• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rich get richer, poor get poorer

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Republicans, still adamant about their opposition to extending unemployment checks for 13 million workers, should remember that they eagerly voted for no estate tax for the rich.

ricksfolly
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One has nothing to do with the other.

One involves letting people do as they wish with what they accumulated over their lifetime, and not taxing it all a second time.

The other involves extending benefits far beyond any time period they were ever intended to run.

Class envy card. Yawn.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One has nothing to do with the other.

One involves letting people do as they wish with what they accumulated over their lifetime, and not taxing it all a second time.

The other involves extending benefits far beyond any time period they were ever intended to run.

Class envy card. Yawn.
It doesn't matter how much you try to rationalize or defend it, It's still the rich favored over the poor.

Why so adamant about protecting the rich? Do you have a large estate too?

ricksfolly
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ricksfolly said:
Rich get richer, poor get poorer
By and large this happens because the rich do the things that made them rich in the first place, while the poor do all the things that make them poor.

Unless you think most/all poor people are like that based on misfortune, which isn't true.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
By and large this happens because the rich do the things that made them rich in the first place, while the poor do all the things that make them poor.

Unless you think most/all poor people are like that based on misfortune, which isn't true.
That is only a partial truth. Really, the rich tend to have better access to tools and opportunities (due to capital) that make them rich.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is only a partial truth. Really, the rich tend to have better access to tools and opportunities (due to capital) that make them rich.
Well that really doesn't have as much of an effect as people believe.
It's already been documented that the reason there are wealthy people is because they chose to save money, doesn't matter what they invested in nor does it matter that anyone inherited anything.

The single biggest reason is because they chose to save, instead of spend.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well that really doesn't have as much of an effect as people believe.
It's already been documented that the reason there are wealthy people is because they chose to save money, doesn't matter what they invested in nor does it matter that anyone inherited anything.

The single biggest reason is because they chose to save, instead of spend.
I would like to see that documentation. I think behavior has a lot to do with it, but your starting point and advantages inherent in the circumstances of your birth can amplify the usefulness of that sort of behavior by a great deal.
 
Last edited:

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By and large this happens because the rich do the things that made them rich in the first place, while the poor do all the things that make them poor.

Unless you think most/all poor people are like that based on misfortune, which isn't true.
The odds are 15 million to one that the 95 percent poor will have the same kind of opportunities, luck, connections, intelligence, and the fanatical drive to be in the elite 5 percent. Once they get there it is the duty of all the rich to help the poor unfortunate anyway the can... noblesse oblige.

If the rich can't or won't share their wealth, raise their taxes back to where they were in the sixties... 92 percent

ricksfolly
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The odds are 15 million to one that the 95 percent poor will have the same kind of opportunities, luck, connections, intelligence, and the fanatical drive to be in the elite 5 percent. Once they get there it is the duty of all the rich to help the poor unfortunate anyway the can... noblesse oblige.

If the rich can't or won't share their wealth, raise their taxes back to where they were in the sixties... 92 percent

ricksfolly
Actually I agree with the idea of raising taxes, especially as it seemed to work well in the 50s and 60s. Also, people can argue that its theft and whatever, but ultimately if its in the best interest of society to do so than thats more important.
 
Last edited:

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well that really doesn't have as much of an effect as people believe.
It's already been documented that the reason there are wealthy people is because they chose to save money, doesn't matter what they invested in nor does it matter that anyone inherited anything.

The single biggest reason is because they chose to save, instead of spend.
The 95 percent poor barely earn enough money to get by. If they're lucky they can join a savings plan where they work, but even if they save it all, they still won't have enough to invest in a business or plan that will make much difference to their way of life, and even if they do make all those needed sacrifices, chances are some get rich quick slicker will take it away from them.

Been there done that
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would like to see that documentation. I think behavior has a lot to do with it, but your starting point and advantages inherent in the circumstances of your birth can amplify the usefulness of that sort of behavior by a great deal.
"Two economics professors have already blown a hole through your theories. Steven Venti of Dartmouth and David Wise of Harvard studied the issue of income versus wealth for the National Bureau of Economic Research a few years ago, using Social Security lifetime earnings and net income assessments for 3,992 households whose heads were near retirement age. Among their conclusions:"

" * Theres a huge variation in wealth at every income level. Many low-income families have almost nothing. But the same is true of many high-income families.
* Income alone doesnt explain wealth disparities. Some of the lowest-earning households had managed to accumulate significant wealth.
* In fact, income differences explain just 5% of the wealth dispersion the researchers found.
* What the researchers called chance events -- inheritances, medical bills, marital status, number of children -- explained about 4% of the dispersion.
* Investment choices explained about 8% of the variations.
"

"In other words, the vast majority of the differences in wealth had nothing to do with income, chance events or investment choices."

An easy, 3-step wealth score - MSN Money

By an large, people who say that it's mostly based on some sort of advantage or because they don't earn enough money, are trying to find ways of rationalizing their ****ty financial skills.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The 95 percent poor barely earn enough money to get by. If they're lucky they can join a savings plan where they work, but even if they save it all, they still won't have enough to invest in a business or plan that will make much difference to their way of life, and even if they do make all those needed sacrifices, chances are some get rich quick slicker will take it away from them.

Been there done that
That's absolutely dog ****, sorry but it is.
You can try to rationalize the failures of yourself and/or others with that but it doesn't make it true.

The vast majority of wealthy people aren't Paris Hiltons or super evil CEO's, they are regular people that did smart things with their money, like saving it.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The odds are 15 million to one that the 95 percent poor will have the same kind of opportunities, luck, connections, intelligence, and the fanatical drive to be in the elite 5 percent. Once they get there it is the duty of all the rich to help the poor unfortunate anyway the can... noblesse oblige.

If the rich can't or won't share their wealth, raise their taxes back to where they were in the sixties... 92 percent

ricksfolly
That's right reward terrible behavior by punishing good behavior.

I've provided evidence that most wealthy people earned their money by working hard and saving, yet you insist that they be forced to hand it over to people who spent all their money.

:roll: Moronic garbage.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"Two economics professors have already blown a hole through your theories. Steven Venti of Dartmouth and David Wise of Harvard studied the issue of income versus wealth for the National Bureau of Economic Research a few years ago, using Social Security lifetime earnings and net income assessments for 3,992 households whose heads were near retirement age. Among their conclusions:"

" * Theres a huge variation in wealth at every income level. Many low-income families have almost nothing. But the same is true of many high-income families.
* Income alone doesnt explain wealth disparities. Some of the lowest-earning households had managed to accumulate significant wealth.
* In fact, income differences explain just 5% of the wealth dispersion the researchers found.
* What the researchers called chance events -- inheritances, medical bills, marital status, number of children -- explained about 4% of the dispersion.
* Investment choices explained about 8% of the variations.
"

"In other words, the vast majority of the differences in wealth had nothing to do with income, chance events or investment choices."

An easy, 3-step wealth score - MSN Money

By an large, people who say that it's mostly based on some sort of advantage or because they don't earn enough money, are trying to find ways of rationalizing their ****ty financial skills.
My question about this is that the bullet point are not very specific. I looked through the article and I did not see an explanation of the term "significant wealth" so I am not sure if you and I are talking about the same group of people Harry. I suspect that we are not. I see nothing wrong with taxing high income and taxing large estate transfers (one or two million is not a large estate). However, this seems to be talking about people who are the savers in our society, which is a different thing.

Overall, I very much support normal people making wealth for themselves (and I think its something we are going to need to be more common in society in order to be a super power again) but I that was not my target in this kind of thinking.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
My question about this is that the bullet point are not very specific. I looked through the article and I did not see an explanation of the term "significant wealth" so I am not sure if you and I are talking about the same group of people Harry. I suspect that we are not. I see nothing wrong with taxing high income and taxing large estate transfers (one or two million is not a large estate). However, this seems to be talking about people who are the savers in our society, which is a different thing.
I view it from the point that if they can take away from the super wealthy, which is a tiny minority of a minority, then they can take it away from the regular working wealthy.

Sorry but I'm so ****ing tired of hearing how the wealthy man keeps the poor man down.
They poor man is keeping him/her self down 85% of the time.

Being poor(aka low income) lends you to several advantages that being middle and upper income does not.
I'm able to invest and earn dividends, interest and capital gains tax free because of my status as low income.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,104
Reaction score
33,269
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's absolutely dog ****, sorry but it is.
You can try to rationalize the failures of yourself and/or others with that but it doesn't make it true.

The vast majority of wealthy people aren't Paris Hiltons or super evil CEO's, they are regular people that did smart things with their money, like saving it.
And not investing it with Enron or Madoff, nor counting on the housing market to continue to grow in value.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Two economics professors have already blown a hole through your theories. Steven Venti of Dartmouth and David Wise of Harvard studied the issue of income versus wealth for the National Bureau of Economic Research a few years ago, using Social Security lifetime earnings and net income assessments for 3,992 households whose heads were near retirement age. Among their conclusions:"

" * Theres a huge variation in wealth at every income level. Many low-income families have almost nothing. But the same is true of many high-income families.
* Income alone doesnt explain wealth disparities. Some of the lowest-earning households had managed to accumulate significant wealth.
* In fact, income differences explain just 5% of the wealth dispersion the researchers found.
* What the researchers called chance events -- inheritances, medical bills, marital status, number of children -- explained about 4% of the dispersion.
* Investment choices explained about 8% of the variations.
"

"In other words, the vast majority of the differences in wealth had nothing to do with income, chance events or investment choices."

An easy, 3-step wealth score - MSN Money

By an large, people who say that it's mostly based on some sort of advantage or because they don't earn enough money, are trying to find ways of rationalizing their ****ty financial skills.
What you and the professors say may be true, but at you're talking about a few hundred thousand, not anywhere near enough to put you in the same company with the 5 percent elite.

As a yard stick, many pro athletes get more than twenty million a year, not because they're smart, opportunistic, or good businessmen, but because they were lucky to be born with muscles.

ricksfolly
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I view it from the point that if they can take away from the super wealthy, which is a tiny minority of a minority, then they can take it away from the regular working wealthy.
Possibly. Personally, I think people are capable of making the distinction and will vote accordingly.

Sorry but I'm so ****ing tired of hearing how the wealthy man keeps the poor man down.
They poor man is keeping him/her self down 85% of the time.

Being poor(aka low income) lends you to several advantages than being middle and upper income does not.
I'm able to invest and earn dividends, interest and capital gains tax free because of my status as low income.
Thats cool.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And not investing it with Enron or Madoff, nor counting on the housing market to continue to grow in value.
Pick all your eggs in one basket and you're making a huge risk.
Diversification.

There is a whole internet of quality, free investment advice for all levels and incomes.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What you and the professors say may be true, but at you're talking about a few hundred thousand, not anywhere near enough to put you in the same company with the 5 percent elite.

As a yard stick, many pro athletes get more than twenty million a year, not because they're smart, opportunistic, or good businessmen, but because they were lucky to be born with muscles.

ricksfolly
And many of those people end up penniless because they did stupid **** with their money.
It happens a lot but then again most wealthy earn and save their money over a long period of time.

There is a difference.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Possibly. Personally, I think people are capable of making the distinction and will vote accordingly.
Unfortunately we seem to categorize rich as all people making a certain income level, without making the distinction of cost of living, debt, and other obligations.

It's more apparent that those who dislike "rich" people, are doing so out of jealously and feeding some sort of inner monster that rationalizes why they are constantly poor.
It always comes down to the fault of someone else.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Unfortunately we seem to categorize rich as all people making a certain income level, without making the distinction of cost of living, debt, and other obligations.

It's more apparent that those who dislike "rich" people, are doing so out of jealously and feeding some sort of inner monster that rationalizes why they are constantly poor.
It always comes down to the fault of someone else.
Actually, my motivation has less to do with that and more to do with an assessment of what I think would make society work best financially and bring the most prosperity to the most people. If I were rich, I doubt my thoughts on this would change.

Jealously always gets attributed in these sorts of discussions. And while there may be some there for some people, I think most people should get more credit than that.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually, my motivation has less to do with that and more to do with an assessment of what I think would make society work best financially and bring the most prosperity to the most people. If I were rich, I doubt my thoughts on this would change.
People shouldn't be given prosperity.
They should earn it, it's a psychological thing.
Most people don't have the dedication or self discipline to become wealthy.

We make our choices based on either, instant gratification(poor) or delayed gratification(wealthy).
When you make that choice, you should be prepared to live with it.
 
Last edited:

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,104
Reaction score
33,269
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pick all your eggs in one basket and you're making a huge risk.
Diversification.

There is a whole internet of quality, free investment advice for all levels and incomes.
Some of it is even accurate, too.

The idea that a poor person can become rich by saving and wise investment is just ludicrious. Sure, if you work hard and take good care of your money, barring unforseen disasters you can live comfortably. To be rich by today's standards requires a lot more than that.

On the other hand, the idea that the poor are entitled to some of the wealth owned by the very rich is just as silly. There isn't a finite pie that is cut into bigger pieces for some, but a lot of wealth to be created. The solution to the rich/poor difference is not to cut the pie more evenly, but to bake a bigger pie.

Further, the worth of an individual is not measured by the amount of wealth he/she controls. There is a lot more to a human being than that.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,801
Reaction score
22,393
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
People shouldn't be given prosperity.
They should earn it, it's a psychological thing.
Most people don't have the dedication or self discipline to become wealthy.
Yet we are every day. We have roads, education, safe food, etc. While I agree that direct transfers of wealth do not help (however, there still are circumstances where its a good thing like disability), giving people opportunities for self improvement and making those opportunities as affordable as possible are extremely helpful for society.

We make our choices based on either, instant gratification(poor) or delayed gratification(wealthy).
When you make that choice, you should be prepared to live with it.
I agree to an extent. We should never be unable to reverse a bad choice or else we suffer and society as a whole suffers.
 
Top Bottom