Another attempt to help the right understand the change in wealth distribution

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
Here's a start: reduce taxes targeting the poor, and tax things that hurt the poor
1. Exempt the first 40k in income from all income and payroll taxes.
2. Eliminate all sales taxes on food, insulation, and renewable fuels (including biodiesel and ethanol).
3. Put a federal sales tax on new cars based on mileage, say 1% for every mpg below 40, half that if it's capable of running on more than 50% biodiesel or ethanol. Since the poor are stuck with buying used cars, this would improve the availability of more efficient vehicles for the poor.
4. Make birth control over the counter. This would save consumers roughly 2 billion dollars per year. There is currently no medical justification for requiring a prescription for birth control pills. They are safer than aspirin or tylenol. It's akin to forcing you to visit a mechanic and have your alignment checked and a state inspection every time you want to put gas in your car.
5. Restrict the practice of increasing interest rates on debt already incurred. Require that notification of a change in interest rates take place at least six months prior to the change taking effect. Limit the maximum increase in interest rates to no more than 15% more than the rate agreed upon when the debt was incurred. This would limit the damage done by predatory lending practices while still allowing the subprime debt market to continue to exist. Limit the frequency of application of over the limit fees and late fees to no more than once per two month period, and don't allow the application of late fees to incur an over the limit fee in any case.
6. Exempt fuels that are more than 5% renewable from the federal gas tax. Place a large ($15+/barrel) tariff on imported oil to stabilize fuel prices and place pressure on car makers to improve efficiency and support renewable fuels. In the long run this will lower fuel costs and eliminate oil dependency.
7. Place a carbon tax on coal burning power plants based on emissions, and natural gas used other than to heat homes (also based on emissions). Make a renewable energy production tax credit permanent. This will stabilize energy prices for future fuel price fluctuations.

If all of the above recommendations were followed it would go a long way towards assisting the poor with their living expenses, which are hugely inflated compared to the rich because they lack the capital to make capital intensive cost saving improvements.

To preempt any arguments about the best renewable fuel technology, ideally there should be a mix. It is currently possible to take flue gas from coal power plants and divert it through pipes to produce algea. This process reclaims 40% of the carbon dioxide with a product that can be divided into an oil portion for biodiesel, a carbohydrate portion to be used for ethanol, and a protein portion for animal feed. http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm

1. 30% of Americans already pay NO income tax and many of them actually get more money back than they payout.
2. I don't know of a state that taxes food that you would by at the grocery store.
3. Typical American drives 12,000 miles a year. At 20mpg that is 600 gallons of gas a year. At $3 a gallon that is $1800 a YEAR in gas, or about $150 a month. Meaning that gas is actually one of the smallest of our expenses.
4. Not show how much this would change things. How many people who are getting pregnant and having babies out of wedlock are doing so because the cost of birth control is too high?
5. Limiting predatory lending is a good idea in my book. As is getting rid of cash advance places that charge people 5% to cash a check based on their next paycheck, the effect interest rates for these 'loans' are insane.
6. See above
7. See above, plus there are lots of programs to help the poor buy heating fuel and the like.

All your ideas help the poor with their living costs, but don't do anything to help them become 'unpoor' via more income.
Since the idea of the thread is that the rich have to much and the poor to little, in terms of wealth, I would like to see a plan to help the poor make more and truly become unpoor. Sadly it seems that Craig has run for the hills on this topic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I don't know of a state that taxes food that you would by at the grocery store.

Either you must live in a heck of a plastic bubble with some kind of smoke pumped into it or only post what is fed to you by your handlers.

Mississippi has one of the highest food taxes in the Country and has been in the news headlines because the few Democrats in the state tried to eliminate the food tax and shift it to cigarettes but the Republican Governor said no way.

3-21-2007 Momentum dies for tax swap

Efforts to cut the state's grocery tax in half and raise the tax on cigarettes have all but ended in the Legislature, two top supporters of the proposal said Wednesday.

House Speaker Billy McCoy and Sen. Alan Nunnelee said the Legislature is reluctant to keep the fight going.

Even a last-minute try to place the decision on the Nov. 6 ballot couldn't gain ground in the House, which has championed the swap.

"Right now, the momentum is not out here to make another run at this because we have done it time and again over here in the House," said McCoy, D-Rienzi."

For two years, the Legislature has bandied about halving the 7 percent grocery tax and raising the per-pack cigarette tax from 18 cents to $1.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

All your ideas help the poor with their living costs, but don't do anything to help them become 'unpoor' via more income.

Reducing expendetures IS effectively increasing income. And the reverse is also true. I think a lot of problems with this debate and many people's personal monetary habits is not making this ridiculously simple connection.

Taking the government-mandated overhead out of things it has no business being in like the FDA and birth control and moving to a flat income tax (not that bogus 'fair' sales tax) would increase everyone's effective income except those few who are able to exploit the current system.

But on the flip side, there is just no helping some people not be poor. They have poor spending habits regardless of their income. These are the people that just have to have that $2000 TV as opposed to something that actually increases their personal wealth in a real way. The worst case is when they actually take on debt to get it and not only incure the interest in paying for it but also the depreciation from the TV itself.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. 30% of Americans already pay NO income tax and many of them actually get more money back than they payout.
2. I don't know of a state that taxes food that you would by at the grocery store.
3. Typical American drives 12,000 miles a year. At 20mpg that is 600 gallons of gas a year. At $3 a gallon that is $1800 a YEAR in gas, or about $150 a month. Meaning that gas is actually one of the smallest of our expenses.
4. Not show how much this would change things. How many people who are getting pregnant and having babies out of wedlock are doing so because the cost of birth control is too high?
5. Limiting predatory lending is a good idea in my book. As is getting rid of cash advance places that charge people 5% to cash a check based on their next paycheck, the effect interest rates for these 'loans' are insane.
6. See above
7. See above, plus there are lots of programs to help the poor buy heating fuel and the like.

All your ideas help the poor with their living costs, but don't do anything to help them become 'unpoor' via more income.
Since the idea of the thread is that the rich have to much and the poor to little, in terms of wealth, I would like to see a plan to help the poor make more and truly become unpoor. Sadly it seems that Craig has run for the hills on this topic.

Enlighten yourself by reading the following articles carefullly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/sales.html

In the United states the poor lose 12.4% of their income to payroll taxes, social security and medicaid. This is never refunded to anyone. It is my opinion that this is extremely regressive and that the first 40k of everyone's income should be exempt from this, while higher incomes should cease being exempt.

There are 21 states that place taxes on the sale of food.

$1800/year on gas is a lot. Someone making minimum wage full time would only make 5.15*40*52=$10712/year. Thus gas expenditures according to your figures represent 16.8% of their income. Thus if average fuel economy of used cars doubled, the poor can effectively have 8.4% more money to spend on insulation and other money saving. The problem is there will be a 7-10 year delay between an increase in fuel efficiency of new cars and an increase in efficiency of cars the poor can get their hands on. This is why something needs to be done ASAP, since if the price of gas goes up to $6/gallon, that would come out to $3,600/year on gas, which is more than one third the income of a minimum wage worker. Prices will certainly fluctuate to that high for at least short time periods in some regions during the next ten years unless something substantial is done to shift away from oil dependency. The rich can just shrug off such expenses, while the poor have to go into debt at high interest to cover their increased fuel expenses, even if prices go down afterwards they'll still have the high interest debt to pay off.

Fossil fuel dependency will hurt the poor the most, as they are more sensitive to future price increases and lack the capital to switch to renewables themselves due to higher up front costs.

Also, over the counter birth control will save 2 billion dollars per year, as I stated. http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/otc0201.pdf

 

[Matt1970]

Ok, I usually respond to these types of debates buy asking people what they think is fair tak rate for the rish. They uasually give it some thouhg, and reply with maybe 30%. Hah, do you realize that any income over 500K a year is taxed at close to 50%.

Those who bitch about how the rich have it made and poor me has to flip burgers for a living usually don't have a clue how the market works and. Well, ya know what, you are given a choice in life. Why the hell aren't you making all this money? Oh, I know, you never took the risks that it takes to make that kinda money. Sure, you work hard all week but the ones that make the big $$ usually risk everything they have on the decisions they make on a daily basis.

The remainder of those who make the big bucks, are usualy paid by thier performance. How would you like it if you made a course changing decision that make a company 50,000,000 in profit and at the end of the week you are handed a $500 paycheck?

Also, the rich don't just whord all the money and take baths in it or whatever. They spend it. They buy big houses, cars, boats, funiture, all pumping money back into the economy and back into the pockets of those guys making the boats and the cars and the houses. That's how the economy works. Get your piece of the pie and stop bitching about how bad things are for you while sitting on your couch not even looking for a frekin job.

 

[voodoodrul]

Just show me one person that has truly worked their way up to several hundred million dollars..

Remember this - Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have more money than you will ever see.

It's almost entirely luck to land the big bucks. It's not about how much you are willing to risk or some other ego-centric chatter. It's about the position in life you are handed and what you do with that. You could not start another Microsoft today. You could not enter the automotive industry. You could not start another Walmart.. But the next big thing to happen will be pure luck for the people in that position.

Bill Gates isn't a brilliant man. He happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and surrounded himself by the right people after stealing his first marketable product. If Bill was in his 20s today and started with no investment capital, I have no doubt he would be a cash-strapped student taking accounting and finance courses only to find himself behind a desk for decades afterwards just trying to pay bills.

So I guess you just accept it if it's livable. And remember that it is human nature that created this whole situation. When it is no longer livable and you feel you have nothing to lose, the top 5% will have to listen.. Through force.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Matt1970
Ok, I usually respond to these types of debates buy asking people what they think is fair tak rate for the rish. They uasually give it some thouhg, and reply with maybe 30%. Hah, do you realize that any income over 500K a year is taxed at close to 50%.

Those who bitch about how the rich have it made and poor me has to flip burgers for a living usually don't have a clue how the market works and. Well, ya know what, you are given a choice in life. Why the hell aren't you making all this money? Oh, I know, you never took the risks that it takes to make that kinda money. Sure, you work hard all week but the ones that make the big $$ usually risk everything they have on the decisions they make on a daily basis.

The remainder of those who make the big bucks, are usualy paid by thier performance. How would you like it if you made a course changing decision that make a company 50,000,000 in profit and at the end of the week you are handed a $500 paycheck?

Also, the rich don't just whord all the money and take baths in it or whatever. They spend it. They buy big houses, cars, boats, funiture, all pumping money back into the economy and back into the pockets of those guys making the boats and the cars and the houses. That's how the economy works. Get your piece of the pie and stop bitching about how bad things are for you while sitting on your couch not even looking for a frekin job.

So first they work hard, but don't take risks, then they are too lazy to get off the couch and get a job.

When one person makes a course-changing decision, and the result is millions in profit, does the credit all accrue to the person who made the decision? None of it goes to the staff who put in the long hours to execute the course of action, and whose jobs were part of the 'risk' that the decision maker decided to take?

Success stories are great. Most that are more than 'modest' have a lot of dirt behind them, but when you pretty them up, they make nice mythology. But limited class mobility does not mean there is no class system.

You have an extremely narrow view of how things should work, which apprently lines up exactly with how they do work.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
Just show me one person that has truly worked their way up to several hundred million dollars..

Remember this - Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have more money than you will ever see.

It's almost entirely luck to land the big bucks. It's not about how much you are willing to risk or some other ego-centric chatter. It's about the position in life you are handed and what you do with that. You could not start another Microsoft today. You could not enter the automotive industry. You could not start another Walmart.. But the next big thing to happen will be pure luck for the people in that position.

Bill Gates isn't a brilliant man. He happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and surrounded himself by the right people after stealing his first marketable product. If Bill was in his 20s today and started with no investment capital, I have no doubt he would be a cash-strapped student taking accounting and finance courses only to find himself behind a desk for decades afterwards just trying to pay bills.

So I guess you just accept it if it's livable. And remember that it is human nature that created this whole situation. When it is no longer livable and you feel you have nothing to lose, the top 5% will have to listen.. Through force.

I'll ignore the celebrities, pro athletes and trust fund babies...

Michael Dell - Started out by building/fixing computers in his dorm
Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page - Google
Sam Walton - Founder of Wal-Mart
Bill Gates - Duh
Jim Clark - Founder of Silicon Graphics, Netscape, MyCFO and others - Holds the record for starting the most companies that reached $1 billion in cap value
Phil Knight - Founder of Nike - Made shoe soles on a waffle iron while track coach at U of Oregon
Bill Clinton - The man from Hope
Harland Sanders - Kentucky Fried Chicken
John Schnatter - Papa John's Pizza
William Hewlett, Tom Packard - HP Founders
Dave Thomas - Wendy's Founder
Andrew Carnegie
Chad Hurley - YouTube
Ty Warner - Started by selling toys - Founded Ty Inc. (Beanie Babies)
Noel Lee - Monster Cable founder
Sam Runco - Runco Projectors
Pat Croce - Owned a gym. Wound up president of the 76'ers


Of course there is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time. But you still have to act on it. None of the people listed above came from a wealthy background. Many of them are true rags to riches success stories. And I wouldn't dismiss them all as being "lucky." I wouldn't dismiss any of them as lucky. Do you think that John Schnatter was lucky? The guy sold his car so he could buy an oven and sell pizzas out of the back of his dad's pub. Phil Knight was making shoes on his waffle iron. They worked their asses off to get their companies started. Jim Clark was a high school drop out who managed get a masters in physics and went on to found a string of companies.

These are people who used their talents and ambitions to make TONS of money. There are litterally thousands of other people who aren't as famous who managed to so the same thing. I sat next to one all last week.

It absolutely can be done. It has been done. So many times you wouldn't believe it. Will everyone do it? Is it easy? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
Just show me one person that has truly worked their way up to several hundred million dollars..

Remember this - Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have more money than you will ever see.

It's almost entirely luck to land the big bucks. It's not about how much you are willing to risk or some other ego-centric chatter. It's about the position in life you are handed and what you do with that. You could not start another Microsoft today. You could not enter the automotive industry. You could not start another Walmart.. But the next big thing to happen will be pure luck for the people in that position.

Bill Gates isn't a brilliant man. He happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and surrounded himself by the right people after stealing his first marketable product. If Bill was in his 20s today and started with no investment capital, I have no doubt he would be a cash-strapped student taking accounting and finance courses only to find himself behind a desk for decades afterwards just trying to pay bills.

So I guess you just accept it if it's livable. And remember that it is human nature that created this whole situation. When it is no longer livable and you feel you have nothing to lose, the top 5% will have to listen.. Through force.

I'll ignore the celebrities, pro athletes and trust fund babies...

Michael Dell - Started out by building/fixing computers in his dorm
Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page - Google
Sam Walton - Founder of Wal-Mart
Bill Gates - Duh
Jim Clark - Founder of Silicon Graphics, Netscape, MyCFO and others - Holds the record for starting the most companies that reached $1 billion in cap value
Phil Knight - Founder of Nike - Made shoe soles on a waffle iron while track coach at U of Oregon
Bill Clinton - The man from Hope
Harland Sanders - Kentucky Fried Chicken
John Schnatter - Papa John's Pizza
William Hewlett, Tom Packard - HP Founders
Dave Thomas - Wendy's Founder
Andrew Carnegie
Chad Hurley - YouTube

Of course there is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time. But you still have to act on it. None of the people listed above came from a wealthy background. Many of them are true rags to riches success stories. And I wouldn't dismiss them all as being "lucky." I wouldn't dismiss any of them as lucky. Do you think that John Schnatter was lucky? The guy sold his car so he could buy an oven and sell pizzas out of the back of his dad's pub. Phil Knight was making shoes on his waffle iron. They worked their asses off to get their companies started. Jim Clark was a high school drop out who managed get a masters in physics and went on to found a string of companies.

These are people who used their talents and ambitions to make TONS of money. There are litterally thousands of other people who aren't as famous who managed to so the same thing. I sat next to one all last week.

It absolutely can be done. It has been done. So many times you wouldn't believe it. Will everyone do it? Is it easy? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Please explain the difference between John Schnatter and a million other people who make their own pizza. I mean Tom on desperate housewives started a pizza place, and he doesn't seem to be a billionaire yet

No one with half a brain will discount work as a contributing factor to success. But that doesn't mean discounting luck is valid. I've eaten better pizza than you can buy at any chain, and seen the restaurant go broke because road construction ruined access to a location they were tied to by a long lease. Is there no element of luck in this?

Delusions are not always harmful, but they're always delusions, and as long as you believe that hard work alone separates the rich from the merely comfortable, you are deluded.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: voodoodrul
Just show me one person that has truly worked their way up to several hundred million dollars..

Remember this - Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have more money than you will ever see.

It's almost entirely luck to land the big bucks. It's not about how much you are willing to risk or some other ego-centric chatter. It's about the position in life you are handed and what you do with that. You could not start another Microsoft today. You could not enter the automotive industry. You could not start another Walmart.. But the next big thing to happen will be pure luck for the people in that position.

Bill Gates isn't a brilliant man. He happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and surrounded himself by the right people after stealing his first marketable product. If Bill was in his 20s today and started with no investment capital, I have no doubt he would be a cash-strapped student taking accounting and finance courses only to find himself behind a desk for decades afterwards just trying to pay bills.

So I guess you just accept it if it's livable. And remember that it is human nature that created this whole situation. When it is no longer livable and you feel you have nothing to lose, the top 5% will have to listen.. Through force.

I'll ignore the celebrities, pro athletes and trust fund babies...

Michael Dell - Started out by building/fixing computers in his dorm
Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, Larry Page - Google
Sam Walton - Founder of Wal-Mart
Bill Gates - Duh
Jim Clark - Founder of Silicon Graphics, Netscape, MyCFO and others - Holds the record for starting the most companies that reached $1 billion in cap value
Phil Knight - Founder of Nike - Made shoe soles on a waffle iron while track coach at U of Oregon
Bill Clinton - The man from Hope
Harland Sanders - Kentucky Fried Chicken
John Schnatter - Papa John's Pizza
William Hewlett, Tom Packard - HP Founders
Dave Thomas - Wendy's Founder
Andrew Carnegie
Chad Hurley - YouTube

Of course there is something to be said about being in the right place at the right time. But you still have to act on it. None of the people listed above came from a wealthy background. Many of them are true rags to riches success stories. And I wouldn't dismiss them all as being "lucky." I wouldn't dismiss any of them as lucky. Do you think that John Schnatter was lucky? The guy sold his car so he could buy an oven and sell pizzas out of the back of his dad's pub. Phil Knight was making shoes on his waffle iron. They worked their asses off to get their companies started. Jim Clark was a high school drop out who managed get a masters in physics and went on to found a string of companies.

These are people who used their talents and ambitions to make TONS of money. There are litterally thousands of other people who aren't as famous who managed to so the same thing. I sat next to one all last week.

It absolutely can be done. It has been done. So many times you wouldn't believe it. Will everyone do it? Is it easy? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Please explain the difference between John Schnatter and a million other people who make their own pizza. I mean Tom on desperate housewives started a pizza place, and he doesn't seem to be a billionaire yet

No one with half a brain will discount work as a contributing factor to success. But that doesn't mean discounting luck is valid. I've eaten better pizza than you can buy at any chain, and seen the restaurant go broke because road construction ruined access to a location they were tied to by a long lease. Is there no element of luck in this?

Delusions are not always harmful, but they're always delusions, and as long as you believe that hard work alone separates the rich from the merely comfortable, you are deluded.

Y'know... the guy asked for examples of people who worked their way up to hundreds of million of dollars from nothing. That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident AND it rarely gets to that point with just that one person. Not everyone's electronics store turns into Best Buy. But so what? That's not the point. The point is that it can and does happen. It IS possible. Are you going to make a billion dollars digging a ditch even though it's harder work than running a company? Of course not. But to say that it never happens or to dismiss it as luck is the height of arrogant pessimism.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Y'know... the guy asked for examples of people who worked their way up to hundreds of million of dollars from nothing. That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident AND it rarely gets to that point with just that one person. Not everyone's electronics store turns into Best Buy. But so what? That's not the point. The point is that it can and does happen. It IS possible. Are you going to make a billion dollars digging a ditch even though it's harder work than running a company? Of course not. But to say that it never happens or to dismiss it as luck is the height of arrogant pessimism.

Of course it happens!

I'm not trying to 'dismiss' these people as being lucky, I'm saying luck was the difference between making maybe a few million dollars, and building an empire.

Hard, intelligent work can get you a nice house, two cars, and a boat (maybe not a yacht, but a boat). But this is not the same as what is available to the upper class. You would have to be a spectacular failure as a Walton to get not-rich. Heck, the Eaton family in Canada was a spectacular failure after daddy, and they're still rich. Limited class mobility does not mean there is really equality of opportunity.

 

[dmcowen674]

Notice there is no sign of ProJo after the serious pwnage.

Nice job guys. :thumbsup:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Y'know... the guy asked for examples of people who worked their way up to hundreds of million of dollars from nothing. That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident AND it rarely gets to that point with just that one person. Not everyone's electronics store turns into Best Buy. But so what? That's not the point. The point is that it can and does happen. It IS possible. Are you going to make a billion dollars digging a ditch even though it's harder work than running a company? Of course not. But to say that it never happens or to dismiss it as luck is the height of arrogant pessimism.

Of course it happens!

I'm not trying to 'dismiss' these people as being lucky, I'm saying luck was the difference between making maybe a few million dollars, and building an empire.

Hard, intelligent work can get you a nice house, two cars, and a boat (maybe not a yacht, but a boat). But this is not the same as what is available to the upper class. You would have to be a spectacular failure as a Walton to get not-rich. Heck, the Eaton family in Canada was a spectacular failure after daddy, and they're still rich. Limited class mobility does not mean there is really equality of opportunity.

I guess I don't get your point. The qustion I answered was "Show me one person who worked their way up to a gazillion dollars." I gave a whole list of people who had done just that. Is your point that not everyone can do that?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Y'know... the guy asked for examples of people who worked their way up to hundreds of million of dollars from nothing. That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident AND it rarely gets to that point with just that one person. Not everyone's electronics store turns into Best Buy. But so what? That's not the point. The point is that it can and does happen. It IS possible. Are you going to make a billion dollars digging a ditch even though it's harder work than running a company? Of course not. But to say that it never happens or to dismiss it as luck is the height of arrogant pessimism.

Of course it happens!

I'm not trying to 'dismiss' these people as being lucky, I'm saying luck was the difference between making maybe a few million dollars, and building an empire.

Hard, intelligent work can get you a nice house, two cars, and a boat (maybe not a yacht, but a boat). But this is not the same as what is available to the upper class. You would have to be a spectacular failure as a Walton to get not-rich. Heck, the Eaton family in Canada was a spectacular failure after daddy, and they're still rich. Limited class mobility does not mean there is really equality of opportunity.

I guess I don't get your point. The qustion I answered was "Show me one person who worked their way up to a gazillion dollars." I gave a whole list of people who had done just that. Is your point that not everyone can do that?

No, the challenge wasn't issued by me, and was silly. My point is that the exceptions don't prove anything. By far the most common way to be very rich is to start out that way. I can point to half a dozen people on this board who show the thinking and argumentation skills needed to be CEOs or high-flying lawyers or whatever. Most of them are actually pretty successful based on what little they reveal about themselves, but statistically none will ever have the opportunity to be really successful, while rich-kids with no more qualification (and in the case of family businesses, often much less qualification) will be handed those opportunities as long as they pass high school.

 

[tcsenter]

Just show me one person that has truly worked their way up to several hundred million dollars..

There are thousands of them:

Jeno Paulucci
Laurence "Larry" Tisch
Sam Zell
Ken Wills
Wayne Huizenga
Ross Perot
Arthur Blank
Richard Branson
Michael Ilitch
Mark Cuban
Danny Gilbert
George Kaiser
Dennis Washington
James Sorenson
Marvin Schwan

Just to name a few....

Check out Forbes 400 and other 'richest' lists some time. A very fair portion of them are self-made billionaires. If you expand your criteria to include multi-millionaires up to $100 million, there are tens of thousands more.

Bill Gates isn't a brilliant man. He happened to be in the right place, at the right time, and surrounded himself by the right people after stealing his first marketable product.

Any 13 year-old kid who was programming General Electric and DEC computers in 1968 was by definition brilliant. There is hardly an analogy to this today where a 13 or 14 year-old is learning (and mastering) technology that is new even to the research departments of universities.

Gates and Allen first formed Traf-O-Data, which was very successful, but Gates was only 14 years old. When it became publicly known that Gates was a minor, companies stopped doing business with them. Microsoft's first marketable product was the Altair emulator and BASIC interpreter for MITS, later to be known as Microsoft BASIC (also a success).

Microsoft legally licensed QDOS from Seattle Computer Products and later purchased it outright, which would become IBM's PC-DOS and later MS-DOS.

In order to find to any 'theft' by Gates or Microsoft, you have to go much later into Microsoft's history, well after Microsoft was already a leading name in software (and Gates was a milionaire a few times over).

You've been watching too much TV.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Y'know... the guy asked for examples of people who worked their way up to hundreds of million of dollars from nothing. That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident AND it rarely gets to that point with just that one person. Not everyone's electronics store turns into Best Buy. But so what? That's not the point. The point is that it can and does happen. It IS possible. Are you going to make a billion dollars digging a ditch even though it's harder work than running a company? Of course not. But to say that it never happens or to dismiss it as luck is the height of arrogant pessimism.

Of course it happens!

I'm not trying to 'dismiss' these people as being lucky, I'm saying luck was the difference between making maybe a few million dollars, and building an empire.

Hard, intelligent work can get you a nice house, two cars, and a boat (maybe not a yacht, but a boat). But this is not the same as what is available to the upper class. You would have to be a spectacular failure as a Walton to get not-rich. Heck, the Eaton family in Canada was a spectacular failure after daddy, and they're still rich. Limited class mobility does not mean there is really equality of opportunity.

I guess I don't get your point. The qustion I answered was "Show me one person who worked their way up to a gazillion dollars." I gave a whole list of people who had done just that. Is your point that not everyone can do that?

No, the challenge wasn't issued by me, and was silly. My point is that the exceptions don't prove anything. By far the most common way to be very rich is to start out that way. I can point to half a dozen people on this board who show the thinking and argumentation skills needed to be CEOs or high-flying lawyers or whatever. Most of them are actually pretty successful based on what little they reveal about themselves, but statistically none will ever have the opportunity to be really successful, while rich-kids with no more qualification (and in the case of family businesses, often much less qualification) will be handed those opportunities as long as they pass high school.

Before we can continue this any further someone has to define what "very rich" means. Are we talking Walton/DuPont/Kennedy rich or do we draw the line at the average millionaire? Or somewhere in between?

You're right if you are talking about being Walton/DuPont/Dow/Kennedy rich. But really, how many of those families are there in the US? Maybe a thousand or so? (I'll ignore the fact for now that the wealth of many of those families was created by someone who didn't start out rich) So why bother to even include them in the conversation? They are statistically irrelevant unless that is the standard you are trying to use in saying that the average Joe can't be "rich" in the US.

If you drop the threshhold down to $100 million (a HUGE amount of money by any standard) there are litterally thousands and thousands of people who have managed to create that kind of wealth. MOST of those people didn't start out rich. Some of them did, sure. But most of them didn't.

If you want to take it down to mere millionaires there are almost 9 million of them in the US as of last year. That's 3% of the US population! Link If you want to get real picky about it and not count their primary home as part of their wealth, the number is still about 4 million. And 80% of them didn't start off rich.

So I don't know. Depending on where you draw the line we're both right/wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic: That seems awfully selfish. I thought you've always said collectivism is the selfless system, yet here you are saying that its motto is demanding that it do for you instead of you doing for it.

M: I did? I thought I said it is the system we evolved with, that it is natural for the individual to care about others, that for example, for there to be an old Neanderthal buried with flowers, people around him supported him long after his natural life span. To do so they made sacrifices.

V: I am not wrong. You failed to understand. Genetics is luck.

M: Well, genetics in not exactly luck. Two black parents very seldom have a white child where as white parents almost always do. So right off the roll is stacked by who your parents are.

Vic: The rest is not luck.

M: I suppose those born on an Indian Reservation achieve in the same proportions as those elsewhere.

V: And for someone who so frequently preaches Buddhist philosophies, what is it with your obsession with materialism? Maybe both twins won at the genetics roulette table, but one of them decided to apply his talents to other life pursuits beyond the materialistic, i.e. be a good father, etc.?? Why is it that your whole appreciation of humanity revolves around whether they are materialistically rich or poor?

M: I am talking to you in the language of the insane.

V: Every game needs rules in order to ensure fair play. You may call them "artificial" all you want, you still can't have the game without them.

M: Why play a game that is created for winners and losers? Why not play a game in which all win by cooperating?

V: As for corporatism, it's problem IMO is that it pretends to put a human face on that (and give human rights to that) which is inhuman. Think calling to complain about a problem with your bill. Good luck getting someone who cares. And why should they? No one has a genuine vested interest in caring. The result of our secure, insulated, safe society is a collectivist system that is psychopathic to the core.

M: What nonsense. The people I call, and I do all the time, care to the point I get almost sick. I get astoundingly good service on the phone.

 

[herm0016]

Let?s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out to dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that?s what they decided to do.

one day the owner said, ?I?m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.?

So now dinner for the ten 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 what about the other six? How could they divide up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six men realized that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody?s bill, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each man?s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid $0 (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $15 instead of $18 (17% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once 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.?

?Yeah, 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 only got $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 man and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn?t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn?t have enough money among them to pay even half the bill.


and that is how our tax system works, like it or not.
source:
http://users.aol.com/fcas/wealthy.html

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Before we can continue this any further someone has to define what "very rich" means. Are we talking Walton/DuPont/Kennedy rich or do we draw the line at the average millionaire? Or somewhere in between?

You're right if you are talking about being Walton/DuPont/Dow/Kennedy rich. But really, how many of those families are there in the US? Maybe a thousand or so? (I'll ignore the fact for now that the wealth of many of those families was created by someone who didn't start out rich) So why bother to even include them in the conversation? They are statistically irrelevant unless that is the standard you are trying to use in saying that the average Joe can't be "rich" in the US.

If you drop the threshhold down to $100 million (a HUGE amount of money by any standard) there are litterally thousands and thousands of people who have managed to create that kind of wealth. MOST of those people didn't start out rich. Some of them did, sure. But most of them didn't.

If you want to take it down to mere millionaires there are almost 9 million of them in the US as of last year. That's 3% of the US population! Link If you want to get real picky about it and not count their primary home as part of their wealth, the number is still about 4 million. And 80% of them didn't start off rich.

So I don't know. Depending on where you draw the line we're both right/wrong.

I already said I wouldn't call a few million dollars 'very rich'. I would probably say 10-20 million dollars, or a total income in the range of a million a year would qualify.

More to the point, I would say anyone whose parents can't foot their college bill is at a severe disadvantage in terms of ever turning their hard work into 'success'. Is it impossible? No. But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: herm0016
Let?s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out to dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that?s what they decided to do.

one day the owner said, ?I?m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.?

So now dinner for the ten 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 what about the other six? How could they divide up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The six men realized that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody?s bill, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each man?s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid $0 (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $15 instead of $18 (17% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once 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.?

?Yeah, 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 only got $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 man and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn?t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn?t have enough money among them to pay even half the bill.


and that is how our tax system works, like it or not.
source:
http://users.aol.com/fcas/wealthy.html

What a bunch of dumbos eating out like that. They should have made stone soup.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Notice there is no sign of ProJo after the serious pwnage.

Nice job guys. :thumbsup:

As I said, and you even quoted me "I don't know of a state that taxes food that you would by at the grocery store."
Now you found a state that does tax groceries, which I find rather obscene. We should not be paying taxes on basic food like bread, milk etc.
I have no problem with taxing prepared food, but not the stuff you grab off the shelf and make yourself.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I already said I wouldn't call a few million dollars 'very rich'. I would probably say 10-20 million dollars, or a total income in the range of a million a year would qualify.

More to the point, I would say anyone whose parents can't foot their college bill is at a severe disadvantage in terms of ever turning their hard work into 'success'. Is it impossible? No. But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over.

What will it take to convince you that people can start with nothing and still end up very rich?

But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over

Explain the following people?s wealth then:
Tom Monaghan of Domino?s Pizza. After his father died he was put into a children?s home.
Dave Thomas founder of Wendy?s. Dave was an orphan raised by adoptive parents. He got his start at KFC where he turned four stores around, sold them at great profit and started his first Wendy?s. (Dave didn?t even have a high school diploma until 1993. He was named most likely to succeed by his class.)
Wayne Huizenga of Waste Management, Blockbuster and Auto Nation. Started with one truck and built an empire, had NO help from his family 100% self made.
Mark Cuban owner of the Dallas Mavericks. In July of 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender while living with five roommates in a three bedroom apartment. (Obvously his rich family must have helped him get his start huh?) He went from salesperson to business owner to billionare.

Yes there was an element of luck in each of their cases, but they got there through hard work and dedication and by taking risks. Everyone of them started their own business when it would have been safer to go work for someone else.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Before we can continue this any further someone has to define what "very rich" means. Are we talking Walton/DuPont/Kennedy rich or do we draw the line at the average millionaire? Or somewhere in between?

You're right if you are talking about being Walton/DuPont/Dow/Kennedy rich. But really, how many of those families are there in the US? Maybe a thousand or so? (I'll ignore the fact for now that the wealth of many of those families was created by someone who didn't start out rich) So why bother to even include them in the conversation? They are statistically irrelevant unless that is the standard you are trying to use in saying that the average Joe can't be "rich" in the US.

If you drop the threshhold down to $100 million (a HUGE amount of money by any standard) there are litterally thousands and thousands of people who have managed to create that kind of wealth. MOST of those people didn't start out rich. Some of them did, sure. But most of them didn't.

If you want to take it down to mere millionaires there are almost 9 million of them in the US as of last year. That's 3% of the US population! Link If you want to get real picky about it and not count their primary home as part of their wealth, the number is still about 4 million. And 80% of them didn't start off rich.

So I don't know. Depending on where you draw the line we're both right/wrong.

I already said I wouldn't call a few million dollars 'very rich'. I would probably say 10-20 million dollars, or a total income in the range of a million a year would qualify.

More to the point, I would say anyone whose parents can't foot their college bill is at a severe disadvantage in terms of ever turning their hard work into 'success'. Is it impossible? No. But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over.

Now that I can agree with. A kid born in the ghetto to a crack-whore will not have the same opportunites presented to him as a kid born in the suburbs.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Before we can continue this any further someone has to define what "very rich" means. Are we talking Walton/DuPont/Kennedy rich or do we draw the line at the average millionaire? Or somewhere in between?

You're right if you are talking about being Walton/DuPont/Dow/Kennedy rich. But really, how many of those families are there in the US? Maybe a thousand or so? (I'll ignore the fact for now that the wealth of many of those families was created by someone who didn't start out rich) So why bother to even include them in the conversation? They are statistically irrelevant unless that is the standard you are trying to use in saying that the average Joe can't be "rich" in the US.

If you drop the threshhold down to $100 million (a HUGE amount of money by any standard) there are litterally thousands and thousands of people who have managed to create that kind of wealth. MOST of those people didn't start out rich. Some of them did, sure. But most of them didn't.

If you want to take it down to mere millionaires there are almost 9 million of them in the US as of last year. That's 3% of the US population! Link If you want to get real picky about it and not count their primary home as part of their wealth, the number is still about 4 million. And 80% of them didn't start off rich.

So I don't know. Depending on where you draw the line we're both right/wrong.

I already said I wouldn't call a few million dollars 'very rich'. I would probably say 10-20 million dollars, or a total income in the range of a million a year would qualify.

More to the point, I would say anyone whose parents can't foot their college bill is at a severe disadvantage in terms of ever turning their hard work into 'success'. Is it impossible? No. But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over.

Now that I can agree with. A kid born in the ghetto to a crack-whore will not have the same opportunites presented to him as a kid born in the suburbs.

This is all I've been trying to say - the implication though, is that as income disparity grows, so does opportunity disparity.

For any one person who pisses their life away, I have little sympathy. But if equality of opportunity shrinks over time, I think there's a real problem.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I already said I wouldn't call a few million dollars 'very rich'. I would probably say 10-20 million dollars, or a total income in the range of a million a year would qualify.

More to the point, I would say anyone whose parents can't foot their college bill is at a severe disadvantage in terms of ever turning their hard work into 'success'. Is it impossible? No. But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over.

What will it take to convince you that people can start with nothing and still end up very rich?

But your opportunity is a sliding scale based on your initial economic and social status, which you have no control over

Explain the following people?s wealth then:
Tom Monaghan of Domino?s Pizza. After his father died he was put into a children?s home.
Dave Thomas founder of Wendy?s. Dave was an orphan raised by adoptive parents. He got his start at KFC where he turned four stores around, sold them at great profit and started his first Wendy?s. (Dave didn?t even have a high school diploma until 1993. He was named most likely to succeed by his class.)
Wayne Huizenga of Waste Management, Blockbuster and Auto Nation. Started with one truck and built an empire, had NO help from his family 100% self made.
Mark Cuban owner of the Dallas Mavericks. In July of 1982, Cuban moved to Dallas, Texas. Cuban first found work as a bartender while living with five roommates in a three bedroom apartment. (Obvously his rich family must have helped him get his start huh?) He went from salesperson to business owner to billionare.

Yes there was an element of luck in each of their cases, but they got there through hard work and dedication and by taking risks. Everyone of them started their own business when it would have been safer to go work for someone else.

I don't want to go as far as to say 'the exception proves the rule', but these people are exceptions.

Good fortune doesn't mean you aren't 'self made', it means most people in your position of potential don't get where you do.