Rich get richer, poor get poorer

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

It's not really ludicrous at all, you just have to do it.
I don't make excuses for my past failures.
I spent and charged on credit cards until I was broke.

I've turned that around and even though I'm low income, I'm doing quite well.
It's possible for anyone to do so, if they apply themselves.

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.

I'm in agreement with this but there are so many opportunities available for low income people, there is no excuse why they can't pull themselves up.

If you are low income you can go to school for free, you can buy a house with a subsidized grant(up to $10k in some states), you have medical care for your children for free, the list goes on.

Enough is enough, there is no excuse, barring some personal cataclysmic experience.

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.

I agree but some people like to define wealthy individuals as, evil and/or that they took their money instead of earning it.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

That is not the same thing as taxing people at 90%+ for some social egalitarian experiment bound to fail.

The opportunities already exist, you can't make people take advantage of them by throwing money at the problem.
Free education(secondary and post secondary), free medical care, free food, free/subsidized housing, subsidized retirement, etc.

What else should we give to these downtrodden individuals?

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.

I'm a firm believer in choices have consequences and many of those choices should not be shielded by the government, otherwise bad behavior will never be corrected.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That is not the same thing as taxing people at 90%+ for some social egalitarian experiment bound to fail.

The opportunities already exist, you can't make people take advantage of them by throwing money at the problem.
Free education(secondary and post secondary), free medical care, free food, free/subsidized housing, subsidized retirement, etc.

What else should we give to these downtrodden individuals?

Well first of all, its not an experiment. A lot of these benefits is what first world societies are built on, it works well, and it has been shown to be useful since at least the roman times (roads vs increased trade for example).

SOME opportunities exist but there are tons of gaps. Those need to be closed.

I'm a firm believer in choices have consequences and many of those choices should not be shielded by the government, otherwise bad behavior will never be corrected.

I am not. I am a firm believer that a person should have the opportunity to work hard enough to fix past mistakes. Think about it, if a person makes a mistake, go "oh that was a mistake" and chooses to do what is needed to fix that mistake or at least make the consequences smaller, than that behavior has already been corrected. If people have to live with a mistake for the rest of their lives, than it won't matter if they correct their behavior.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

I disagree, and would further argue that the internet has become the equivalent of America's early years. ANYBODY can start with nothing, and wind up with a great deal, but only if they are determined, and apply themselves.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well first of all, its not an experiment. A lot of these benefits is what first world societies are built on, it works well, and it has been shown to be useful since at least the roman times (roads vs increased trade for example).

Taxing people at 90% does not equate to paying for roads to be paved, education et all.
Those things are easily provided now, as long as congress keeps with in it's financial bounds.

SOME opportunities exist but there are tons of gaps. Those need to be closed.

Honestly, I think that's a load of crap.
The poor have the opportunities as well as financial benefits.
If they can't take advantage of them now, not much else will help.

I am not. I am a firm believer that a person should have the opportunity to work hard enough to fix past mistakes. Think about it, if a person makes a mistake, go "oh that was a mistake" and chooses to do what is needed to fix that mistake or at least make the consequences smaller, than that behavior has already been corrected. If people have to live with a mistake for the rest of their lives, than it won't matter if they correct their behavior.

Self correction is wonderful, outsourcing it to someone else and continuing to cause yourself disaster, is where my beef lies.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I disagree, and would further argue that the internet has become the equivalent of America's early years. ANYBODY can start with nothing, and wind up with a great deal, but only if they are determined, and apply themselves.

Actually, I agree that libertarianism is the best policy for new economies, such as early America or the Internet.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I disagree, and would further argue that the internet has become the equivalent of America's early years. ANYBODY can start with nothing, and wind up with a great deal, but only if they are determined, and apply themselves.

The internet has been my greatest source on finance education.

I love it and get multiple finance blog feeds, it helped change my life.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

.....

I wasn't trying to be a dick to you during this discussion but it is one of my passion areas of debate.
The beliefs of many people in this area disturbs me greatly.

Just sayin.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wasn't trying to be a dick to you during this discussion but it is one of my passion areas of debate.
The beliefs of many people in this area disturbs me greatly.

Just sayin.

Don't worry, I know that.:thumbs:

 

[RightinNYC]

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.

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.

I think you're mistaken about what constitutes the "elite 5%."

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Getting into the top 5% of earners requires a household income of $160k. In NYC, that's a 40 year old couple with one teacher and one police officer.

Odds of accomplishing that are a lot better than 15 million to one.

An interesting table on social mobility:

Someone born to a parent in the poorest 25% has a 60% chance of moving out of that quartile, including a 15% chance of making it into the richest quartile. Someone born to a parent in the richest 25% has a 58% chance of dropping out of that quartile, including a 12% chance of falling to the poorest quartile.

 

[Goshin]

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

HAH! Yeah I WISH I had a large estate. I inherited a portion of what used to be the family farm. It isn't worth enough to invoke the inheritance tax.

But other family farms have been hit by it. The family is land-rich and cash-poor, and they can't pay half the value of their farm to keep it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's not really ludicrous at all, you just have to do it.
I don't make excuses for my past failures.
I spent and charged on credit cards until I was broke.

I've turned that around and even though I'm low income, I'm doing quite well.
It's possible for anyone to do so, if they apply themselves.

I agree, it is possible for anyone in reasonably good health to be "doing quite well."

There is a vast difference between low income but doing quite well and being really wealthy.

I'm in agreement with this but there are so many opportunities available for low income people, there is no excuse why they can't pull themselves up.

If you are low income you can go to school for free, you can buy a house with a subsidized grant(up to $10k in some states), you have medical care for your children for free, the list goes on.

Enough is enough, there is no excuse, barring some personal cataclysmic experience.

Absolutely none. I think that's the same thing I said earlier.

I agree but some people like to define wealthy individuals as, evil and/or that they took their money instead of earning it.

No, wealthy does not mean evil. Some wealthy people actually brought others up financially with them, so that is a good thing. Some are philanthropists ( Bill Gates), another good thing. Some married wealth (John Kerry springs to mind), others inherited family fortunes. Wealthy does not mean evil, nor does it mean capable, necessarily. It just means wealthy.

 

[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.

95 percent of the people spend all of their time and money just eking out a living, and even if they do manage to save some money, they don't have enough energy or the right kind of know how to investigate new possibilities. Contrary to what you think, life isn't a movie with a happy ending.

Stray dogs get treated better than unfortunate people, but you don't seem to care.

ricksfolly

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

95 percent of the people spend all of their time and money just eking out a living, and even if they do manage to save some money, they don't have enough energy or the right kind of know how to investigate new possibilities. Contrary to what you think, life isn't a movie with a happy ending.

Stray dogs get treated better than unfortunate people, but you don't seem to care.

ricksfolly

If that's the case I must be living in a shack with a dirt floor because I make a significant amount below the national median income.

The fact is that people put themselves in this situation.
The average length of car ownership is going down while the length of the loan term is going up, credit card debt is going up, personal consumption is up.

All of this is in comparison to prior years, when people largely were more likely to live within their means.

If you or someone you know is eking out a living, get a clue, you're spending to much money on possessions.
I have no compassion for a person who finances their whole luxury based life on debt.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree, it is possible for anyone in reasonably good health to be "doing quite well."

There is a vast difference between low income but doing quite well and being really wealthy.

That is true, but doing well is quite fine.
You can retire on that.

No, wealthy does not mean evil. Some wealthy people actually brought others up financially with them, so that is a good thing. Some are philanthropists ( Bill Gates), another good thing. Some married wealth (John Kerry springs to mind), others inherited family fortunes. Wealthy does not mean evil, nor does it mean capable, necessarily. It just means wealthy.

I'm not accusing you on this but others who automatically assume those things.

 

[ricksfolly]

If that's the case I must be living in a shack with a dirt floor because I make a significant amount below the national median income.

The fact is that people put themselves in this situation.
The average length of car ownership is going down while the length of the loan term is going up, credit card debt is going up, personal consumption is up.

All of this is in comparison to prior years, when people largely were more likely to live within their means.

If you or someone you know is eking out a living, get a clue, you're spending to much money on possessions.
I have no compassion for a person who finances their whole luxury based life on debt.

Why this personal vendetta against the poor and helpless? Nobody really believes any of your rationalizations or justifications, and probably wonder what makes you so cold and aloof. You're either rich yourself or brainwashed.

ricksfolly

 

[justabubba]

some folks would argue with a stop sign

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the gap between the richest one percent of earners in the US and the middle class has more than tripled since 1979.

Fox Business’ solution to financial crisis: Tax the poor more | Raw Story
here is the CBO study: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf

If all groups’ after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.

The CBPP analysis noted that the Bush-era tax cuts made the growing income gap even larger.

"Because high-income households received by far the largest tax cuts — not only in dollar terms but also as a percentage of income — the tax cuts have increased the concentration of after-tax income at the top of the spectrum," the CBBP stated.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Why this personal vendetta against the poor and helpless? Nobody really believes any of your rationalizations or justifications, and probably wonder what makes you so cold and aloof. You're either rich yourself or brainwashed.

ricksfolly

It isn't a vendetta against poor people, most of them aren't helpless.
If that were true we should just institutionalize them and be done with it.

I'm have submitted proof that the biggest thing that makes a difference between "poor" and "rich" is whether or not you save or spend your money.
As of yet, all you have brought forward is false information.

I am rich, in wisdom, forethought and determination.
That is what it takes to become monetarily wealthy.

Brainwashed?
Seriously, I have lived my whole life (albeit a short life) making less than $30k a year, at one point being so broke I couldn't afford to eat anything but plain rice.
That was because I spent my money like a fool.

 

[RightinNYC]

95 percent of the people spend all of their time and money just eking out a living, and even if they do manage to save some money, they don't have enough energy or the right kind of know how to investigate new possibilities. Contrary to what you think, life isn't a movie with a happy ending.

Stray dogs get treated better than unfortunate people, but you don't seem to care.

You must be living in an astoundingly depressing world if you really think that to be the case. You also ignored the statistical evidence I provided you above that directly contradicts these claims.

 

[ricksfolly]

It isn't a vendetta against poor people, most of them aren't helpless.
If that were true we should just institutionalize them and be done with it.

I'm have submitted proof that the biggest thing that makes a difference between "poor" and "rich" is whether or not you save or spend your money.
As of yet, all you have brought forward is false information.

I am rich, in wisdom, forethought and determination.
That is what it takes to become monetarily wealthy.

Brainwashed?
Seriously, I have lived my whole life (albeit a short life) making less than $30k a year, at one point being so broke I couldn't afford to eat anything but plain rice.
That was because I spent my money like a fool.

Been there, done that... We're all brainwashed to some degree, myself included, but I recognized it later on and dealt with it. Now I don't accept (believe) anything I can't prove to myself, and I rarely post topics I'm not familiar with.

ricksfolly

 

[cpwill]

as per the OP:


The Social Security Administration asked its inspector general to investigate how a $32.3 billion mistake skewed its statistics on 2009 wages in the U.S.

Two people were found to have filed multiple W-2 forms that made them into multibillionaires, an agency official said yesterday. Those reports threw statistical wage tables out of whack and, in figures released Oct. 15, made it appear that top U.S. earners had seen their pay quintuple in 2009 to an average of $519 million.

The agency yesterday released corrected tables that showed the average incomes of the top earners, in fact, declined 7.7 percent...

Bloomberg News wrote a report last week about high-earners’ income after questioning Social Security officials about record- high wages found in the statistics. The agency’s staff confirmed the data, though they began reviewing W-2s by hand after the news story was published.

Yesterday, the Social Security office announced it found “invalid” wages from two of the 74 top wage earners detailed in its data.

The data were part of the National Average Wage Index and contained the pay for 74 Americans who earned more than $50 million in 2009. The Social Security review found two tax filers, between them, reported more than $32 billion in wages and officials decided to invalidate those filings.

Error Discovered

“We discovered an error in the net compensation for wage earners earning $50 million and over and have adjusted those figures downward,” Lassiter said in an initial e-mail.

The combined total earned by the top Americans fell to $6 billion last year from $11.9 billion in 2008, the agency said in the corrected report...

 

[notaquestion]

It isn't a vendetta against poor people, most of them aren't helpless.
If that were true we should just institutionalize them and be done with it.

I'm have submitted proof that the biggest thing that makes a difference between "poor" and "rich" is whether or not you save or spend your money.
As of yet, all you have brought forward is false information.

I am rich, in wisdom, forethought and determination.
That is what it takes to become monetarily wealthy.

Brainwashed?
Seriously, I have lived my whole life (albeit a short life) making less than $30k a year, at one point being so broke I couldn't afford to eat anything but plain rice.
That was because I spent my money like a fool.

I think what people are responding to, Harry, is the tone of personal opinion in your writing. Try not to take too much offense.


I think the disparity in opinions here is probably due to differences in personal opinion. One side, some have seen the wealth of opportunities available to the poor, impoverished, low income, whatever. And how an otherwise unobstructed individual might take advantage of those to achieve success. Others have more knowledge/experience of the difficulties someone in a low income situation might have. A 20-year old mother in a bad neighborhood for example might be 'technically able' to move ahead in life by walking through her gang infested neighborhood after her part time job to attend a community college courses, for which she was unprepared due to her poor low-income High School education, before picking up her kids, cashing an assistance check, feeding them, dealing with her abusive boyfriend, and crying into a pillow while he watches TV. But it might be a little hard.

That was a little overkill, but the point is the reason financial opportunities are extended to the poor is because it can be quite difficult for them to take advantage of them.

Obviously we shouldn't just say "Damn rich people, Lets take their money!" but there are factors in this system that prevent class mobility based simply on effort, and if we can eliminate those by shaving a little off the top, the rich will have to at least continue to provide value to the system to stay rich. Fairness aside, I think making our economic system more competitive is whats best for everyone, and "some" redistribution of wealth might be the best way to do that.

 

[lpast]

Lets be realistic, most successful people were either born into success or were in a better position to become successful, able to pay for college, living in a better environment. This thing about the american dream and everyone can attain it, is directly aimed at becoming middle class and owning a home a car etc.
Lets all be honest, not everyone can be rich in america and not everyone can own a business and not everyone is going to make enough money to do all things some of my conservative friends believe all americans should do...
When someone can SHOW me how a person working for the countries largest employer can pay rent, pay for transportation, pay for food for themselves and their kids, pay for insurance and lifes necessities then pay for their own healthcare and then on top of all that save for their own retirement all on a walmart salary.
When one of the personal responsiblity hawkers can show me a person does that Ill agree with everything you say.
Can you imagine a country where EVERYONEs successful. WOW everyone would have to cut their own grass and wipe their own behind and fix their own car and when you call 911 hope your lawyer is available to come save your arse.

Ive been a staunch republican for 42 yrs but that does not mean I have to run around and spout what amounts to me as total nonsense...sorry guys...not everyone can do it all on their own no matter how much political rhetoric comes out of the teaparty
I know I dont embrace some very conservative tenets, hence my slightly conservative tag...and I know some of my positions are distateful to very conservative folks but I will always calls it like I sees it...of course I could be dead wrong

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread moved.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lets be realistic, most successful people were either born into success or were in a better position to become successful, able to pay for college, living in a better environment. This thing about the american dream and everyone can attain it, is directly aimed at becoming middle class and owning a home a car etc.
Lets all be honest, not everyone can be rich in america and not everyone can own a business and not everyone is going to make enough money to do all things some of my conservative friends believe all americans should do...
When someone can SHOW me how a person working for the countries largest employer can pay rent, pay for transportation, pay for food for themselves and their kids, pay for insurance and lifes necessities then pay for their own healthcare and then on top of all that save for their own retirement all on a walmart salary.
When one of the personal responsiblity hawkers can show me a person does that Ill agree with everything you say.
Can you imagine a country where EVERYONEs successful. WOW everyone would have to cut their own grass and wipe their own behind and fix their own car and when you call 911 hope your lawyer is available to come save your arse.

Ive been a staunch republican for 42 yrs but that does not mean I have to run around and spout what amounts to me as total nonsense...sorry guys...not everyone can do it all on their own no matter how much political rhetoric comes out of the teaparty
I know I dont embrace some very conservative tenets, hence my slightly conservative tag...and I know some of my positions are distateful to very conservative folks but I will always calls it like I sees it...of course I could be dead wrong

try as I might I couldn't see the point to this post.