[quote]Testy1 wrote:
The part he forgot to mention was that the four poor guys were licking the butter knife, while the top dog was eating surf and turf.
Money buys access, protection and power.
It is doubtful he will not show up at the table. Without his wealth he is just another poor guy.
[/quote]
What did I tell ya? Attacked for being logical. Only the rich get to eat, those damn rich people. How dare they have nicer stuff then me?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
The part he forgot to mention was that the four poor guys were licking the butter knife, while the top dog was eating surf and turf.
Money buys access, protection and power.
It is doubtful he will not show up at the table. Without his wealth he is just another poor guy.
What did I tell ya? Attacked for being logical. Only the rich get to eat, those damn rich people. How dare they have nicer stuff then me? [/quote]
So, do you deny that money provides these things? I notice you don’t quantify your answer, only attack me for disagreeing.
I am not begrudging the rich man his “stuff”, he should just quit bitching about paying for it.
It is not logic to lie through omission.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, this really didn’t seem to be a right versus left thread… which was actually kind of nice.
–
We all deserve what we get. But that doesn’t mean we can’t help someone who made poor choices. It’s about grace and compassion, not shifting the blame on someone else.
Lorisco,
Nice post. I wish more people felt along those lines.
I don’t think we all get what we deserve, but I think that too many people decide what someone deserves and then is happy if they are left with no way to improve their lot due to those choices and what they “deserve”.
The grace and compassion you talk of seems to be lacking in much of society.[/quote]
I would agree, but sometimes it seems to be an issue of approach. What is the best way to help someone? The historical approach has been to give people free money (welfare), which has not been helpful to most people in that it created a dependence that hindered them from the motivation to improve their place in life.
I’m in favor of actual opportunities, programs that help people develop the skills they have; teach them how to get jobs, allow them to pursue higher education if they have the abilities or offer trade school options as well.
Giving handouts doesn’t help.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for today, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime!
[quote]ShaunW wrote:
an interesting discussion
In relation to the ‘tax the rich to give to the poor’ argument, this little story has been going around the Aust investment websites after the bi-annual journalistic calls for tax reduction.
Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner.
The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way
we pay our taxes, and it went like this:
The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
The fifth paid $1.
The sixth $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.
All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
said: “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how
should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall
so that everyone would get his “fair share”?
They realised that $20
divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat.
The restaurateur suggested reducing each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%
saving).
The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for
free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began
to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to
the tenth man “but he got $10!”
“That’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner. The nine sat
down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered
that they didn’t have enough money between all of them to meet even
half of the bill!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
[/quote]
That is one of the finest examples of how our unjust tax system works.
I’m making a copy…
Thanks Mage, my field is Logistics, so they can bring it on 
Testy1 wrote-
"The part he forgot to mention was that the four poor guys were licking the butter knife, while the top dog was eating surf and turf. "
In the story each man is paying acording to his tax bracket ? not eatting according to it.
I dunno about the US welfare system, but over here we?ve got several generations who?ve lived off the dole with no hope or inclination to work ? and the handouts they receive from the gov. can be better than what an unskilled laourer can earn.
So where is the motivation to work in this case?
We have senior?s cards, disabled pensions, rent assistance, study assistance, single parents allowance and the list goes on.
Recently a single mum was berrated on TV about not going out to apply for work at a new facility close to her home.
She showed the numbers: If she got the lowest paid full time position in this new workplace (which is all she could strive for due to lack of experience and education) she would earn just a few dollars per week over the bracket set by the gov.
Thus, being over this bracket, she would :
Lose rent assistance, and have to pay full rent.
Lose her single parents allowance.
Reduce the child support payments she received from her ex.
Lose the gov concession cards, meaning she?d have to pay full public transport fares.
Have to place her child in almost full time childcare ? and over here that can be up to $75 per day.
So with her few dollars above the gov bracket ? she?d go backwards in a big way - in fact below the poverty line ? no wonder people in these situations refuse to go for paid work. It can simply not be worth it.
Now my post stated at the beginging the story was developed for the benefit of the people who don?t know how our tax system works in practice. Journalists and academics and union bosses jump up and down with great aggitation when there is any proposal of tax cuts for the rich. But as shown, it?s the rich who are carrying the poor ? in a very big way. And as we all know ? don?t bite the hand that feeds you.
Sure the rich man has some nice stuff but he?s paying for that with after tax money ? and through the tax he is paying (47.5% income tax, plus 10% GST, plus the various hidden taxes ? such as luxury tax on his BMW), he?s paid for 4people, and is subsidising 2-3more.
So Testy1 ? what was your point?
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
So, do you deny that money provides these things? I notice you don’t quantify your answer, only attack me for disagreeing.
I am not begrudging the rich man his “stuff”, he should just quit bitching about paying for it.
It is not logic to lie through omission.
[/quote]
Yes, I must refute that the poor lick butter knives. Your post was a straight out attack on the rich. (Of which I am not, yet.)
What you are doing is called jealousy. “Dey gots stuff, so I hates dem.”
I really don’t know what to refute because you haven’t said anything of substance. Just posted some strange allegory that makes no sense.
I just found a more recent statistic where 91% of millionaires are self made. Only 9% inherited their wealth.
I am not sure of how old this information is, but as the number of millionaires goes up, this statistic can only get larger.
I just heard some information today which made me do a little search online. There is a follow-up book to the Millionaire Next Door. I have seen the book, but not read it. Like the first book it involves research on millionaires, with 733 surveys examined, and I believe research on another 500. The criteria were more stringent then the first book, with a net worth of at least 10 million.
The top 5 fundamentals, in order, were:
Integrity - being honest with all people
Discipline - applying self control
Social skills - getting along with people
A supportive spouse
Hard work - more than most people.
Here is a link to an article I believe is by the author:
Read that again. Integrity is the most important fundamental found. Luck was considered real low on the scale.
This is actual research that goes against the idea that to get rich you need to lie cheat and steal, and actually makes it look like it would be counter productive.
[quote]ShaunW wrote:
Thanks Mage, my field is Logistics, so they can bring it on
Testy1 wrote-
"The part he forgot to mention was that the four poor guys were licking the butter knife, while the top dog was eating surf and turf. "
In the story each man is paying acording to his tax bracket ? not eatting according to it.
I dunno about the US welfare system, but over here we?ve got several generations who?ve lived off the dole with no hope or inclination to work ? and the handouts they receive from the gov. can be better than what an unskilled laourer can earn.
So where is the motivation to work in this case?
We have senior?s cards, disabled pensions, rent assistance, study assistance, single parents allowance and the list goes on.
Recently a single mum was berrated on TV about not going out to apply for work at a new facility close to her home.
She showed the numbers: If she got the lowest paid full time position in this new workplace (which is all she could strive for due to lack of experience and education) she would earn just a few dollars per week over the bracket set by the gov.
Thus, being over this bracket, she would :
Lose rent assistance, and have to pay full rent.
Lose her single parents allowance.
Reduce the child support payments she received from her ex.
Lose the gov concession cards, meaning she?d have to pay full public transport fares.
Have to place her child in almost full time childcare ? and over here that can be up to $75 per day.
So with her few dollars above the gov bracket ? she?d go backwards in a big way - in fact below the poverty line ? no wonder people in these situations refuse to go for paid work. It can simply not be worth it.
Now my post stated at the beginging the story was developed for the benefit of the people who don?t know how our tax system works in practice. Journalists and academics and union bosses jump up and down with great aggitation when there is any proposal of tax cuts for the rich. But as shown, it?s the rich who are carrying the poor ? in a very big way. And as we all know ? don?t bite the hand that feeds you.
Sure the rich man has some nice stuff but he?s paying for that with after tax money ? and through the tax he is paying (47.5% income tax, plus 10% GST, plus the various hidden taxes ? such as luxury tax on his BMW), he?s paid for 4people, and is subsidising 2-3more.
So Testy1 ? what was your point?
[/quote]
Sorry to fuck up your little story.
My point is, money buys intangibles the poor don’t have access to. These things include access to politicians, power and protection.
Let’s cover these three things.
First, access to politicians.
I don’t have any statistics, but I would guess it would take far more average citizens to bend a politicians ear than one rich guy with ten grand in hand. That and the fact most politicians are well to do. Birds of a feather you know.
Secondly, power.
This goes hand in hand with number 1, except that it reaches to everything they come in contact with. When they say jump, shit happens.
Lastly, Protection.
This is the one I really have a problem with.
Why is it that someone busted with breaking into a house recieves a tougher sentence than someone wiping out 1000 pensions? Why is it that crack garners 10x the penalty of cocaine?
As far as paying the same, you would be a pretty poor bussiness man if that were true. If you don’t know how to write off your expenses, chances are you will not become rich.
Most likley, his BMW is a company car, and the people actually producing the income are paying for it.
The wealthy have a symbiotic relationship with the rest of us. We depend on them for jobs, they depend on us to produce income. My employer is not giving me anything, he is paying me for my skills.
As for your story about the welfare recipient, it is no longer the case here. In michigan you have 2 years to get off the welfare rolls. They will provide training and childcare, but after two years your kicked off.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Testy1 wrote:
So, do you deny that money provides these things? I notice you don’t quantify your answer, only attack me for disagreeing.
I am not begrudging the rich man his “stuff”, he should just quit bitching about paying for it.
It is not logic to lie through omission.
Yes, I must refute that the poor lick butter knives. Your post was a straight out attack on the rich. (Of which I am not, yet.)
What you are doing is called jealousy. “Dey gots stuff, so I hates dem.”
I really don’t know what to refute because you haven’t said anything of substance. Just posted some strange allegory that makes no sense.
[/quote]
If being rich is important to you, I don’t begrudge you that. Would I like more money? Sure, but it is not worth it to me. I suppose most people are somewhat jealous of the rich, but it is not worth the sacrifices in lifestyle and family life to me.
As far as not understanding what to refute, or my allegory, there is little I can do to increase your comprehension.
Read my other post and it may clear it up for you, or not.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
If being rich is important to you, I don’t begrudge you that. Would I like more money? Sure, but it is not worth it to me. I suppose most people are somewhat jealous of the rich, but it is not worth the sacrifices in lifestyle and family life to me.
As far as not understanding what to refute, or my allegory, there is little I can do to increase your comprehension.
Read my other post and it may clear it up for you, or not.[/quote]
And once again you did not even get what I said. You are acting like it is going over my head, and yet cannot fathom what I am even trying to say.
You say you do not begrudge a person who wants wealth, and yet you do in fact attack them. Do you also call people who want more muscle narcissistic?
Is it worth the sacrifice and in lifestyle and family life to build muscle? Is there a real purpose to picking up a heavy thing and putting it back down? Is your life taken over by weights? Hey maybe you have manorexia. That’s it manorexia.
There is a correct fucking allegory. (Not the former Vice President.) I do know people who consider anyone who lifts weights as narcissistic. Anyone who wants more money as greedy. Anyone who wants more sex as a slut, even if it’s with their spouse.
Really the idea of getting money now is for freedom later. You don’t need to give up your freaking life for it any more then you need to give up your freaking life to build muscle or strength.
I tried it your way. I didn’t have any money saved, even though I could have. Instead I ran up credit cards, enjoying life like you say I should. I had no cash, and no credit to cover my wife’s sudden $400 a month pharmacy bill because I was living paycheck to paycheck. Not because I was forced to, but because I didn’t see past next weeks paycheck.
What does it entail to become rich? Not living beyond your means. Not buying crap you cannot afford. Not thinking it is ok to pay an 18% premium on everything you buy. Not letting car fever dictate what car you buy.
I am enjoying life more then ever before. Why? Because I have more freedom since I corrected our problems. What am I missing? Not a damn thing.
You need to realize getting rich is not about being greedy, it is about not being greedy. Not needing that shiny new car today, not buying things just because you don’t have enough crap at home. Not throwing out the computer because it is last years model.
[quote]Recently a single mum was berrated on TV about not going out to apply for work at a new facility close to her home.
She showed the numbers: If she got the lowest paid full time position in this new workplace (which is all she could strive for due to lack of experience and education) she would earn just a few dollars per week over the bracket set by the gov.
Thus, being over this bracket, she would :
Lose rent assistance, and have to pay full rent.
Lose her single parents allowance.
Reduce the child support payments she received from her ex.
Lose the gov concession cards, meaning she?d have to pay full public transport fares.
Have to place her child in almost full time childcare ? and over here that can be up to $75 per day.
So with her few dollars above the gov bracket ? she?d go backwards in a big way - in fact below the poverty line ? no wonder people in these situations refuse to go for paid work. It can simply not be worth it.[/quote]
Great. You’ve shown us a poorly designed system. The fact that aid has been done in a very stupid way in many places of the world doesn’t mean that the concept of helping out is wrong.
It means the way it has been done is wrong.
Hell, creating a system that provides discincentives to the populace is just plain crazy.
It should not be a left versus right issue to find ways to help other people become productive members of society, because we all win when that happens. However, it will take some newer thinking to achieve it, so that the proper incentives are put into place.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Recently a single mum was berrated on TV about not going out to apply for work at a new facility close to her home.
She showed the numbers: If she got the lowest paid full time position in this new workplace (which is all she could strive for due to lack of experience and education) she would earn just a few dollars per week over the bracket set by the gov.
Thus, being over this bracket, she would :
Lose rent assistance, and have to pay full rent.
Lose her single parents allowance.
Reduce the child support payments she received from her ex.
Lose the gov concession cards, meaning she?d have to pay full public transport fares.
Have to place her child in almost full time childcare ? and over here that can be up to $75 per day.
So with her few dollars above the gov bracket ? she?d go backwards in a big way - in fact below the poverty line ? no wonder people in these situations refuse to go for paid work. It can simply not be worth it.
Great. You’ve shown us a poorly designed system. The fact that aid has been done in a very stupid way in many places of the world doesn’t mean that the concept of helping out is wrong.
It means the way it has been done is wrong.
Hell, creating a system that provides discincentives to the populace is just plain crazy.
It should not be a left versus right issue to find ways to help other people become productive members of society, because we all win when that happens. However, it will take some newer thinking to achieve it, so that the proper incentives are put into place.[/quote]
I would agree with this, but in the US these handouts have been used as a means of political control. “Vote for the Democrats because we will give you free stuff”. In fact, I personally think that welfare was initially put in place to keep people from achieving, in that it creates a dependency that ensures the political power that is in place will remain.
So no one really wants to fix the problem, because if they did the people would become self-sufficient and not need government anymore for their social needs. THAT, is the kind of loss of control that scares the hell out of big government. Just imagine a society full of fully capable and functioning individuals? At some point people would start to wonder why the tax rate is so freakin high when no one needs the government for anything other than the civil defense and maintenance of the infrastructure?
Testy1 I don?t understand your issue ? it reads to me that you?ve picked a stereotype of what ?rich? is ? and it?s all negative and anti-social.
I understand your point re a business person using the business to write down costs ? but with a bit of nous ? anyone can do that, rich or poor alike. Set up a small company (it costs maybe $100 to register a business name) and do some share trading and ebay trading ? your computer, internet connection, postage, part of your rent or mortgage, transport costs, and so much more, are all now deductible off your tax ? and you may still be joe average working a 40hr week for Mr Boss. All of a sudden you have the same perks and opportunities the ?rich? have.
And if you think about it ? the laws regarding depreciation and business are to encourage people to start businesses! The more people starting businesses, the more jobs there will be, and then more wealth will be generated nationally and perhaps internationally. I suggest you read some books by Robert Kiyosaki, Michael Gruber and Spencer Johnson.
In my view without the pioneers our society would be still pretty much in the dark ages. The pioneers take the risks and develop new products, services, processes, and if they are lucky, their society will accept these inovations and reward the pioneer with wealth. And it?s the decendents of these pioneers who now own the ?family money? and the power that surrounds it.
Regarding your 3points.
The wealthy do have influence. But I?ll bet you that 80% of the ?wealthy? are mum and dad small business owners. 15% will be executives and ceo?s, and the remaining will be family money. The vast majority of the wealthy will thus have very little influence on the way the country is run ? except by their voting power.
We are seeing over here politicians getting included on email petitions ? and when these poli?s are seeing the amount of people in their area having a firm opinion about an issue ? this issue is then being pushed in parliament.
I think this is a very effective form of democracy (however in this case ? only those wealthy enough to have a computer and internet connection, and those passionate enough are having this vote).
And I really don?t know much about your drug laws. Isn?t crack and cocain the same thing??
And further on wealth.
I?ve just gone 30. Last month my wife and I paid the last installment on our home mortgage. We now have no debt. All credit cards get paid in full in the month they are used. No debt on 2 cars. A nice but low-key lifestyle. We both work fulltime for multinational businesses. We are employees. The suckers who sit in front of a computer for 8hrs a day for someone else.
Now we are cetainly not ?wealthy? but I definately think we are now ?rich? (setting aside definitions which count money as wealth rather than free time). Both myself and my wife can now work for ourselves, rather than to pay any obligations. We can decide to both work part time, or stop work entirely and travel for a year, or start a small business, or whatever. Our time is now ours.
So in your stereotypical view of what is wealthy/rich ? am I now a baddie coz I decided to pay extra per month against my house, or delayed buying a nice plasma tv, or eat at a restaurant only once a month ? etc?
It?s all about personal choice.
You can choose to buy everything on credit ? owe mutiple department stores money for toys you no longer need or use, pay rent instead of a mortgage, lease a flash car, eat out every night plus buy lunch everyday. And work all your life for some big bad employer to pay these accumulating debts. Or not.
Vroom said
creating a system that provides discincentives to the populace is just plain crazy
On this I agree wholeheartedly. Our social system is a mess and too full of bored bureaucrats. There are definitely people who need help. And our current method of helping is not working.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hell, creating a system that provides discincentives to the populace is just plain crazy.
[/quote]
This brings up the question how do you create such a system? If people do get assistance, then why should they work? I understand that people don’t want to work at McDonalds, for McDonalds pay, but does that mean we should pay them not to?
I do have some ideas, and I am sure others can come up with good ideas also.
First there should be distinctions between types of welfare, and what help people need. Able bodied people should be treated differently then handicapped people of course.
Then what type of help o these people need? Do they have need of expensive medical treatment, or just don’t make enough money? Maybe it is just a temporary setback.
One of the issues I have a problem with first and foremost is that we do not teach home economics in school. School is supposed to prepare people for life, and it is failing at that. People should not only be able to balance their checkbook, but know how to make budgets, to better understand credit, and really how to manage their finances. If I knew at 18 what I know now, I would be a hell of a lot wealthier, and more prepared for all the emergencies I have had in life.
If a person is able bodied, they should be able to work. Instead of just giving assistance, offer government work in trade for the assistance. There are things that need to be done, why not have the people who need money do it. Nobody can complain if you are working for your benefits. It negates most fraud, and the rules could easily be loosened so that people who might be borderline could now qualify.
Instead of loosing their benefits if their income increases, they could just reduce the amount of hours they work for the government, that way they are trading higher paying hours for lower paying hours in the market.
Another idea I had was a life loan. Some people know their situation is temporary, so they could instead of getting assistance could opt for a government loan that would get them on their feet. Anyone who accepts such assistance is required to claim 0 dependants on their W-4, and all tax returns are used to repay the debt. This could help people who refuse government assistance, and as a low interest loan would actually bring the money back to the government to be used again to help more people.
If the system is what I knew about it before, (haven’t looked at it closely in a while,) the system was set up so that you received enough money that it was not worth it to work at lower wage jobs when you get the exact same amount, or more from the government. And any time you took the initiative, that meant you were better off, and lost benefits to the point that earning any money really is not worth it.
Years ago, after reading an article in USA Today, I started thinking about an idea of reducing benefits at a percentage of what you earn, so that you are actually rewarded by working, instead of going from not working to working hard for the same, or less money. I had trouble coming up with an amount that worked without people still getting benefits at middle income levels.
When looking at the research into millionaires, one thing that popped out at me was how their average school GPA was less then 3.0. There was a common theme where many of them were actually told they could not make it because of their GPA, or other reasons.
These people got upset about that, and that motivated them to succeed.
The biggest problem with welfare is that it takes away the pain. I know that is the intent by a lot of well intentioned people. But by taking away that pain, often for many people you take away their motivation. No different then letting jr. stay in your basement, eating your food, not paying rent, spending all his time at Star Trek conventions. If you kick jr. out, he may actually get motivated to get a real job, and quit mooching off of his parents. Know any of these people who are on family welfare?
Mage,
Those sound like some decent ideas. People bicker back and forth about workfare and so on, but we simply have to find strategic solutions that use market forces to optimize people into the right behavior.
When you allow them to reduce their workload at will, opting instead to do real work, this is precisely a market force type of activity.
Perhaps some part of the time spent doing workfare could optionally be alloted to learning about how to integrate into society. Create and manage a budget. Learn about credit and interest. Be informed of the correlation between education and success.
However, there are many low-life style people that grew up in bad families that will never learn very much, no matter how well intentioned the program, up until the point they decide they really want to, or until they first lean to read. Maybe passing the courses you do take is the key that allows you to take more of this type of “workfare”?