(07-06-2016 08:47 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Crony capitalism benefits the cronies and politicians, not the public. So who’s surprised that the income gap in widening under Obama? It’s The Chicago Way taken national.

But income inequality is not the issue. I no more care if some dude has a boat in the Hamptons or a cabin on Cross Lake than I do the man in the moon.

What I want is more opportunity for my portfolio and my income to grow. That is the anchor holding the economy back, not a bunch of richy-riches hoarding money.

FWIW, if the economy we have today is the result of true capitalism, damn right I’d become a socialist (of course it's not, let's get that out of the way.) Low or negative asset growth for the middle class, no job security, persistent low workplace participation, and low wage growth. That is not capitalism.

The poor and working class in this country are barely acquainted with real capitalism and unfortunately are not far removed from feudalism and constant warfare (drug abuse, lack of education, disease, single motherhood, prison time) – and again suffered the most in the Recession.

So radical ideas like income redistribution and Obamacare seem to make a lot of sense at the time. But nowhere is redistribution a substitute for economic growth. Now, redistribution keeps the poor happy but it doesn’t change their place in society. This is both a bug and a feature - a bug to the poor, a feature to the current political classes.

Our politicians deny reality. They believe, despite the evidence of nearly a hundred years, that command economy and redistribution of wealth is both just and efficient, and that using the government picking winners and losers makes the economy produce more wealth. But in reality, there is no economic theory which supports this belief.

I still drive it to overall numbers as the problem....

but yes...they don't understand how the rich perform service....

and again, the rest are now spoiled little biatches....they just don't have the capacity to understand.....

#yield

#regression

(07-05-2016 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Income has zero to do with equality and how much one makes is no ones business. Im waiting on someone to step up and voluntarily admit they make too much and give the surplus away.

that CEO who gave everyone a raise.

a lot of super rich people have stated they will leave almost their entire estate to charity simply on the notion that it would be too unconscionable to leave such a large pool of money to a multi-generation family. the de facto aristocracy is one of many problems with IE but it is the one talking point that no one can really argue against.

From everything I have seen that was pretty much a failure.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249313

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

If we were some sort of African banana republic or 17th century France, yes. But this is simply not the case in modern America. Partly because liberals keep juuuuuuuust enough free stuff flowing (however one defines free stuff) where people simply are not putting rich people up against the walls in revolutionary zeal. You want revolution, stop welfare programs. You'll get your revolution and income redistribution in 2 weeks.

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off. We as a culture value the wrong things.

Hey, remember what I wrote to you the other day? Let me post again for your benefit:

If there isn't enough money for the poor, or for the government, or for the growth policies you desire, you can pay more! Please ensure your checks indicate "to support the bloated Federal Government" in the memo field.

Bureau of the Public Debt Department G P.O. Box 2188 Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-2188

Plus, don't forget to file a simple 1040 and put the amount of your income, the amount of tax your owe, compute the difference, and pay at your full rate.

But I have to ask again, that is not how you personally will move forward, is it?

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

Start with your liberal class, especially the immensely powerful and wealthy ones – let me know how that goes. IF you are successful, THEN, and only then, will I entertain any notion or conversation about income redistribution.

But I have to ask again, that is not how you personally will move forward, is it?

(07-06-2016 09:48 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

If we were some sort of African banana republic or 17th century France, yes. But this is simply not the case in modern America. Partly because liberals keep juuuuuuuust enough free stuff flowing (however one defines free stuff) where people simply are not putting rich people up against the walls in revolutionary zeal. You want revolution, stop welfare programs. You'll get your revolution and income redistribution in 2 weeks.

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off. We as a culture value the wrong things.

Hey, remember what I wrote to you the other day? Let me post again for your benefit:

If there isn't enough money for the poor, or for the government, or for the growth policies you desire, you can pay more! Please ensure your checks indicate "to support the bloated Federal Government" in the memo field.

Bureau of the Public Debt Department G P.O. Box 2188 Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-2188

Plus, don't forget to file a simple 1040 and put the amount of your income, the amount of tax your owe, compute the difference, and pay at your full rate.

But I have to ask again, that is not how you personally will move forward, is it?

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

Start with your liberal class, especially the immensely powerful and wealthy ones – let me know how that goes. IF you are successful, THEN, and only then, will I entertain any notion or conversation about income redistribution.

But I have to ask again, that is not how you personally will move forward, is it?

You tend to come across as a trifle arrogant, which is fine. It's a message board. I'm just so glad you can dumb things down for the benefit of some poor country boy from South Carolina.

My response: You seem to have a grasp on half the problem. The rest, uh-uh.

In simple terms, the problem is one coin. It has two sides. Until you stop blaming one side for the entire problem you are no better than those on the other side who do the same by pointing the finger back at you.

As for moving forward, I'm about as forward as I'm going to get at this stage in my life, unless I somehow write a bestseller or win the lottery - and my chances are far greater I'll win the lottery, if that tells you anything.

I meantime, I worry instead about generations to come. Generations who are being told by too many that it's their fault if they don't succeed, because everyone is equal and has a fair shot because the Constitution says so.

How about don't blame anybody and just do something productive with our lives? The chips will fall where they will. The minute we tell one group that they make too little and another group that they make too much you might as well go full Communist. That's the end result of that mentality every, single time.

(07-06-2016 10:06 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  You tend to come across as a trifle arrogant, which is fine. It's a message board.

I am simply confident in my understandings. I write what I want, when I want to write it, as long as it is in line with the AUP. Full stop. Everyone here is encouraged to do the same.

And frankly, I am playing by the liberal playboook of “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules” and “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” No reason a conservative can be an acehole like a liberal. ;.)

(07-06-2016 10:06 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I'm just so glad you can dumb things down for the benefit of some poor country boy from South Carolina.

Nonsense. Don't build your own cross just to play martyr; you understand things just fine, but with a liberal view. I am working to tell you that your liberal understanding of things, is incorrect.

(07-06-2016 10:06 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  In simple terms, the problem is one coin. It has two sides. Until you stop blaming one side for the entire problem you are no better than those on the other side who do the same by pointing the finger back at you.

I assure you in no uncertain terms I am not part of the problem in this country. I am not exceptional per se, but I pay my taxes. Never been arrested. Happily married. Keep a nice yard. I don't do drugs. I volunteer (a lot.) I donate to charity. My wife is a teacher. My kids are honest, good at school and one is turning into an elite gymnast. I work hard. I buy consumables. I cheer loudly for my university.

In short, I am everything that makes this country better, stronger, faster and exceptional. And there are millions, tens of millions of people just like me doing the same thing. So the otherside of the coin there, compadre, is people NOT like me and those other millions of honest hardworking Americans. Tax cheats. Drug addicts. Career welfare recipients. Selfish ******** who want my money to give away but do no volunteering, or donating, or helping others with their own money and resources. People that want the part of “single payer healthcare” that makes them feel good about doing big things with other peoples’ money. But they then don’t want any actual change in their own life, like paying more for single payer healthcare.

(07-06-2016 10:06 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  As for moving forward, I'm about as forward as I'm going to get at this stage in my life, unless I somehow write a bestseller or win the lottery - and my chances are far greater I'll win the lottery, if that tells you anything.

So why does your lot in life (which I am not deprecating in the least) give you the ability to demand to influence mine?

(07-06-2016 10:06 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I meantime, I worry instead about generations to come. Generations who are being told by too many that it's their fault if they don't succeed, because everyone is equal and has a fair shot because the Constitution says so.

The Founders explained in the Federalist papers that the Constitution was written to protect our Rights from the Government. It says nothing that one is guaranteed a fair shot at life and success. The “American Experiment” was the hope that ballots could outweigh bullets, and that politics could replace outright violence. The experiment is failing, and it’s largely because of the same type of people that made it necessary in the first place.

Europe has a much more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. If we would like to get a more equal dispersion, perhaps we should look at what Europe does. Not what the left or right says that Europe does, but what Europe actually does.

Europe has a much different philosophy than we do, a fact that is too often unappreciated. We try to redistribute with "progressive" income taxes and focused, means-tested welfare programs. European countries have much flatter and less "progressive" income tax structures, and rely on a "regressive" consumption tax for a substantial portion of their tax revenues, generally 25% to 40%. Their top corporate rates are in every case less than ours, usually much less ("socialist" Sweden's top corporate tax rate is a little over half ours, for example). Their top individual rates are in many cases substantially less than ours, in a few cases slightly (but only slightly) higher, and in all cases much lower relative to their total tax bite than ours are. Their welfare programs, instead of being focused and means-tested (and we have republicans to thank for means-testing), tend to be more generic and available to all. Sir Richard Branson has access to the same NHS (which he probably doesn't use) as does the homeless guy sleeping on the streets. Their focus is much more on providing a safety net than upon redistribution. And they get more equality out of their system than we do out of ours.

One thing worth noting is that the standard methodology in use for comparing income equality/inequality among nations treats means-tested programs differently from generic universal programs, so that if we went to a more generic welfare floor, that would make our results appear more equal, without changing anything else.

Another thing is interesting to note about our inequality. The period when our inequality grew most was the Clinton years. That's not surprising because of all the speculative gains made in the dot.com market. Inequality actually decreased during the Bush years, also not surprising because the declines in the stock market brought "rich" and "poor" closer together. And inequality has increased again under Obama.

Then again, it seems that whenever I point out that European countries get more equality with their approach, somebody from the left chimes in with why should we emulate Europe, when our economy came through the 2008 recession better than theirs did. Hmmm, we have less equality, we came through the recession better, maybe this equality thing is overrated.

Once again the hypocrisy of the left is exposed.


UC Berkeley ‘income inequality’ experts earn more than $300,000 a year.

Quote:REPORT: ‘If UC Berkeley economists are really opposed to income inequality and are concerned about low-paid workers, they might consider sharing some of their compensation with the teaching assistants, graders, readers and administrative staff at the bottom of Cal’s income distribution’

Several UC Berkeley economics professors who support “income inequality” research each earn more than $300,000 a year, putting them in the top 2 percent of the public university’s salary distribution, according to a recent report by a nonpartisan California think tank.

The report pointed out that the prominent scholars leading or advising the Cal Berkeley Center for Equitable Growth are richly compensated as professors, even as the center seeks to research ways to create economic growth that is “fairly shared,” the center’s website states.

But the California Policy Center report, using 2014 data from the state’s public records, found Cal’s equitable growth center’s director, economics Professor Emmanuel Saez, earned an annual salary of just under $350,000.

The center’s three advisory board members – all economics professors – made similar amounts: Professor David Card made $336,367 in 2014; Professor Gerard Roland took in $304,608; and Professor Alan Auerbach earned $291,782. That’s not even including their pensions — equal to 2.5 percent times their final average salary times the number of years employed.

MORE: Law Prof Who Specializes in Poverty Makes $205,400 – Teaching One Class

Marc Joffe, a policy analyst with the California Policy Center and author of the report, said in a telephone interview with The College Fix that one way to solve income inequality lies more with businesses developing efficiency strategies to bring workers’ wages up as opposed to academics’ hand wringing over whether everyone earns the same.

He said UC Berkeley is a great school, but it is important to highlight that income inequality research from institutions of higher education, and elsewhere, must be addressed differently.

“I think there is an issue of jealousy that academics have toward business people. They think CEOs don’t need to make as much,” Joffe said, adding some academics believe their efforts are more noble than those in the private sector.

UC Berkeley campus officials declined a request from The College Fix seeking comment on the California Policy Center report.

Another vocal income inequality expert at UC Berkeley, Professor Robert Reich – former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton’s administration who in 2013 helped produce the film “Inequality for All” – earned $263,592 in 2014, the think tank’s report states.

“But Reich’s salary was likely not his only source of income in 2014,” it adds. “Reich makes himself available to give paid speeches through a number of speaking bureaus, charging a fee estimated at $40,000 per talk. He is also likely to receive some income from his books, movies and pensions from previous employers.”

So how do professors who cannot avail themselves of similar speaking fees earn a little extra cash on the side? According to the California Policy Center report, they can get into the textbook-writing business, noting it “can be surprisingly lucrative, since many college textbooks sell for over $200 per copy.”

“Last September, the Cal bookstore offered an introductory economics textbook for $294.”

In the interview, Joffe also highlighted the enormous costs of books elsewhere, citing a study from Student PIRGs, a network of progressive student public advocacy organizations, that found the average cost of a textbooks is more than $200, and sometimes as high as $400.

Joffe, in his report, also pointed out the high dollar amounts others at UC Berkeley earn.

Daniel Dykes, who was the head coach of Cal’s football team in 2014, earned $1.8 million in a year in which the team “went 5-7 … and did not make a bowl appearance.” Dykes was the highest paid UC Berkeley employee in 2014.

“Dykes was followed closely by Jeff Tedford (at $1,800,000), the Bears’ former coach who was still on the payroll in 2014 despite having been relieved of his coaching responsibilities. The next five highest paid UC Berkeley employees were also coaches,” the report added.

“The hefty salaries and generous pensions awarded to Berkeley administrators, professors and coaches are funded by taxpayers – most of whom earn far less than these academic luminaries,” the report concluded. “So if UC Berkeley economists are really opposed to income inequality and are concerned about low-paid workers, they might consider sharing some of their compensation with the teaching assistants, graders, readers and administrative staff at the bottom of Cal’s income distribution.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28026/

(07-05-2016 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Income has zero to do with equality and how much one makes is no ones business. Im waiting on someone to step up and voluntarily admit they make too much and give the surplus away.

that CEO who gave everyone a raise.

I hope your not referring to Gravity Payments, because A) he didnt give everyone a raise and B) I dont think the raises for those who will get one have even kicked in yet.

Also, he didnt voluntarily take a pay cut. He was being sued by his brother after it was discovered that he had seriously increased his compensation without his brother's knowledge and permission (and subsequently lied to reporters about how much he was making).

You liberals sure do pimp the guy who did things you supposedly hate. Most of the CEO's in America make far less than this dipsh*t did. Yet you hate those CEO's, yet blow this dude.

(07-06-2016 01:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  as you said we have different perspectives. i'm guessing your opinion rests on trickledown economics/job creators talking points being truthful.

Actually it doesn't rest on them at all. Trickle down and job creation has nothing to do with my position... but I think your response reveals something. I'm obviously speaking in generalities... so there are always exceptions... but follow me.

You don't generally become wealthy in this country by working for someone else... unless you possess a singularly unique talent that you can then put up for bid... or if you personally make someone tens of millions, they might let you keep one of them. THAT person has only 'sold' one of his 'assets'. His labors. Because there are 350mm people in this country and billions worldwide with essentially those same assets to sell, those aren't worth that much. He hasn't taken risk or made sacrifices. He has played it safe and let someone else take those risks and make those sacrifices. THAT person will NEVER become wealthy... and that represents a large portion of the country. They are 'not wealthy' NOT because of a lack of opportunity, but because they aren't willing to make those sacrifices.

Quote:I don't share that belief and I don't want to get into a drawn out discussion over that. but I will say this. if someone has to work three jobs just to support himself, he's not going to find the time or even the money to work on a really innovative idea he has. he's not going to take a class or learn a new trade that could earn him more money.

This is an anecdote. By and large, it doesn't take 3 jobs to make a living wage, even at minimum wage. I suspect this person you're describing fairly often made bad decisions in school... or their parents did... or they are trying to live well beyond their means. Maybe they need a roommate and to ride the bus rather than have a car? Maybe they should still be living at home at 18 rather than getting their own apartment the day after graduation. There are illegal aliens who live here and work 40-60 hrs a week for min wage and they send 4 figures 'back' a month... while paying rent and having a cell phone and eating and all sorts of other things. The very definition of sacrifice. Similarly, I know people who live in small houses and drive old cars and wear old clothes and don't go out a lot, who have high six figures in the bank. I also know people who don't have 50 cents in their pocket but they have a new car and the latest fashions. I don't think lots of people understand the 'value' of delayed gratification/sacrifice. They want to become wealthy simply by 'labor'... yet they don't have unique skills.

FTR, Education generally isn't going to make you wealthy. Lots of people with 5 degrees and no job... lots of people with no degrees and own companies. It's AT LEAST as much about application as education. I can (and often do) hire people who are much smarter than I... but they don't have my vision and/or take my risks.

Quote:on a larger scale basic economics is that when the pool of money sits with a small group of people, that money stays within that group and it is hard for outsiders to cash in. then there's the stats in that pic I posted above. then there is the whole "it takes money to make money."

That's a nice populist mantra, but it isn't true. You can make lots of money with other people's money... of course, they will make money as well... so if you are lamenting having others help you become a millionaire, because they make money as well, then you're never going to succeed. It's certainly hard for people without money to 'have their money work for them'. You can't use what you don't have.

FTR, plenty of wealthy people lose it as well... sometimes because while they have money, they lack talent and sacrifice.

Quote:my favorite quote of the day today is this: "Taylor Swift telling people to follow their dreams is like lotto winners telling people to buy lotto tickets." Startups do get through, but suggesting this trend isn't possible because you can find a few examples of success is as ludicrous as suggesting if gun laws can't stop every single crime they are useless.

Well, if your dream is to win the lottery, it starts with buying a ticket. That's not outrageous advice. Suggesting that 'winning the lottery' is a business plan is what is outrageous. Taylor didn't win the lottery... she has a unique talent and she and/or her parents worked hard to capitalize on it. Lots of other people also capitalized on her talent... some even more than she did. She COULD be mad at that as well, or she could be happy that she's a 25 year old multi-millionaire. Some people become millionaire's for merely being pretty. Talk about 'unequal opportunity'.

You're preaching populist mantras, but you aren't suggesting anything other than the 'monopoly' economy I suggested, where everyone gets $1mm and we see what happens. Have you seen the movie 'in time'? Same concept. There will still be winners and losers.... because all it takes is someone who wants more than they have, and someone willing to 'take a chance' on them.

Money certainly CAN make money. As I said, it is the scarcest commodity. Talent and sacrifice and labor are all less scarce and thus less valuable. But obviously talent and sacrifice CAN also make you wealthy. Not as wealthy as the people who have those, PLUS money, but your kids will have that opportunity.

Quote:the connections with income gaps lead to massive social change/social unrest is absolute fact as far as I'm concerned, and I really don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on that.

that's fine... but if it's a problem, then don't we need to address it?

How do you suggest we eliminate the value of risk capital in the global economy?
How do you suggest we make labor (the worlds most common commodity) worth more?
Wouldn't a wealthy person, if you started penalizing wealth and rewarding labor, simply stop 'selling' his wealth and start selling his labors as well? Won't there therefore still be winners and losers? Or are we going to start giving out jobs based on 'who needs them' the most as opposed to 'who does the best job'? If they stop 'selling' their wealth, how are we going to fund industry/the government/the economy? What would happen to our economy if 'investors' stopped buying our federal debt and banks stopped having money to loan?

Republicans have previously suggested allowing everyone to have a portion of their 'forced' retirement become 'risk capital'... and democrats put people into 'fear' mode to stop it. There are LOTS of people in this country who aren't willing to take risks. Almost by definition, they do not have the same opportunity to become wealthy as those who do. That's sometimes as much a choice.

I'm not talking about trickle down or anything else. I'm talking about 'what you do' with 'what you have'. The wealthy have more, so they can do more... but that doesn't stop people who don't have more from becoming wealthy themselves... in fact, those who don't have it often NEED to borrow it... If you want to call that trickle down, well... okay. I don't see how a pawn shop or bank or the guy that owns the studio where Taylor cut her first tracks is an example of trickle down economics... but okay.

One of the big things lots of these pop stars do these days is discover OTHER stars and help them make millions themselves. That's what all these talent shows are all about. That's essentially how this country works.

Hammy, this is a productive conversation.

However I think the notion that people don't have to work incredibly long hours these days to support themselves is being out of touch with reality. you are falling back into the same old "if you are poor it's your fault because you were lazy, dumb" etc. The three jobs notion is very real.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/31/cost-of-l...rkers.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor...f480897cd8

then there is this:



and this



I understanding where you are coming from with the sacrifice angle, however I don't think that is fair because that logic says you have to be rich in the first place in order to qualify as "sacrificing."

I didn't intend to do this, in fact I didn't notice it until after I said it. that quote was intended to be make any celebrity interchangeable: but of all the ones I picked taylor swift. taylor swift's dad is a stock broker who bought the label that first signed her. she is the absolute worst example one could come up with in a "self made" story. It is comical how disproportionate Hollywood celebrities are in terms of coming from wealthier backgrounds. because they have the resources for dance class, acting lessons, music lesson, etc. which goes all the way back to the first point.

Money CAN make money? are you for real. Money makes money nearly every time unless someone is grossly incompetent with their investments. that very concept being an absolute fact is what caused this problem in the first place.

as to the solution:

for me republicans need to stop doubling down on the exact same policies that caused income inequality in the first place. that would be a fantastic start. then I would say slowly undo all the policies that allowed this calamity to happen in the first place. this nation has had large tax rates on the wealthy before, and those were considered to be some of our best days as a nation. i'm not proposing anything radical like a socialist takeover or anything close to that. the wealthy will spew the same old BS of "I'm a unique talent that is why I'm rich" and/or "If you tax me any higher you will cause a talent flight." Sure some are truly talented, but for every talented rich guy you have a completely untalented rich guy who gets by because the game is rigged in his favor. whereas for every idiot on welfare who is too useless to do anything, there is someone who is incredibly talented but didn't have the opportunity to capitalize on that.

(07-06-2016 11:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 08:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Income has zero to do with equality and how much one makes is no ones business. Im waiting on someone to step up and voluntarily admit they make too much and give the surplus away.

that CEO who gave everyone a raise.

I hope your not referring to Gravity Payments, because A) he didnt give everyone a raise and B) I dont think the raises for those who will get one have even kicked in yet.

Also, he didnt voluntarily take a pay cut. He was being sued by his brother after it was discovered that he had seriously increased his compensation without his brother's knowledge and permission (and subsequently lied to reporters about how much he was making).

You liberals sure do pimp the guy who did things you supposedly hate. Most of the CEO's in America make far less than this dipsh*t did. Yet you hate those CEO's, yet blow this dude.

I swear to god the cons on here can't go a single argument without one of them playing "heads I win tails you lose" or moving the goalposts.

the question was name someone who said he makes too much. how is the success or failure of the result relevant to that? you can name plenty of successful names who have the viewpoint but as long as you name one unsuccessful one the entire talking point goes to **** according to you

I'm sorry, but anyone that argues this faux issue in a non-ironic or non-trolling manner, I can't take you seriously and this is all I can picture:



I know of a 550-lb guy that makes six figures by playing video games on Youtube. If you feel that you have income inequality, you are totally free to go make more money. The typical, working poor in the US these days has an iPhone, a flatscreen TV, a Playstation 4 (okay, maybe they only have a Playstation 3), etc.

I mean, what are we talking about here?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...is-poverty

crowder and heritage foundation LOL

The same information can be found else where, and the Crowder video is intended to cast shade on those who grovel to government and other men to acquire and hand them more of their "fair share".

(07-06-2016 02:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  However I think the notion that people don't have to work incredibly long hours these days to support themselves is being out of touch with reality.

If you really gave a damned about WHY people have to work long hours, instead of keeping your head up your ass, then you would be DEMANDING Obamacare to be killed off. It is the primary reason why people who, prior to 2010, could work normal hours, no longer can.

Now, do you REALLY care about people working long hours, or do you simply want to put team over country and the people who are forced to work long hours due to Obamacare?

(07-06-2016 02:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Hammy, this is a productive conversation.

However I think the notion that people don't have to work incredibly long hours these days to support themselves is being out of touch with reality. you are falling back into the same old "if you are poor it's your fault because you were lazy, dumb" etc. The three jobs notion is very real.

It's productive, except that each time, you've responded back to me assigning some 'catch phrase' I haven't said in order to dismiss me. I'd appreciate you discussing with 'me' and not 'them'. I never said anyone was dumb or lazy... nor did I imply that there weren't people in the situation you described.

Your charts don't have anything to do with the discussion. They have to do with setting some arbitrary level that people should be able to achieve and then measuring against that.

Someone living with their parents could get by very well with a 40 hour min wage job. A couple, or two friends could also get by on it. Some illegal immigrants are able to send 4 figures home every month on that, because of how they choose to live (what sacrifices they make) to live here.

Quote:I understanding where you are coming from with the sacrifice angle, however I don't think that is fair because that logic says you have to be rich in the first place in order to qualify as "sacrificing."

Not at all. Buy a bus pass and a bike rather than a car, gas and insurance. Live with 3 room mates or at home for an extra year. Put a bunk in the back room of your shop. Do without cable or internet at home, using the library or a regular rather than smartphone. Work 40 hours for someone else to pay the bills, and then another 40 hours 'for free' to build your own business.... reinvesting every dime from that into the business as opposed to spending it. Putting off being married for a year.

All of your charts talk about being able to support a family on the min wage for 40 hours. Virtually NOBODY 'succeeds' in life, and certainly doesn't become wealthy by working 40 hours. MOST work closer to 80 and some more than 100. Someone working 40 hours AND going to school full time (or interning for free somewhere) is sacrificing.

Someone getting a degree in a field that doesn't lead to a job is certainly becoming more educated, but they aren't 'succeeding' as much as someone who learns a trade.

Quote:I didn't intend to do this, in fact I didn't notice it until after I said it. that quote was intended to be make any celebrity interchangeable: but of all the ones I picked taylor swift. taylor swift's dad is a stock broker who bought the label that first signed her. she is the absolute worst example one could come up with in a "self made" story. It is comical how disproportionate Hollywood celebrities are in terms of coming from wealthier backgrounds. because they have the resources for dance class, acting lessons, music lesson, etc. which goes all the way back to the first point.

All you're proving is that your own example was bad in a number of ways.

LOTS of stars weren't wealthy... some were down right poor.

Quote:Money CAN make money? are you for real. Money makes money nearly every time unless someone is grossly incompetent with their investments. that very concept being an absolute fact is what caused this problem in the first place.

I'm just not understanding what you're not following here.

LOTS of people with money are tied to one industry. If it goes, they're dead. There have been thousands of examples...

Never have I denied that people with MORE things to 'sell' can make more... in fact that has been my entire point... but that has nothing to do with someone else becoming wealthy. You're not explaining to me how Taylor Swift getting lessons stops Eminem from becoming wealthy.

Quote:as to the solution:

for me republicans need to stop doubling down on the exact same policies that caused income inequality in the first place that would be a fantastic start. then I would say slowly undo all the policies that allowed this calamity to happen in the first place. this nation has had large tax rates on the wealthy before, and those were considered to be some of our best days as a nation. i'm not proposing anything radical like a socialist takeover or anything close to that. the wealthy will spew the same old BS of "I'm a unique talent that is why I'm rich" and/or "If you tax me any higher you will cause a talent flight." Sure some are truly talented, but for every talented rich guy you have a completely untalented rich guy who gets by because the game is rigged in his favor. whereas for every idiot on welfare who is too useless to do anything, there is someone who is incredibly talented but didn't have the opportunity to capitalize on that.

This isn't a solution. By your perspective, you have two choices... some combination thereof
1) make the return (net of taxes) on risk capital negative
2) somehow give everyone else risk capital to invest, but only let the less wealthy capitalize on it.

How else are the 'not wealthy' going to catch the 'wealthy'

Otherwise, the poor will only always have their talents, labors and sacrifices, while the wealthy will have all of that PLUS risk capital. Even if you put a 99% tax on risk capital (ignoring the results of that), they will STILL be earning more than someone without that risk capital.

In order for your scenario to work, you've got to find some way to eliminate the 'supply/demand' global economic reality. In order for MY scenario to work, you simply need to find ways to incentivize or even pool sacrifices... i.e. incentivize gofundme or micro-investment pools for everyone but the wealthy. That won't stop the wealthy from getting wealthier, but it might create more wealthy people.

We're right back to the idea that a yacht club that pushes three 40 foot boats out in order to house the one 100 ft boat creates an opportunity for a new yacht club that values the thee 40 footers now being ignored. Now you have TWO wealthy yacht club owners rather than just the one.

This thread is even more craptastic than I feared it would be.

(07-06-2016 04:09 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This thread is even more craptastic than I feared it would be.

as I watch o'eerie dispshite reilly....nothing surprises me.....

(07-06-2016 08:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 01:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why do you care how much someone, anyone, else makes? How does that possibly affect you if I'm dragging down 150(?)k a year?

Thats been done for centuries, since time began. Has it changed your own behavior, or your friends/family's in some way if your neighbor makes more money?

I'd humbly suggest you go talk to your neighbor...

You're right, of course, in a sense. What you make is your own business and good for you if you make a good wage. Congratulations. You win. You're important. You matter. You're special.

I think the root problem is there's too much wealth concentrated in too few hands. Nobody wins when that's the case. It's caused revolution, rebellion and chaos and eventually will again. Bad things go down when one segment of a society has all the money and controls all the resources.

On a related note, there's no way we pay people according to their real worth to society. A good teacher should make far more than a good athlete. A good firefighter or paramedic should make more than a salesman. A good cop should make more than a hedge fund manager. Our priorities in this country are off.
We as a culture value the wrong things.

I personally give a rat's ass what you make. And I'm a liberal. But if you expect me to think there's no problem with the way wealth is distributed in this country, you're wrong. There's no level playing field. If you're born comfortable, you have much more opportunity than you do if you're born in harsher circumstances.

Okay, since you decided to make a lame attempt to call me out, I'll reluctantly give you a proper public spanking.

Wait! Did I say "public"? Why yes I did.

As in, every single one of these hero worship occupations you think are somehow outside the order of market based influences and what the market will, and does bear, are amazingly (not really. at all ) "public employees". Read... Government workers.

With your emotional, simplistic view on this, who, instead of the market, should decide/establish what these various jobs are worth? If not the market, then is it left up to..... humans? peoples? Dare I guess politicians or bureaucrats? Who gave them the grace of superior knowledge above that of the natural order of things?

Oh. Right. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and too many others to list. How's that worked out?

But that obviousness aside, what would you suggest the "hedge fund manager" or the athlete, or the salesperson, whomever, make? How do you come to that decision? More laws? A "scale" perhaps?

So, yea. Keep attempting to kill the private sector, tax those that net contribute to the wealth of this formerly great country instead of living off of it, then come back and scratch your head, and wonder how we became Greece.

if those salespeople, those hedge fund managers, those athletes and anyone else actually bringing money INTO the economy, whether it's selling pillows or buggy whips, were to disappear or be "punished" properly tomorrow, who pays the salaries of all those you "value" more?

*NewsFlash* Champ- We're well on our way to 21 TRILLION dollars in debt. You think our way out is grabbing ever increasing money from the private sector, and giving it over to government? What does government produce?

Without those honest, hard working folks you deride, there ain' gonna BE the teachers, the firefighters, the men in blue or an EMT. Who on earth do you think PAYS them? Government?!?

We value precisely the right things in this Country, least we did.

"The business of America is business." We've, apparently, forgotten that in certain leftist circles, and it's a cancer.

What Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon, Gates, Kennedy, Lebron or Beyonce makes has had exactly ZERO impact on you, me, or anyone else on this forum or, frankly the face of the earth. Except, perhaps, those that have benefited from their success.

The sooner we get back to that which has made us the most prosperous and generous Country to ever exist, the sooner we will ALL be better off. As in, ALL.

The entire world.