And the rich get richer

[Gravitymaster 0]

Heck, I've got some pills you buy for $1000. that have a money back guarantee to make you rich within 30 years. Just have to take one every day and all your dreams will come true.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bullshit!!

If you gave most poor people $1 million, most would squander it away on a new car and other toys and would be broke again in a few years.

Most people who have money, have it because they know how to make it and what to do with it.

FAIL.

93% of the population isn't poor. There is a large (but shrinking) middle class.

Over the past 30 years there has been a very distinct shift in the wealth of the nation from the middle class to the rich.

Wrong again. According to the government we have 50 million people below the poverty line.

50 million is not 93% of 310 million. Your math is as lousy as your conclusion and your politics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bullshit!!

If you gave most poor people $1 million, most would squander it away on a new car and other toys and would be broke again in a few years.

Most people who have money, have it because they know how to make it and what to do with it.

FAIL.

93% of the population isn't poor. There is a large (but shrinking) middle class.

Over the past 30 years there has been a very distinct shift in the wealth of the nation from the middle class to the rich.

Wrong again. According to the government we have 50 million people below the poverty line.

50 million is not 93% of 310 million. Your math is as lousy as your conclusion and your politics.

You don't really teach at a college, do you? You've just been playing a joke on all us, haven't you?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bullshit!!

If you gave most poor people $1 million, most would squander it away on a new car and other toys and would be broke again in a few years.

Most people who have money, have it because they know how to make it and what to do with it.

FAIL.

93% of the population isn't poor. There is a large (but shrinking) middle class.

Over the past 30 years there has been a very distinct shift in the wealth of the nation from the middle class to the rich.

Wrong again. According to the government we have 50 million people below the poverty line.

50 million is not 93% of 310 million. Your math is as lousy as your conclusion and your politics.

You don't really teach at a college, do you? You've just been playing a joke on all us, haven't you?

I know how to calculate percentages, which is apparently way beyond your abilities.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

"Between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (in constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. And yes, that "less than $10,000" figure includes the many households with no assets at all, or "negative assets" -- what we in the non-academic world just call debt.

Where did all the money go? Over the same period, the richest 1 percent of households increased their average wealth by 71 percent.

Here's another way to gauge the shift in wealth: From 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10% of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. All the rest of Americans lost ground."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

>Bullshit!!

>If you gave most poor people $1 million, most would squander it away on a new car
>and other toys and would be broke again in a few years.

If you gave ANYONE $1 million there's a good chance they'd squander it away on a new car and other toys and be broke again in a few years. Google lottery winners.

That, and two chicks at the same time, man.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

"Between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (in constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. And yes, that "less than $10,000" figure includes the many households with no assets at all, or "negative assets" -- what we in the non-academic world just call debt.

Where did all the money go? Over the same period, the richest 1 percent of households increased their average wealth by 71 percent.

Here's another way to gauge the shift in wealth: From 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10% of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. All the rest of Americans lost ground."

This is the line for bread komrade. The line for wealth is over there. I'm guessing you are feeling a tad guilty over the fact that your net worth has increased over time. Mine too. But I can't afford a plane or vintage sports car like you. Should I be upset by that?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,110]

>That, and two chicks at the same time, man.

See? Spreading the . . . wealth.

[DanG 1]

Quote

But I can't afford a plane or vintage sports car like you. Should I be upset by that?

Maybe if you had worked harder you could.

You realize by your own argument you just admitted that you're lazier than Kallend, right?

- Dan G

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

But I can't afford a plane or vintage sports car like you. Should I be upset by that?

Maybe if you had worked harder you could.

You realize by your own argument you just admitted that you're lazier than Kallend, right?

Not quite. I said I wasn't angry that he had more toys than I do.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

"Between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (in constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. And yes, that "less than $10,000" figure includes the many households with no assets at all, or "negative assets" -- what we in the non-academic world just call debt.

Where did all the money go? Over the same period, the richest 1 percent of households increased their average wealth by 71 percent.

Here's another way to gauge the shift in wealth: From 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10% of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. All the rest of Americans lost ground."

This is the line for bread komrade. The line for wealth is over there. I'm guessing you are feeling a tad guilty over the fact that your net worth has increased over time. Mine too. But I can't afford a plane or vintage sports car like you. Should I be upset by that?

I don't feel guilty at all, but unlike you, neither do I attribute to laziness the desperate straits in which many of our fellows find themselves. Nor do I try to enrich myself at their expense and lobby to pay taxes at a lower rate than people with a lot less than I have.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

But I can't afford a plane or vintage sports car like you. Should I be upset by that?

Maybe if you had worked harder you could.

You realize by your own argument you just admitted that you're lazier than Kallend, right?

Well, more likely it's an admission that I work smarter, not necessarily harder.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not quite. I said I wasn't angry that he had more toys than I do.

Whether or not you're angry has nothing to do with it. By your own argument, the only way Kallend has more than you is because he works harder. Why are you so lazy? And why should we listen to your opinions on hard work, when you admittedly don't work as hard as a useless college professor like Kallend?

Or is it possble that hard work is not the sole determinant of financial success?

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"Between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (in constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. And yes, that "less than $10,000" figure includes the many households with no assets at all, or "negative assets" -- what we in the non-academic world just call debt.

in light of all the (dull) posts that followed, do planes count as assets? Or are they examples of luxury spending?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Heck, I've got some pills you buy for $1000. that have a money back guarantee to make you rich within 30 years. Just have to take one every day and all your dreams will come true.

Don't you get greedy, Tom Vu. You go to jail.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Not quite. I said I wasn't angry that he had more toys than I do.

Whether or not you're angry has nothing to do with it. By your own argument, the only way Kallend has more than you is because he works harder. Why are you so lazy? And why should we listen to your opinions on hard work, when you admittedly don't work as hard as a useless college professor like Kallend?

Or is it possble that hard work is not the sole determinant of financial success?

You're going to have to show me where I said that.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[popsjumper 2]

Guys A and B have exactly the same cash outlay requirements of $100 every month.

Guy A makes $110/mo
Guy B makes $100/mo

Guy A increased his wealth by $10 that month yet he is an asshole because poor Mr. "I'm pissed because your wealth is increasing faster than mine" is bruising his heels kicking and screaming and whining about it.

Guy A puts that $10 into an interest bearing account and it makes him more money yet he is an asshole because poor Mr. "I'm pissed because your wealth is increasing faster than mine" is still bruising his heels kicking and screaming and whining about it.

Yep, the rich keep getting richer.
Yep, whiners will continue to bruise their heels over it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Yeeeaaahhh... but, you've actually pointed out a major difference there. If I make $200 million a year, and give away a quarter, I've still got $150 million. Not exactly switching to a noodle diet. If I make $40K a year, and give away a quarter, that's going to have a significant impact on my standard of living. Then you get flow on effects - I have less money to put in my savings account now, which means I may take a lot longer to get a deposit together for a mortgage, which means I burn more capital on renting and get slowed down even further. That's just one example. Meanwhile the kid over the other side of town who got a seven figure trust fund for his 18th birthday should (realistically) never have to go into any form of debt in his life. Not paying interest leaves him proportionately more capital to invest in manners that will increase his capital overall, so unless he's stupid or very unlucky, he's always going to be ahead of the game.

Not saying that's a bad thing. But those who've stated that hard work is all you need aren't really seeing the full picture, IMO.

Since you are 'down under' and probably not familiar with US tax code I'll simplify things a bit. Not to talk down to you, but things over on this side get damn complicated really quick.

Basically ALL INCOME regardless of source goes into what is called Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

After that we apply deductions which in may include 'charitable deduction' which includes assets donated to institutions qualified by the fed as a 501(c)3. Those deductions come off of the AGI and are not subjected to tax. Basically, the fed considers it like it was never your assets. It's gone, you never had use of it, you never earned it. That is your TAXABLE INCOME.

So, what happens in these 'Mitt Romney' types of 'he pays less than his janitor' stories they take the AGI which is the number BEFORE ANY DEDUCTIONS and use the taxes you paid AFTER DEDUCTIONS (your TAXABLE INCOME) which would be lower because you gave away a HUGE chunk of your money that year.

So, basically they skew the number to claim you paid less taxes than the guy who picks up dog poop in the park even though a large portion of the number they claim you made was never really yours and was never subjected to taxation,

Complete rubbish.

.

Yes, what you wrote IS complete rubbish, because all income is NOT treated the same. Income from "carried interest" (as one example) that the hedge fund managers make is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages or salaries. THAT is the main reason Mitt Romney pays at a lower rate than many middle class people. It has nothing to do with his charitable contributions. Since poor and middle class people generally aren't going to be able to become hedge fund managers, this is clearly a way of further enriching the rich at the expense of the rest of us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,110]

>Guy A increased his wealth by $10 that month yet he is an asshole because poor
>Mr. "I'm pissed because your wealth is increasing faster than mine" is bruising his
>heels kicking and screaming and whining about it.

Well, more accurately "I'm pissed because your income is going up while mine is going down."

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Well, more accurately "I'm pissed because your income is going up while mine is going down."

You must really mean buying power instead of income.

There was no mention of incomes going down. The talk about income reduction (less hours, etc.) is a different topic...and a different reason for the bruised heels.

I think a more mature approach to either topic would be along the lines of, "What can I do to improve MY situation without harming the situation of others?"

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

"What can I do to improve MY situation without harming the situation of others?"

If you, personally, are creating wealth, that's a valid question. If, on the other hand, you're moving it around, or you're in charge of others' raises (e.g. CEO), then your own raise is, in fact, at the expense of others.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, what you wrote IS complete rubbish, because all income is NOT treated the same. Income from "carried interest" (as one example) that the hedge fund managers make is taxed at a much lower rate than income from wages or salaries. THAT is the main reason Mitt Romney pays at a lower rate than many middle class people. It has nothing to do with his charitable contributions. Since poor and middle class people generally aren't going to be able to become hedge fund managers, this is clearly a way of further enriching the rich at the expense of the rest of us.

it is the explanation for why Obama is paying lower tax rate, which had a certain set of people up in arms last week. Remove his charitable contributions and his blended fed rate went to 24.5%.

As for Mitt - I don't think the carried interest treatment matters anymore. Now it's just that his realized earnings are long term capital gains, which also has the better treatment than income tax at 20 + the new Obamacare tax (3.9?).

[DanG 1]

Quote

You're going to have to show me where I said that.

You're right, it wasn't you, it was popsjumper. My apologies.

- Dan G

[richravizza 28]

Educations the KEY, We'll teach our kids about Sex, drugs, and global warming !!!
But, Wealth creation, Personal Financial independence FAGETTA ABOUT IT!!
I'm one of those ON the Poverty line,but that doesn't stop me from:
Paying myself First
Dollar cost averaging
Investing in Income producers.
The gov't SSI systems is going to be a losing investment.
So we're all in it for our selves.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Heck, I've got some pills you buy for $1000. that have a money back guarantee to make you rich within 30 years. Just have to take one every day and all your dreams will come true.

Don't you get greedy, Tom Vu. You go to jail.

That's why I've disguised them to look like M&M's.