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

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

Here is your elitist's slapping every hard working American in the face.

Why do you hate America and why are you here???

Shut up, moron.

Here's a guy who just bought and sold a business but he'd have you believe that he's a member of the poor downtrodden class... :roll:

Who sold a business???

Oh, that's right... you were just incompetent as a business owner and put all your employees out of work...

Which was family. We were lied to and lost life's savings plus $20,000 in secured debt including my Van and trailer which was paid for.

We are edge of being out on the street with nothing. No house, no cars, nothing.

Try again.

Please, save yourself and your family some money.

Cancel your internet service.

Do everybody a favor.

I'm sure that would make your life. Sad

 

[Jhhnn]

Mighty fine spin, ProfJohn, mighty fine indeed. Expressing tax reductions as a % of taxes paid is extremely disingenuous.

If I started out paying 2% in taxes, and got a taxcut amounting to 1% of my income, you'd call that a 50% reduction, right?

And if I started out at a 20% tax rate, and got a taxcut amounting to 10% of my income, that'd still be 50%, right?

Fits right in with this-

"However, if you want to look at it your way...
The bottom 50% went from 4.3% to 2.9% or a 1.4% tax cut.
All tax payers as a whole went from 12.9% to 12.1% or a .8% tax cut.
Which means the tax cut for the bottom 50% was double that for all tax payers as a whole."

All true, and completely meaningless wrt the topic at hand, which really references the top 1%, and more importantly, the top .01%.

Thanks to Repub administration, the top 1% received taxcuts amounting to somewhere between 3.5% and 5.7% of income, depending on the year in question. In dollar amounts, that's 1/3 of the total taxcuts, and on the percentages, ~3 times what the lower 50% received...

The average taxcut for the bottom quintile in 2006 was $68, while it was $51,745 for the top 1%. Those in the 20-40% range and 40-60% range fared a little better, with cuts of $399 and $668, respectively... The top 1% got a bigger tax cut than the total income of those at the 60% mark...

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

Too many numbers? It's been going on since the beginning of the Reagan era, with occasional respite during the Clinton years...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Mighty fine spin, ProfJohn, mighty fine indeed. Expressing tax reductions as a % of taxes paid is extremely disingenuous.

{edit}

Thanks to Repub administration, the top 1% received taxcuts amounting to somewhere between 3.5% and 5.7% of income, depending on the year in question. In dollar amounts, that's 1/3 of the total taxcuts, and on the percentages, ~3 times what the lower 50% received...

Since you are so keen on pointing out the amount of tax cuts recieved by the rich in dollar terms please explain away the following...
link 1
In 2000 29.9 million people paid NO income tax at all.
In 2003 it is estimated that 39.5 million people will pay NO income tax at all.
That is an increase in the number of poor people not paying taxes by 10 million.
This means that nearly 30% of all tax filers in the country pay NO taxes at all.

So while in pure dollar terms these 10 million people may have only got a few hundred dollars in tax cuts a piece.
However they are no longer paying any taxes. How do you express going from paying say $500 a year in taxes to paying $0 in percentages?

And once again let me remind you...
Post all the numbers you want about how the rich recieved a bigger tax cut in dollar terms the fact still remains that from 2000 to 2004 the total share of income taxes paid by the top 20% went from 81% to 85%. While the percent paid by the bottom 40% went from 0% to -4%.
info is right here
When you are paying NO taxes to begin with, how do expect to get a tax cut?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Mighty fine spin, ProfJohn, mighty fine indeed. Expressing tax reductions as a % of taxes paid is extremely disingenuous.

{edit}

Thanks to Repub administration, the top 1% received taxcuts amounting to somewhere between 3.5% and 5.7% of income, depending on the year in question. In dollar amounts, that's 1/3 of the total taxcuts, and on the percentages, ~3 times what the lower 50% received...

Since you are so keen on pointing out the amount of tax cuts recieved by the rich in dollar terms please explain away the following...
link 1
In 2000 29.9 million people paid NO income tax at all.
In 2003 it is estimated that 39.5 million people will pay NO income tax at all.
That is an increase in the number of poor people not paying taxes by 10 million.
This means that nearly 30% of all tax filers in the country pay NO taxes at all.

So while in pure dollar terms these 10 million people may have only got a few hundred dollars in tax cuts a piece.
However they are no longer paying any taxes. How do you express going from paying say $500 a year in taxes to paying $0 in percentages?

And once again let me remind you...
Post all the numbers you want about how the rich recieved a bigger tax cut in dollar terms the fact still remains that from 2000 to 2004 the total share of income taxes paid by the top 20% went from 81% to 85%. While the percent paid by the bottom 40% went from 0% to -4%.
info is right here
When you are paying NO taxes to begin with, how do expect to get a tax cut?

Those numbers are included.

In other news, total tax burden is much flatter across low-medium incomes than you give credit for, because of sales taxes, property taxes, etc. So it is a specious argument to include only income taxes in your assessment, when you are going to use the word 'no' in all-caps.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

If one decides to use a fraction of that $10-20/hour to better oneself, it is not all that hard to move up in the world.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

If one decides to use a fraction of that $10-20/hour to better oneself, it is not all that hard to move up in the world.

Working is necessary for most, though not for all, but it isn't enough. You will never become 'wealthy' working for $20/hour.

Of course the myth that there is some direct link between working hard and high levels of financial success is very importnat to keeping the system going.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That's easy: Work smarter, not harder.

Step 1)
However long it takes you to save up and go to four years of college - or more. (please do not forget about the Federal Aid, grants, military service, etc that would dramatically lower those costs).

Once you've gone to college and obtained a marketable degree, you can then apply for jobs that will pay you more.... neat trick, eh? Just make sure you pick an area of study that has financial potential (ie. not the History of Lava Lamps 101 or Bongcrafting 420)

Step 2)
With your newly earned degree(s), move to a location with a very large job market. *Note: matching your degrees to the job market would be a swell idea

Step 3)
Start working your way up the corporate ladder...OR start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

Step 4)
Live below your means, and avoid debt. The only acceptable form of debt, at this point, are student loans. Any other debts are an indication that you are not being fiscally responsible with your current level of income.

Step 5)
rinse and repeat until you are wealthy - or until you find a nice middle ground where you feel comfortable.

BONUS Points: Encourage your spouse to do the same. *gasp*

got it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That's easy: Work smarter, not harder.

Step 1)
However long it takes you to save up and go to four years of college - or more. (please do not forget about the Federal Aid, grants, military service, etc that would dramatically lower those costs).

Once you've gone to college and obtained a marketable degree, you can then apply for jobs that will pay you more.... neat trick, eh? Just make sure you pick an area of study that has financial potential (ie. not the History of Lava Lamps 101 or Bongcrafting 420)

Step 2)
With your newly earned degree(s), move to a location with a very large job market. *Note: matching your degrees to the job market would be a swell idea

Step 3)
Start working your way up the corporate ladder...OR start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

Step 4)
rinse and repeat until you are wealthy - or until you find a nice middle ground where you feel comfortable.

BONUS Points: Encourage your spouse to do the same. *gasp*

got it?

Step 3)
start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

That's "Government/Corporate" welfare.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That's easy: Work smarter, not harder.

Step 1)
However long it takes you to save up and go to four years of college - or more. (please do not forget about the Federal Aid, grants, military service, etc that would dramatically lower those costs).

Once you've gone to college and obtained a marketable degree, you can then apply for jobs that will pay you more.... neat trick, eh? Just make sure you pick an area of study that has financial potential (ie. not the History of Lava Lamps 101 or Bongcrafting 420)

Step 2)
With your newly earned degree(s), move to a location with a very large job market. *Note: matching your degrees to the job market would be a swell idea

Step 3)
Start working your way up the corporate ladder...OR start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

Step 4)
Live below your means, and avoid debt. The only acceptable form of debt, at this point, are student loans. Any other debts are an indication that you are not being fiscally responsible with your current level of income.

Step 5)
rinse and repeat until you are wealthy - or until you find a nice middle ground where you feel comfortable.

BONUS Points: Encourage your spouse to do the same. *gasp*

got it?

Step 3)
start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

That's "Government/Corporate" welfare.

Oh shut up Dave. We all know you just had a business collapse under your control, so the last thing anyone needs around here is business advice from you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Frantic handwaving and obfuscation form the Rightwing, as usual. Don't look at the top 1%, especially not at the top .01%- avoid the thread topic entirely, if possible. Instead, dither around about how the lowest quintile rarely pays federal income taxes anymore, thanks to the ~$68 Bush taxcut. BFD- they paid more than that in sales tax. more in excise tax. a lot more in employment taxes.

Work harder? sure, that'll close the gap between the average income of ~40K and the average of the top 1%, ~$1.4M... reaching the top .01% should be a cakewalk, right? They only take in more in a month than the average worker takes in over a lifetime... yeh, hard work will get you there, no doubt about it...

Over a third of the total monetary value of the Bush cuts go to the top 1%. Reagan era taxcuts were structured much the same. Distribution within the top 1% follows that of the whole, with those at the very, very top receiving the lion's share of benefits. Can't figure out why the wealthy are getting wealthier at an accelerating rate, leaving the rest of us in the dust? If you can't, it's because your brain has been addled by rightwing thinktank agitprop, paid for by that same top .01%....

Not to mention what taxcuts and increased repub sponsored spending do to the longterm fiscal outlook for the Nation. The top echelons won't need SS when they get old- they'll have US govt securities, lots of them, bought with taxcut savings, serviced with taxes collected from the rest of us...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Frantic handwaving and obfuscation form the Rightwing, as usual. Don't look at the top 1%, especially not at the top .01%- avoid the thread topic entirely, if possible. Instead, dither around about how the lowest quintile rarely pays federal income taxes anymore, thanks to the ~$68 Bush taxcut. BFD- they paid more than that in sales tax. more in excise tax. a lot more in employment taxes.

Work harder? sure, that'll close the gap between the average income of ~40K and the average of the top 1%, ~$1.4M... reaching the top .01% should be a cakewalk, right? They only take in more in a month than the average worker takes in over a lifetime... yeh, hard work will get you there, no doubt about it...

Over a third of the total monetary value of the Bush cuts go to the top 1%. Reagan era taxcuts were structured much the same. Distribution within the top 1% follows that of the whole, with those at the very, very top receiving the lion's share of benefits. Can't figure out why the wealthy are getting wealthier at an accelerating rate, leaving the rest of us in the dust? If you can't, it's because your brain has been addled by rightwing thinktank agitprop, paid for by that same top .01%....

Not to mention what taxcuts and increased repub sponsored spending do to the longterm fiscal outlook for the Nation. The top echelons won't need SS when they get old- they'll have US govt securities, lots of them, bought with taxcut savings, serviced with taxes collected from the rest of us...

What a sad and twisted way to look at the world... somebody give this little girl a tissue.

(Since you choose to ignore the actual numbers and would rather go straight for the emotional jugular, I figured I'd return the favor)

typical.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Step 3)
start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

That's "Government/Corporate" welfare.

Keeping power with many individuals instead of with a government dictator? I like the sound of that. Money breeds corruption, do you want that corruption and power centralized in your government?

It wasn?t a corporation who gave us the Patriot Act, it was Washington DC. It isn?t finished and you?re enabling it. Dissolve its power while you can still do it peacefully.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Oh shut up Dave. We all know you just had a business collapse under your control, so the last thing anyone needs around here is business advice from you.

You don't know the details of the "collapse". It had nothing to do with my control.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That's easy: Work smarter, not harder.

Step 1)
However long it takes you to save up and go to four years of college - or more. (please do not forget about the Federal Aid, grants, military service, etc that would dramatically lower those costs).

Once you've gone to college and obtained a marketable degree, you can then apply for jobs that will pay you more.... neat trick, eh? Just make sure you pick an area of study that has financial potential (ie. not the History of Lava Lamps 101 or Bongcrafting 420)

Step 2)
With your newly earned degree(s), move to a location with a very large job market. *Note: matching your degrees to the job market would be a swell idea

Step 3)
Start working your way up the corporate ladder...OR start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

Step 4)
Live below your means, and avoid debt. The only acceptable form of debt, at this point, are student loans. Any other debts are an indication that you are not being fiscally responsible with your current level of income.

Step 5)
rinse and repeat until you are wealthy - or until you find a nice middle ground where you feel comfortable.

BONUS Points: Encourage your spouse to do the same. *gasp*

got it?

I didn't ask for advice.

I come from somewhere around the bottom of the top quartile, and I've been to school, have a degree, and occasionally apply it to my job. But I didn't have to save for years to go to school, in fact, I didn't pay for school at all. When I needed a summer job, I had the connections to get $20/hr summer employment while my friends all worked for $9-12. It's not that I wasn't qualified for the jobs, but so were lots of other people who never had the opportunity to apply. This is how a lot of the world works.

I like what I do, and the opportunity is there for me to turn it into a business and a career, but only because when I need the startup money to do it, my parents will be more willing than any bank to provide it.

My boss at the moment is the epitome of what hard work, intelligence, and a lack of bad luck can bring you, and that's less than $200k a year, working 60+++ hours a week. I respect him for what he's accomplished, and he's certainly doing 'well', but he's not 'rich'. You do not get rich unless you are born that way, or have a windfall.

It's certainly true that without work you are unlikely to advance yourself, but your story leaves a lot out, and it does it intentionally.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: palehorse74
blah blah blah please give more of your money to those who have not earned it blah blah blah.

"Return more of the money to those who earn it"would be more like it!

So you're saying we should cut taxes...?

pwned.

well done!

When the wealthy write the rules, it becomes unclear that the person who 'earns' income ends up with it.

solution: work harder to become wealthy yourself.

now, I know the whole "work" thing confuses some people... so GL!

I work longer and harder than most people on these boards, accountants at tax time not included.

What you say is, however, not a solution. Please tell me how many hours one would need to work at $10-20/hr to become wealthy.

That's easy: Work smarter, not harder.

Step 1)
However long it takes you to save up and go to four years of college - or more. (please do not forget about the Federal Aid, grants, military service, etc that would dramatically lower those costs).

Once you've gone to college and obtained a marketable degree, you can then apply for jobs that will pay you more.... neat trick, eh? Just make sure you pick an area of study that has financial potential (ie. not the History of Lava Lamps 101 or Bongcrafting 420)

Step 2)
With your newly earned degree(s), move to a location with a very large job market. *Note: matching your degrees to the job market would be a swell idea

Step 3)
Start working your way up the corporate ladder...OR start your own business through the use of grants/loans and/or venture capital.

Step 4)
Live below your means, and avoid debt. The only acceptable form of debt, at this point, are student loans. Any other debts are an indication that you are not being fiscally responsible with your current level of income.

Step 5)
rinse and repeat until you are wealthy - or until you find a nice middle ground where you feel comfortable.

BONUS Points: Encourage your spouse to do the same. *gasp*

got it?

I didn't ask for advice.

I come from somewhere around the bottom of the top quartile, and I've been to school, have a degree, and occasionally apply it to my job. But I didn't have to save for years to go to school, in fact, I didn't pay for school at all. When I needed a summer job, I had the connections to get $20/hr summer employment while my friends all worked for $9-12. It's not that I wasn't qualified for the jobs, but so were lots of other people who never had the opportunity to apply. This is how a lot of the world works.

I like what I do, and the opportunity is there for me to turn it into a business and a career, but only because when I need the startup money to do it, my parents will be more willing than any bank to provide it.

My boss at the moment is the epitome of what hard work, intelligence, and a lack of bad luck can bring you, and that's less than $200k a year, working 60+++ hours a week. I respect him for what he's accomplished, and he's certainly doing 'well', but he's not 'rich'. You do not get rich unless you are born that way, or have a windfall.

It's certainly true that without work you are unlikely to advance yourself, but your story leaves a lot out, and it does it intentionally.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy into all of that defeatists bullsh*t...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm sorry, I just don't buy into all of that defeatists bullsh*t...

I'm sorry, but you're denying the way the world works. It's much more profitable for the very wealthy if you think you can become one of them though. Personally I work hard because I like my job, I like my boss, and I wouldn't be at all opposed to being a partner or starting my own business, but I need more knowledge about my business before I can do that. If you want to work hard because of a myth that one day you, too, will have a yacht, go right ahead, it's not bothering me.

An extremely capable person, coming from nothing, can reach moderate levels of success without some sort of windfall. More people go from zero to multi-millionaire playing sports or winning the lottery than working hard.

How are you going to define 'becoming wealthy' I would say at least $2-3 million in net assets and probably $300k a year income as an absolute minimum, and that's not really 'wealthy' by the standards of the rich.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

The why is efficiency. Because you could work hard at something that has no benefit to society. You could spend all day every day digging a hole only to fill it back up again. Why should society reward you for that no matter how hard you worked?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

The why is efficiency. Because you could work hard at something that has no benefit to society. You could spend all day every day digging a hole only to fill it back up again. Why should society reward you for that no matter how hard you worked?

People are not paid for what they produce, they're paid for how expensive they are to replace.

The only industry where the available replacement labour is already producing the same thing is sports, and it is coincidentally the only industry that tends to pay people what they are worth (note: this is not to suggest that most labour produces millions, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in value per year). Even athletes only started being paid what they are worth when they unionized (long after the teams/leagues had tied themselves up in collusion).

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

The why is efficiency. Because you could work hard at something that has no benefit to society. You could spend all day every day digging a hole only to fill it back up again. Why should society reward you for that no matter how hard you worked?

That would hold true if you are on your own, but what about all the people who are working for others, doing services that need to be done.

People who have worked hard and long for a successful, expanding business should benifit from their hard work too. It seems to me that instead, those companies would rather dump their senior workers in favor of younger, healthier, workers and start them at the bottom of the wage/benifit package.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

The why is efficiency. Because you could work hard at something that has no benefit to society. You could spend all day every day digging a hole only to fill it back up again. Why should society reward you for that no matter how hard you worked?

People are not paid for what they produce, they're paid for how expensive they are to replace.

The only industry where the available replacement labour is already producing the same thing is sports, and it is coincidentally the only industry that tends to pay people what they are worth (note: this is not to suggest that most labour produces millions, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in value per year). Even athletes only started being paid what they are worth when they unionized (long after the teams/leagues had tied themselves up in collusion).

If you do nothing efficient, then you are easily replaceable.

Athletes are grossly overpaid, that entire industry being unnecessarily subsidized by government monies from various sources.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

What a load of crap.

Now, Im not saying EVERYONE will be multi-millionaires if they work hard, but dont fool yourselves in thinking that non-inherited wealth is easily attainable. It requires decades of 60-100 hour work weeks. It requires discipline that frankly most of us dont have. Many people who attain this wealth do so at the expense of family and friends.

That said...

It is absolute IGNORANCE that people retire broke. There are two ways to get financially comfortable: alot of money and a little time, or a little money and alot of time. Most of us fall into the latter category. If we taught our children the power of investing and compund interest at an early age, we would be much better off. I was VERY fortunate that I learned when I was in my early 20's, working as a waiter, taking home 150/week. I always found a way to put away at least $25/mo. Not doing so is pure laziness. Saving is a habit, not luck.

Let me give you an example: $50/mo thrown into a mediocre mutual fund, yielding 12% per year (which is very very common) over 35 years will net you over $328,000. That doesnt include putting away a percentage of gifts, or lump sums every now and then.

The bottem line is...it is no ones responsibility to secure your financial future EXCEPT YOU. Not doing so is also YOUR CHOICE. Quit making excuses how its the Repub's or Dem's fault. IT'S YOURS.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

The why is efficiency. Because you could work hard at something that has no benefit to society. You could spend all day every day digging a hole only to fill it back up again. Why should society reward you for that no matter how hard you worked?

People are not paid for what they produce, they're paid for how expensive they are to replace.

The only industry where the available replacement labour is already producing the same thing is sports, and it is coincidentally the only industry that tends to pay people what they are worth (note: this is not to suggest that most labour produces millions, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in value per year). Even athletes only started being paid what they are worth when they unionized (long after the teams/leagues had tied themselves up in collusion).

If you do nothing efficient, then you are easily replaceable.

Athletes are grossly overpaid, that entire industry being unnecessarily subsidized by government monies from various sources.

Well, the stadiums tend to be freebies from states/cities who want the prestige and perceived tourism boost.

Athletes are not really overpaid when you consider ticket prices, merchandise, etc, all based on people wanting to see their skill demonstrated.

At least you didn't call them greedy though

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

That all depends on the decisions made. Hard work may not guarantee wealth, but not working will guarantee poverty.

Right here is where I have a problem with the system. If you can't achieve finacial security via hard work, then why work hard? So you can go to an early grave??

Been there, done that.

What a load of crap.

Now, Im not saying EVERYONE will be multi-millionaires if they work hard, but dont fool yourselves in thinking that non-inherited wealth is easily attainable. It requires decades of 60-100 hour work weeks. It requires discipline that frankly most of us dont have. Many people who attain this wealth do so at the expense of family and friends.

That said...

It is absolute IGNORANCE that people retire broke. There are two ways to get financially comfortable: alot of money and a little time, or a little money and alot of time. Most of us fall into the latter category. If we taught our children the power of investing and compund interest at an early age, we would be much better off. I was VERY fortunate that I learned when I was in my early 20's, working as a waiter, taking home 150/week. I always found a way to put away at least $25/mo. Not doing so is pure laziness. Saving is a habit, not luck.

Let me give you an example: $50/mo thrown into a mediocre mutual fund, yielding 12% per year (which is very very common) over 35 years will net you over $328,000. That doesnt include putting away a percentage of gifts, or lump sums every now and then.

The bottem line is...it is no ones responsibility to secure your financial future EXCEPT YOU. Not doing so is also YOUR CHOICE. Quit making excuses how its the Repub's or Dem's fault. IT'S YOURS.

LOL, I can remember when my wife got sick we were down to our last $5 every fricking week and that went on for several years. The only reason we survived is my wife got on SS disability. It sucks, she went from a job as head of human resources/payroll for a company that was paying her $2500/month (making more then me) to $500/month.

As soon as she got on disability, I went in and had both my shoulders reconstructed. I went back to work and within 2 years i had to have both my knees scoped. then I hurt my back and guess what. 2 weeks later I was fired.

We never wasted our money either.

All I can say is I'd like to see you go through what I have and then come preach to me about how it's all MY fault. Until then your just spouting hot air.