Rich people as demonstrated by some here, like Tom, think differently

How many of these traints can you relate to?
15 ways rich people think differently | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/ways-rich-people-think-differently/story-e6frfm9r-1226464697808)

Please note that nowhere in this does it say they ask government to lower tax or to give them a handout, they know the secret, tax is never 100% and when you earn it you have the use of it before the tax man

To clarify another misconception.. . I have never called for tax cuts for the rich. I just don't agree with the idea that they should be targeted for special punitive redistrubutionist tax rates . I am in favor of low flat tax rates for all ;and reduction/elimination of the loopholes you say the rich are so good at exploiting .

I think I got to number 9... I started barfing on number 1.
The whole premise is baseless, and this is some idiot's hopeful shortcut to fame and fortune by writing a book about something with which he thinks the world is fascinated.

To clarify another misconception. .. I have never called for tax cuts for the rich. I just don't agree with the idea that they should be targetted for special punitive redistrubutionist tax rates . I am in favor of low flat tax rates for all ;and reduction/elimination of the loopholes you say the rich are so good at exploiting .

Tom every time you open your mouth you tell us that you don't agree with the republican platform and yet you persist in defending them. Your ideas are utopian Tom, low tax rates, no welfare, no health care and everyone rolling in money. What a world it would be, peopled mainly by people who have nothing, Tom why don't you move to central america?

Maybe you think that if you tell the big lie often enough it will stick . I NEVER said no welfare .I am on record of a responsibility to take care of the Truly needy . No health care ? Again the safety net takes care of the needy and the entitlemement system that has to be reigned in covers everyone else. I am in favor of reforming entitlements ,not eliminating them . Your problem is you keep on constructing strawmen around me to knock down.

maybe you think that if you tell the big lie often enough it will stick . I NEVER said no welfare .I am on record of a responsibility to take care of the TRUELY needy . No health care ? Again the safety net takes care of the needy and the entitlemement system that has to be reigned in covers everyone else. I am in favor of reforming entitlements ,not eliminating them . Your problem is you keep on constructing strawmen around me to knock down.

Well Tom you might consider how you come across, because your moderate compassionate agenda isn't apparent in what you say. You speak of safety nets, which I expect means long queues at ER rooms and charity food bundles. In such a system, Tom, chronic illness is a death sentence.

How do you define the truly needy Tom, do you do that by turning out their wallet to see how much money they have? Do you do that by inspecting their tax return? Do they need to be dressed in rags? You have a system that works in reverse, the more a person descends in to poverty the less support they get. The possibility is it wasn't designed that way but it works that way.

By tying health care to employment you give the unemployed a double kick
By tying unemployment benefit to a time limit you give the unemployed a double kick
By tying health care to insurance you give the sick a double kick
By giving people vouchers rather than services you disadvantage them

What does a person do if they loose their unemployment, under your system they magically get a job, but one thing for sure they cease to be a statistic

You have a system that works in reverse, the more a person descends in to poverty the less support they get. The possibility is it wasn't designed that way but it works that way.

Indeed it was not designed by the progressives to fail ,but fail it has Big time. Why?. because it creates a dependent 'class' .

What creates a dependent class Tom is a society which does not ensure fair wages. What incentive is there to work as slaves for low wages. This is the side of the equation capitalists just don't get so they take their jobs to places where the slaves will work for a bowl of rice and then have the hide to tell you your workers cost too much.

Once we used to have preference for local content, but free trade agreements did away with keeping the jobs at home. I look at the place of origin on packets of food and I ask myself why do I need to eat Chinese biscuits, to buy Vietnamese prawns, Californian cherries, French wine, Philippine bananas, frozen vegetables from who knows where

We, just like yourselves, need to wake up and look after our own. Ditch the free trade agreements, put the tarriff barriers back in place and level the playing field and if this means a few chinese peasants are without a job, well we have peasants of our own to feed and they may as well work for it, but at a fair wage

Nahh ; What free trade brings is consumer choice. You think there would be a market for overpriced domestic products ? That system could not support the work force either . What freetrade also brings is job opportunities . Someone is selling the products that are coming in ;and in a properly negotiated free trade system someone is producing the exports .

Tom a utopian view, when a product is overpriced what an industry does is take a look at the product and the manufacturing method. Often significant reductions in cost can be made by challenging design concepts. In the dinosaur economic model you envisage everything is static and therefore the labour cost must be reduced

The US is only interested in trade agreements so they can gain economic advantage. For example your NAFTA brought cheaper goods but it didn't stem the flow of illegal immigrants by creating employment in cheap labour countries. There are now voices asking for the unravelling of this agreement because you no longer want to import under the agreement.

In fact free trade is rubbish, we bought that crap and our manufacturing industries walked. Fortunately we had mineral wealth that couldn't be dug out of the ground by a coollie workforce and natural wonders to fuel tourism. Took a look at some statistics the other day and was amazed by how many German luxury cars are in our local area, a legacy of free trade ideas which have destroyed our local auto industry. Your obscession with SUV have also contributed since goods manufactured for your market have spilled over into ours. We don't make them here. Our successful inroads into your auto market have been blocked by that same free trade, not so free the other way

I take the advice of some old americans. Paleface speak with forked tongue

Capitalism serves the few, and restricts the many. Its rigged for the few, by the few.

You're Tal it was a system devised by the rich in the first place, I can't imagine a wage earner who ever said if I could just get a 1,000 to invest in this. Th is whay they object so strongly to socialism because socialism says give the wage earner a fair go

Socialism as a practice says the many before the few, but the few define the many. Now when it's a bit more fair, it could well be more viable, but so far the examples we have are truly dismal.

And I think you look in the wrong place, we seem to have struck a reasonable balance, we have a few problems at the edges, where there are radical policies, but generally the policies that look after the many are sound. A reasonable level of personal and corporate tax, access to health care for all citizens at reasonable cost, good public education, good transport systems, a strong private business sector and an attitude that we elected a government to govern and when they can no longer do this then the baton is handed over