Wealthy Americans Unholster Their Weapons

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Dan Kennedy :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wealthy Americans Unholster Their Weapons
by Dan Kennedy

The resistance is well underway.

Affluent Americans – defined as the top 20 percent of U.S. households by income – spent about 10 percent less in 2008 than they did in 2007, according to a study by luxury-goods researcher Unity Marketing. And those households with incomes of $250,000 or more are cutting back on spending even more than all affluent households overall. 54 percent of these consumers are spending even less in 2009 than in 2008.

Those $250,000+ earners, threatened and demonized by President Obama, are retaliating with their most powerful and damaging weapon: not spending. It is a quiet, deliberate, determined, very real resistance.

To be sure, some of the cutbacks in spending are related to investment losses, job losses and actual reduction of spending capacity. But much more has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to spend – only with the unwillingness to spend.

Most in media do not understand the reality of this deliberately reduced and postponed spending as a political resistance movement. But that’s what it is. I’ve talked to many affluent entrepreneurs and professionals who have worked hard for years to finally reach their present income levels. They are intentionally refusing to spend money as a means of protest.

I was recently thinking about replacing my Ford Explorer with a new SUV, at minimum a new Explorer, but perhaps a Lincoln Navigator or Cadillac Escalade. The day Obama first trumpeted the proposed 5.4 percent tax surcharge on gross income of us high-productivity, high-responsibility, high income earners I changed my mind. Instead I spent $514.00 getting a little fender ding months old fixed, paint scratches touched up and the car detailed. The $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 I would have spent on the new car – and I’m a cash buyer – can sleep idly in the bank until the man who has chosen me as his target is gone. And I view it as deliberately depriving him of spending he desperately needs to help his economy. He needs me and others like me buying a new car a whole lot more than I need one.

This is also the first calendar year in at least a decade in which I’ve gone 7 months without buying so much as a single stitch of new clothing. Not a necktie, not a sports-jacket, not a shoelace. Not because I lack the financial ability. And not because I lack interest. I usually buy at least a few new things each season, and for my speaking engagements, I’m actually overdue a new suit. A store I patronize even advertised a remarkably attractive offer last week, offering two free suits with purchase of one. But I will not give the president even a dime of help. I have joined the Affluent Resistance Movement.

Business owners, CEO’s and entrepreneurs are resistors too. Fred Smith at Federal Express has outright stated his company’s order for a fleet of jets is pending and subject to cancellation should the speed-to-unionization scheme Obama supports be enacted – in effect, another epic tax on businesses like his. More CEOs need to step up and make similar threats. If the President will threaten business, why shouldn’t business threaten back?

Together, those in the resistance should all go public, and tell the affected merchants, service providers and professionals why. Business leaders can explain to their vendors that the money not spent with them is political resistance. If those of us in the $250,000+ targeted group, and those who lead companies small and large, all cut spending by yet another 10 percent or 20 percent, we can protest more emphatically than if we all picked up placards and marched up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. We can demonstrate that no power trumps the power of the purse.

It pains me greatly to suggest this, since I advise businesses on marketing and I am paid to help them boost sales. But desperate times demand desperate measures. So I say: send a message. Join the resistance. Buy nothing.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DanK...y_americans_unholster_their_weapons?page=full
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the other hand some WANT(!) to pay more....

Wealthy group pushes to be taxed more


Tom Petruno, Los Angeles Times
Sunday, August 9, 2009



Upper-income earners who actually want to pay higher taxes have launched a public campaign calling for an immediate rollback of the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush.

The group, which calls itself Wealth for the Common Good, believes that people who have taxable income of more than $235,000 a year should support restoring their top federal income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent - and now, not in 2011, when the higher rate is scheduled to return anyway.
From their Web site:
"Our country is facing the worst economic challenge since the Great Depression and an urgent need to make a long overdue investment in bringing jobs and stability back to our communities. This investment should be paid for, in part, by repealing the Bush-era tax cuts our country cannot afford.
"Those of us with taxable incomes over $235,000 benefited from the upside of the economy during the last decade and profited for eight years from a 2001 tax cut. Now is the time to give back.
"We would see a minimal tax increase - from 35 (percent) to 39.6 (percent), a rate still far lower than the one under President (Ronald) Reagan - but the increased revenue would raise an estimated $43 billion per year."
The group's founders include Chuck Collins, who inherited some of the Oscar Mayer meat fortune and who has long been involved in agitating on income-inequality issues.
He may be best known for co-writing the 2003 book "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes" with Bill Gates Sr. The book made the case for retaining the federal estate tax.
This month, Wealth for the Common Good sent its request, including a petition with more than 1,000 signatures, to President Obama and to House and Senate leaders.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/09/BU9S1915CD.DTL#ixzz0Nj9A7dRP

 
Wait till 30 million Americans decide to stage a tax revolt.

Revolts require a leader and I don't see one on the horizon.
The well heeled have money to spare and use lawyers and accountants
to outwit the government.
They're not going to spend time revolting when there is work to do and money to be made.
People taxed at source don't have much power.
What kinds of profiles do you think would be part of the revolt you're predicting.
 
I believe spending is down across all income brackets. Why would the is author assume that it is a form of protest? He is using it as a form of protest, but there wasn't anything in the study by Unity Marketing as to why those upper income people are spending less - it could be as simple as the market being down - along with dividends, therefore more upper income people will have less 'income'.
 
Revolts require a leader and I don't see one on the horizon.
The well heeled have money to spare and use lawyers and accountants
to outwit the government.
They're not going to spend time revolting when there is work to do and money to be made.
People taxed at source don't have much power.
What kinds of profiles do you think would be part of the revolt you're predicting.

Since when do they require a leader? They are supposed to work for us, not the other way around. The "well-heeled" are being affected also, except Uncle Sam. They are trying to drain every citizen slowly but surely, I can only think that they are trying to push us into homelessness and/or slavery (maybe not in the traditional form we've been taught in school, but slavery none-the-less). Slave Rebellions have shown they do not need a leader, all it requires is a bunch of people who are mad as hell, and aren't going to take it anymore. The leaders we do have, if you choose to call them that, are already trying to take action, and as the noose tightens more will join. It is a true grassroots movement, and the number will only grow.
 
I believe spending is down across all income brackets. Why would the is author assume that it is a form of protest? He is using it as a form of protest, but there wasn't anything in the study by Unity Marketing as to why those upper income people are spending less - it could be as simple as the market being down - along with dividends, therefore more upper income people will have less 'income'.

Probably he assumes others have a similar attitude as his. It makes sense that others would think like him, especially when he puts in the Fred Smith anecdote.

I'm not going to trade in my Mark for a new car, and part of the reason is because I don't want to participate in Obama's program. So I can see the logic behind it.

And I view it as deliberately depriving him of spending he desperately needs to help his economy. He needs me and others like me buying a new car a whole lot more than I need one.
 
It is a really strange assumption - most people in income brackets of 250,000 or more aren't 8 to 5ers... they often are dependent on other types of income, investments, property, overseas income, all of which have taken big hits because of the recession. Will their cut in purchasing continue once those sources of income rise back up to pre-recession levels? If they don't then I would say he might have something, but until he can either point to a study that actually asked those people why they have curtailed spending, or we see spending at these levels, even when income rises back up, I think he is way out on a limb with his 'assumptions'.
 
It is a really strange assumption - most people in income brackets of 250,000 or more aren't 8 to 5ers...
Are you kidding?
Everyone who makes over $250k that I know, works full days, everyday...
many weekends too.

What a ridiculous generalization.
 
And most of the people I know who make over 250k don't work 8 to 5 - often they work much longer hours.... And they certainly aren't pulling down a traditional 'salary'. Their income is transient and based on many factors - no one is writing them a check for 20k a month... like conventional employees. 8 to 5ers traditionally refers to 'standard' type employees... of which people who make 1/4 million a year rarely are. Therefore their income is based on quite different things. Things that have taken a big hit lately.

We are both making assumptions Cal - like the author of this article is doing... He is just assuming that the reason for the downturn in spending in this income bracket is for 'protest reasons...' what a ridiculous assumption.
 
And most of the people I know who make over 250k don't work 8 to 5 - often they work much longer hours....

But you said "they often are dependent on other types of income, investments, property, overseas income, all of which have taken big hits because of the recession."

I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to clear that up.

We are both making assumptions Cal -
No, only you.
 
lol, face it, rags to riches then back to rags again. Don't forget many rich folk had investments in these wallstreet people that turned upside down, pretty much being fraud or other troubles. I know many rich people that make their income through real estate investing (DOWN), or in raw minerals (DOWN), maybe hotel chain? (DOWN) f*ck...ok....how about stocks and bonds? (DOWN)....ok ok....so where can I invest my money? (IN YOUR @SS)......that was'nt nice :'( but true ;-)
 
But you said "they often are dependent on other types of income, investments, property, overseas income, all of which have taken big hits because of the recession."

I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to clear that up.


No, only you.
They do make their money in those areas - and often spend a lot of time handling and managing those investments. Just because you invest in real estate, doesn't mean you just sit there waiting for the money to roll in. If you do, you probably don't make much money. They are dependent on those types of income streams, many of them, and they work hard to make their investments work for them.

Working when you are making 250K is usually very different than working when you are making only 5 figures.

Don't you think Cal, that most people who make over 250K aren't making it sitting at a desk - they are making it with a variety of investments, owning their own business, or working in the upper tiers of companies. That is why their incomes are taking big hits. Aren't you assuming that their incomes aren't based on those factors. You have to take into account that the wealthy in this country have also lost revenue stream, and that is certainly a large factor in their drop off in spending. Not some 'supposed' protest that this author assumes. He has no data to support that result. Do you see any data to support his conclusion Cal, would you like to point it out to me.
 
lol, face it, rags to riches then back to rags again. Don't forget many rich folk had investments in these wallstreet people that turned upside down, pretty much being fraud or other troubles. I know many rich people that make their income through real estate investing (DOWN), or in raw minerals (DOWN), maybe hotel chain? (DOWN) f*ck...ok....how about stocks and bonds? (DOWN)....ok ok....so where can I invest my money? (IN YOUR @SS)......that was'nt nice :'( but true ;-)

I thought you were going to start trying to be smart?
That was short lived.
 
Very funny, haha, I haven't gotten any sleep in 3 days so maybe that's why :p

Maybe a few drinks would help :p
 
They do make their money in those areas - and often spend a lot of time handling and managing those investments.
securedownload[1].jpg


Just because you invest in real estate, doesn't mean you just sit there waiting for the money to roll in. If you do, you probably don't make much money.
securedownload[1].jpg

They are dependent on those types of income streams, many of them, and they work hard to make their investments work for them.
securedownload[1].jpg

Working when you are making 250K is usually very different than working when you are making only 5 figures.
securedownload[1].jpg

Don't you think Cal, that most people who make over 250K aren't making it sitting at a desk - they are making it with a variety of investments, owning their own business, or working in the upper tiers of companies.
securedownload[1].jpg

That is why their incomes are taking big hits.
securedownload[1].jpg

You have to take into account that the wealthy in this country have also lost revenue stream,
securedownload[1].jpg
and that is certainly a large factor in their drop off in spending.
securedownload[1].jpg

Not some 'supposed' protest that this author assumes. He has no data to support that result. Do you see any data to support his conclusion Cal, would you like to point it out to me.
Oh, the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

*owned*

securedownload[1].jpg
 
Oh, the hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

*owned*

Guess what Foss - I am using as many citations as the author of this article is.... None!!!!!

So, I give you the same challenge that I gave Cal - show me the money - wait, I mean show me where Kennedy uses any real data whatsoever to support his claim that wealthy Americans aren't buying things because they are protesting President Obama...

Go ahead... *own* me on this one... It is the only thing that matters here - can the author support his assumption?
 
Guess what Foss - I am using as many citations as the author of this article is.... None!!!!!

So, I give you the same challenge that I gave Cal - show me the money - wait, I mean show me where Kennedy uses any real data whatsoever to support his claim that wealthy Americans aren't buying things because they are protesting President Obama...

Go ahead... *own* me on this one... It is the only thing that matters here - can the author support his assumption?
Keep angrily stomping your feet. It won't work. Hypocrite.
 
Keep angrily stomping your feet. It won't work. Hypocrite.
So, Foss - go back to the article - want to show me the data this guy is basing his supposition on? You are soooo good at bold type, heck you even go back and edit my posts when you quote them and add bold type - why don't you just use that html code and go for it - bold the sources that Kennedy uses to justify his idea that the rich aren't spending money because they are protesting Obama's policies. Go for it... really *own* me on this - this is your chance - show me that I am wrong - show me that it isn't a conjecture on Kennedy's part... I dare you...;)
 
So, Foss - go back to the article - want to show me the data this guy is basing his supposition on? You are soooo good at bold type, heck you even go back and edit my posts when you quote them and add bold type - why don't you just use that html code and go for it - bold the sources that Kennedy uses to justify his idea that the rich aren't spending money because they are protesting Obama's policies. Go for it... really *own* me on this - this is your chance - show me that I am wrong - show me that it isn't a conjecture on Kennedy's part... I dare you...;)
Keep whining, fox. I don't have to defend his article. I already posted a supporting comment, however, based on my own anecdotal experience, and pointed out that what he's saying makes sense to me. If you want to disprove it, go ahead. But posting your own set of assertions won't convince anybody here. You're just continuing to demonstrate that you're impotent at counter arguing anything.
 
Keep whining, fox. I don't have to defend his article. I already posted a supporting comment, however, based on my own anecdotal experience, and pointed out that what he's saying makes sense to me. If you want to disprove it, go ahead. But posting your own set of assertions won't convince anybody here. You're just continuing to demonstrate that you're impotent at counter arguing anything.

Just one source foss - come on - you can do it - just point out that one measly source that Kennedy uses to back his claim that rich individuals aren't spending because they are protesting Obama... I dare you foss - show me what you got... use that bold type - really *own* me - now is your chance...
 
Just one source foss - come on - you can do it - just point out that one measly source that Kennedy uses to back his claim that rich individuals aren't spending because they are protesting Obama... I dare you foss - show me what you got... use that bold type - really *own* me - now is your chance...
Repeating yourself in your old age, fox...really... :rolleyes:
 
Repeating yourself in your old age, fox...really... :rolleyes:

Nope - just making sure that people reading this understand that Kennedy has no facts or data or stats to back up his assumption...

And to show how the 'right' side of the forum continues to post anything in hopes it will stick - I guess you think that people will start to believe this junk. It is getting worse...
 
especially with a lot of Democrats and (ALL) REpublicans being paid 500k-3000k by health insurance companies to obolish universal healthcare :p
 
especially with a lot of Democrats and (ALL) REpublicans being paid 500k-3000k by health insurance companies to obolish universal healthcare :p

You are a liar.
Not the numbers, those are just silly.
But because you said you were going to try to post intelligent stuff- and you were CLEARLY lying about that!
 

Members online

Back
Top