[quote]
dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Who can afford to move if the jobs do not pay a livable wage
how many people crossed the entire country in covered wagons and no job?
lixy wrote:
True. But don’t forget that buffalo along with other tasty treats were quite abundant.[/quote]
Yes, but now there are squirrels to be had. Every few feet on any road in America there is a squirrel, or some other flattened tasty meal there for the taking.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Does 3% of the population controlling over 90% of the wealth sound equitable to you?
[/quote]
Define equitable.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Does 3% of the population controlling over 90% of the wealth sound equitable to you?
[/quote]
I have no problem with that.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Does 1% of the population paying 40% of the taxes sound equitable…no it does not. The fact remains the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% is at its lowest in 18 years.
Does 3% of the population controlling over 90% of the wealth sound equitable to you?
[/quote]
Yes it does. Absolutely. Why? Because they earned it. They took that risk, and it paid off.
You know how many poor people have complained to me about how much a business owner makes, (which is always an inflated assumption,) then when I tell them to go into business just like the person they are complaining about, they begin throwing up excuses left and right. It’s too risky, takes too much work, businesses fail, it takes money to make money, and those that start successful businesses started out rich.
All bullshit. If your not willing to take the risks involved to make the money, then you should not be complaining about those that did, and succeeded.
Personally I get tired of this, “I am unhappy because your successful.” crap.
Over 90% of millionaires in America, (I think its actually 95%,) are fist generation. Meaning they made it on their own. They did it themselves.
Half of businesses are started for $5,000 or less.
Now what is really funny is how people don’t even understand finances. They just think we should tax the hell out of the rich, and think everything will be fine. Never thinking where that money will actually come from.
The higher the taxes, the more likely a person is to invest in tax free investments. If a business has an increase in taxes, they simply raise prices. (Gee, why is this hamburger $20?)
Another problem with this discussion is the fact that the people who are saying tax the rich more are not talking about creating revenue for the government. Instead it is simply a discussion about taking money from people just because they have some.
But as far as revenue goes, it seems like if you raise taxes, revenue will climb along with it. But that does not happen. And it also seems like cutting taxes should cause revenue to plunge, and again that does not seem to happen.
The best example is the change of capital gains taxes in the 1980’s. They doubled the taxes, but revenue plunged. In fact it actually hit a point where it only brought in half of what if brought in before.
But in the 90’s the Republican Congress reinstated the capital gains tax, and revenue poured in.
This stuff seems very counter intuitive, but people need to look past simple math to understand what is going on. Economics is not a hard science, but a social science. There is a lot of psychology involved. Just like the rise in gas has caused a drop in demand, (I believe it is down by 5%,) raising taxes causes people to change their behavior.
Something else people seem to disregard is what happens to that money the wealthy person does not pay in taxes due to a tax cut. Too many would assume they would simply buy another boat, or add a wing to their 40,000 room mansion.
But, while this would also benefit the economy by the spending, creating taxable income for others, they are more likely to spend it, again benefiting the economy, and creating jobs, and increasing the wealth of others.
And again causing more taxable situations.
Too sum up the post above me into gnome friendly terms:
Tax the rich a lot
???
Profit?
The rich may be first generation, but there is no way a majority of the wealthy (i.e: the 1%) is first generation.
And I challenge anyone to say it ain’t so.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The rich may be first generation, but there is no way a majority of the wealthy (i.e: the 1%) is first generation.
And I challenge anyone to say it ain’t so.[/quote]
I say it ain´t so.
Let us see, in Austria and German we had two world wars, 2 times of hyperinflation and are on the 4th currency in the last 100 years.
How many fortunes do you think survived all of this?
And yet there are millionaires, even billionaires.
How come?
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
CHAPTER ONE
Meet the Millionaire Next Door
These people cannot be millionaires! They don't look like millionaires, they don't dress like millionaires, they don't eat like millionaires, they don't act like millionaires--they don't even have millionaire names. Where are the millionaires who look like millionaires?
The person who said this was a vice president of a trust department. He made these comments following a focus group interview and dinner that we hosted for ten first-generation millionaires. His view of millionaires is shared by most people who are not wealthy. They think millionaires own expensive clothes, watches, and other status artifacts. We have found this is not the case.
As a matter of fact, our trust officer friend spends significantly more for his suits than the typical American millionaire. He also wears a $5,000 watch. We know from our surveys that the majority of millionaires never spent even one-tenth of $5,000 for a watch. Our friend also drives a current-model imported luxury car. Most millionaires are not driving this year’s model. Only a minority drive a foreign motor vehicle. An even smaller minority drive foreign luxury cars. Our trust officer leases, while only a minority of millionaires ever lease their motor vehicles.
But ask the typical American adult this question: Who looks more like a millionaire? Would it be our friend, the trust officer, or one of the people who participated in our interview? We would wager that most people by a wide margin would pick the trust officer. But looks can be deceiving.
This concept is perhaps best expressed by those wise and wealthy Texans who refer to our trust officer’s type as
Big Hat No Cattle
…
…
YOU OR YOUR ANCESTORS?
Most of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth?
Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:
Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
Fewer than 25 percent ever received “an act of kindness” of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation’s social system and economy.
More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent “were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
The rich may be first generation, but there is no way a majority of the wealthy (i.e: the 1%) is first generation.
And I challenge anyone to say it ain’t so.[/quote]
Wait, the rich are first generation, but the wealthy are not?
What the fuck does that mean? Are they not the same people?
By the way in 2006 the top 1% was $388k and up.
Orion, that is a great book. I like how it points out that the more help a person receives from their parents, the less likely they will achieve wealth.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If I understand the article it is saying, the rich are paying more taxes and the debt keeps going up, Go figure. CUT SPENDING that seems more logical.
No argument here. This all falls back to ‘minimalism’ in government.[/quote]
If you are going to throw money away I would rather se it thrown to the middle class and not to corp. America. Bush is defiantly not a conservative and neither is McCain.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
The rich may be first generation, but there is no way a majority of the wealthy (i.e: the 1%) is first generation.
And I challenge anyone to say it ain’t so.
Wait, the rich are first generation, but the wealthy are not?
What the fuck does that mean? Are they not the same people?[/quote]
Ask Chris Rock.
Seriously though, the rich works for his/her money. The wealthy doesn’t. The money works for him/her. I have nothing against people working to afford nice things. I have issues with folks feeding off usury and similar practices. But let’s not go there…
I stand corrected.
Wouldn’t mind a reference though.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
The rich may be first generation, but there is no way a majority of the wealthy (i.e: the 1%) is first generation.
And I challenge anyone to say it ain’t so.
Wait, the rich are first generation, but the wealthy are not?
What the fuck does that mean? Are they not the same people?
Ask Chris Rock.
Seriously though, the rich works for his/her money. The wealthy doesn’t. The money works for him/her. I have nothing against people working to afford nice things. I have issues with folks feeding off usury and similar practices. But let’s not go there…
By the way in 2006 the top 1% was $388k and up.
I stand corrected.
Wouldn’t mind a reference though.
[/quote]
Ah, you are using active and passive income as the difference.
Everyone needs to work on building their passive income. Just having a high income does not mean the person has control of their finances.
I have a friend who, last I knew, had half a mil socked away, after ~ 12 - 15 years of saving. And the important point is h never made more then 40k a year, and he worked 2 jobs to do that.
Last couple of years his investments were making more then his pay.
Similarly to what your saying, Kiyosaki says that wealth is not a measure of how much you have, but how your passive income is compared to your expenses.
Oh and the link, which I found simply by googling:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
You have to make $31,987 to be in the top 50% (again 2006 numbers).
[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
CHAPTER ONE
Meet the Millionaire Next Door
These people cannot be millionaires! They don't look like millionaires, they don't dress like millionaires, they don't eat like millionaires, they don't act like millionaires--they don't even have millionaire names. Where are the millionaires who look like millionaires?
The person who said this was a vice president of a trust department. He made these comments following a focus group interview and dinner that we hosted for ten first-generation millionaires. His view of millionaires is shared by most people who are not wealthy. They think millionaires own expensive clothes, watches, and other status artifacts. We have found this is not the case.
As a matter of fact, our trust officer friend spends significantly more for his suits than the typical American millionaire. He also wears a $5,000 watch.
We know from our surveys that the majority of millionaires never spent even one-tenth of $5,000 for a watch. Our friend also drives a current-model imported luxury car. Most millionaires are not driving this year’s model. Only a minority drive a foreign motor vehicle. An even smaller minority drive foreign luxury cars. Our trust officer leases, while only a minority of millionaires ever lease their motor vehicles.
But ask the typical American adult this question: Who looks more like a millionaire? Would it be our friend, the trust officer, or one of the people who participated in our interview? We would wager that most people by a wide margin would pick the trust officer. But looks can be deceiving.
This concept is perhaps best expressed by those wise and wealthy Texans who refer to our trust officer’s type as
Big Hat No Cattle
…
…
YOU OR YOUR ANCESTORS?
Most of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth?
Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent.
Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:
Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
Fewer than 25 percent ever received “an act of kindness” of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation’s social system and economy.
More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent “were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth.” [/quote]
Could this be stickied.
Hell could this PLEASE BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS?!?!?!?
[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
The rich may be first generation, but there is no way a majority of the wealthy (i.e: the 1%) is first generation.
And I challenge anyone to say it ain’t so.
Wait, the rich are first generation, but the wealthy are not?
What the fuck does that mean? Are they not the same people?
Ask Chris Rock.
Seriously though, the rich works for his/her money. The wealthy doesn’t. The money works for him/her. I have nothing against people working to afford nice things. I have issues with folks feeding off usury and similar practices. But let’s not go there…
[/quote]
That is a religious and outdated concept that completely misunderstands the role of the entrepreneur and the cost of risk.
It is not even medieval it goes back way beyond that and has destroyed more than one perfectly fine culture.
A solid credit and banking system is the heartbeat of every economy and if you want one reason why the whole ME has the GDP of Spain you can blame Islamic usury laws.
Not that they would not do their best to work around them whenever they can. For deep down at least their merchants and bankers know that it is BS.
What is really funny though is that you want to take away the money from people that do not work but at least have worked for it and give it to people who also do not work.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If I understand the article it is saying, the rich are paying more taxes and the debt keeps going up, Go figure. CUT SPENDING that seems more logical.
No argument here. This all falls back to ‘minimalism’ in government.
If you are going to throw money away I would rather se it thrown to the middle class and not to corp. America. Bush is defiantly not a conservative and neither is McCain.
[/quote]
What do think happens to it when it is “thrown” to corp america?
Agreed on your other point.
[quote]orion wrote:
That is a religious and outdated concept that completely misunderstands the role of the entrepreneur and the cost of risk.
It is not even medieval it goes back way beyond that and has destroyed more than one perfectly fine culture. [/quote]
If you think it’s healthy for a society to have some of its people feed off usury, it’s fine by me. I understand entrepreneurship and the costs associated with risk, but I don’t think having money work for you should be an ideal to strive for. I believe it is destructive to society and linked to many problems we face today.
But there’s no way I’m discussing this with you. Because, at the end of the day, things are the way they are and I’ll just be banging my head on the metaphorical wall.
The whole what now??? Where did you pull that one from?
Besides, most of the Middle East does not implement usury laws. Also, Spain has the 8th largest GDP worldwide.
You should stop sniffing coke off hookers’ bosoms. It’s affecting your reading abilities.
I never said I wanted to take away anything from anyone. Just noted that it wasn’t healthy for society as a whole, to have people sitting on their asses while money works for them.
As opposed to people sitting on their asses, having the gov’t hand them other people’s money??
I’d take the rich having money work for them any day of the week over that.
As opposed to people sitting on their asses, having the gov’t hand them other people’s money??
I’d take the rich having money work for them any day of the week over that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If you think it’s healthy for a society to have some of its people feed off usury, it’s fine by me. I understand entrepreneurship and the costs associated with risk, but I don’t think having money work for you should be an ideal to strive for. I believe it is destructive to society and linked to many problems we face today.
[/quote]
It is absolutely an ideal to strive for. For most people that is what they call a successful retirement.
The problem is that you have this faulty idea of the rich sitting in their castle getting fat, and doing nothing. But most of them work. Part of the reason they are wealthy is because they enjoy what they do. Otherwise why are practically all, if not all of the Fortune 500 list still working?
Steve Jobs retired years ago, and came back to work.
That money you are complaining about is working. It is creating jobs. It is moving the economy. The best thing we can do is work to become wealthy, all of us, even you.
If we retire young, and just live it up, then we leave an opening for somebody else. And all that spending is also benefiting the economy.
You have completely fallen for the idea that if you have money, your evil.
Again nothing but excuses. It is so much easier to put down the successful then it is look inside of yourself and see your own failings. I am speaking from personal experience, and I am still working on my own failings.
But I am going to work on improving myself instead of trying to blame others for my problems, or find some excuse to help me from feeling inadequate.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
If I understand the article it is saying, the rich are paying more taxes and the debt keeps going up, Go figure. CUT SPENDING that seems more logical.
No argument here. This all falls back to ‘minimalism’ in government.
If you are going to throw money away I would rather se it thrown to the middle class and not to corp. America. Bush is defiantly not a conservative and neither is McCain.
What do think happens to it when it is “thrown” to corp america?
Agreed on your other point.
[/quote]
They shuffle it off to some shell company in the Caymans or invest it in some Vietnamese shoe factory