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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
"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.
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.
"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.
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 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.
And not investing it with Enron or Madoff, nor counting on the housing market to continue to grow in value.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?