no income taxes at all, and the bottom 40 percent not only owe the government nothing or little, but get money back through the earned income tax credit that exceeds anything forked over.

A lot of this is a consequence of those maligned and misrepresented Bush tax cuts that ended up doing far more for middle and lower-income workers than you would ever guess when wading through the thicket of demagogic lies planted by our liberal brethren.

...you can’t leave all that rich-person money in the private sector where it generates economic good, but that the government must capture the cash and turn it over to the middle class...

He wants to hit upper income Americans with taxes as high as before Bush, increase payroll and capital gains taxes for this group, increase corporate taxes that consumers will pay while making firms less competitive, expand the number who don’t pay anything by millions and send them vastly enlarged cash gifts.

...a way of saying that your money is not yours, that all money is in fact communal, that exceptional energy, talent and brain power should be punished and those of lesser circumstances told that there’s no point in striving when everything can be handed to them gratis.

And all it takes to get there is your well-compensated vote.

Full text here