And the rich get richer

[billvon 3,114]

>EVERYBODY whines that (except for Kallend, maybe)...nothing special to any
>financial bracket. "Tax somebody else!"

Exactly my point.

>I noticed you had no answer for the "get off your dead ass" angle....figures.

I think everyone should get off their asses. Even the rich people who inherited their money from Daddy. But the way the system works now, they don't have to. Heck, if they don't do a lick of work in their lives, they are rewarded under the current system. But you like those sort of dead-asses, I take it?

>You guys keep on wishing for utopia...

And you guys keep trying to protect the trust babies. Good work if you can get it.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I think everyone should get off their asses. Even the rich people who inherited their money from Daddy. But the way the system works now, they don't have to. Heck, if they don't do a lick of work in their lives, they are rewarded under the current system. But you like those sort of dead-asses, I take it?

The few I know, yes. The rest? I envy them.
So, in your view, it's not that you have it, it's all about how you got it? So, you would not want to pass down the wealth you managed to accumulate to your son when you pass away? How does Amy and the rest of your family fell about that?

How does that negate the idea of the "have-nots" taking responsibility for their own well-being instead of trying too extort it from the "haves"?

Quote

>You guys keep on wishing for utopia...

Quote

And you guys keep trying to protect the trust babies. Good work if you can get it.

Do you really think that hosing the "trust babies" as you call them will advance your wish for utopia?

You don't see your "trust babies" squalling for YOUR money, do you? Let's keep the focus where it should be, eh? Misdirection only serves as a distraction from the point of the discussion you were trying to make.

The ideas you are presenting here scare me...it's like a vision of living in a goobermint-controlled prison state.

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

[popsjumper 2]

...and to note:
Ah yes, "trust babies" getting it handed to them vs "welfare babies" getting it handed to them.
No difference, right?

Wrong.

On the one hand you have some individual actually doing something to earn the money to be passed down.
OTOH, you have an entire country paying taxes to hand down.

You're wanting to take away the option of the first and change it to a requirement for the second. Still see no difference?

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Rich people that inherited their money from Daddy do get off their asses and hustle. That's why they keep getting richer and more power to them.

I guess the thought is that they take the money and run.

Hey, if the goobermint is going to try to take it away from me, damned right...I'm running...offshore.

Oh wait, that makes me an asshole for not staying and givin' it up to the goobermint. Lord knows they know how to waste it better than I do.

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

I think everyone should get off their asses. Even the rich people who inherited their money from Daddy. But the way the system works now, they don't have to. Heck, if they don't do a lick of work in their lives, they are rewarded under the current system. But you like those sort of dead-asses, I take it?

The few I know, yes. The rest? I envy them.
So, in your view, it's not that you have it, it's all about how you got it? So, you would not want to pass down the wealth you managed to accumulate to your son when you pass away? How does Amy and the rest of your family fell about that?

How does that negate the idea of the "have-nots" taking responsibility for their own well-being instead of trying too extort it from the "haves"?

So you're suggesting that 93% of the US population don't take responsibility or work hard.

I know a lot of people making $100k or so who are, therefore, in that 93%, who work very hard and don't expect handouts.

Many of them pay tax at a higher rate than Mitt Romney.

I think you are, as usual, full of BS.

...

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

[mistercwood 287]

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.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[mistercwood 287]

Our tax system, for the purposes you stated, isn't really any different. I have a better understanding now though of what you were getting at in your previous post. With my post, you kinda got it.

My beef is with those who say the only difference between rich and poor is how much you're prepared to work - the good old American Dream. That's fine if everyone starts on a relatively level playing field, which they don't, and haven't for decades. If you start rich - no effort involved on your part so far - congratulations, you're set for life (with rare exceptions). If you start poor, congratulations, with rare exceptions you're probably going to die poor.

Some people (not referring to you here) think this is purely and solely an issue of work ethic. I think that's a bullshit attitude. The poor are prevented from doing the things that make the rich richer, by virtue of being poor. Then people shit on them for being lazy. Yay team.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So you're suggesting that 93% of the US population don't take responsibility or work hard.

Well, I already expected another Kallend misguided assumption. Another, holier-then-thou comment from the egotist. Sorry, but, no.

Quote

I know a lot of people ......

OMG...not this again. Who cares, john, who you know?

Quote

I think you are, as usual, full of BS.

Thank you. It relieves me to know that it's beyond your comprehension....because you "know somebody".

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

[popsjumper 2]

In the beginning there were only the poor. No rich, just poor. The playing field was level. Somebody, somewhere along the line did something to gain wealth while others did nothing. Now the field tilts. So?

So now, the do-nothings want what the doer built for himself. Natural enough, right?

The problem is the do-nothings continue to do nothing to increase their wealth. They want the goobermint to extort it for them.

It's fascinating that so many of those in between are doing so much screaming right along side of the do-nothings. They want more, rightfully so, yet whine about those with some level of wealth wanting more.
"Wanting more is good for me, bad for you."


I think it's a sad commentary on the state of things where some people are so wrapped up in what others have and are willing to try to take it from them instead of doing the things that would provide for themselves.

Yes, yes, some people cannot do for themselves and we are not addressing that in this thread.

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

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I noticed you had no answer for the "get off your dead ass" angle....figures. Enablers often do that...ignore the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is that when there aren't as many jobs as there are people, someone will always be screwed. On an individual basis it is, of course, possible for many people to improve their situations with hard work. But when everyone does it the lowest levels of the pyramid don't magically disappear, there still has to be a whole heap of people at the bottom.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

But when everyone does it the lowest levels of the pyramid don't magically disappear, there still has to be a whole heap of people at the bottom.

True dat. It just will never happen that everyone will be doing that. I agree, there will always be shufflers, and whiners, and extortionists, and lazy-bums and freeloaders....all begging the goobermint to Nanny them.

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

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

But when everyone does it the lowest levels of the pyramid don't magically disappear, there still has to be a whole heap of people at the bottom.

True dat. It just will never happen that everyone will be doing that. I agree, there will always be shufflers, and whiners, and extortionists, and lazy-bums and freeloaders....all begging the goobermint to Nanny them.

And there will always be hardworking, decent, stand-up guys who you'd be happy to call a friend who can't move beyond the lowest rungs of the employment ladder.



(I know, I know, Elephants, pyramids, ladders - too many metaphors!)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

And there will always be hardworking, decent, stand-up guys who you'd be happy to call a friend who can't move beyond the lowest rungs of the employment ladder.

For the disabled, yes, already addressed:
"Yes, yes, some people cannot do for themselves and we are not addressing that in this thread. "

You say your friend cannot? Just out of curiosity, what's holding him back that he has no control over?

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

[jakee 1,594]

Oh hey look, a circle. I bet that'll be fun.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

And there will always be hardworking, decent, stand-up guys who you'd be happy to call a friend who can't move beyond the lowest rungs of the employment ladder.

For the disabled, yes, already addressed:
"Yes, yes, some people cannot do for themselves and we are not addressing that in this thread. "

You say your friend cannot? Just out of curiosity, what's holding him back that he has no control over?

Thought I offered a few basic examples a couple posts back. In the grand scheme it's kind of like saying "why can't you win this race with your moped against the guy with the ferrari?". You can get a fair way around the track if you plan well, but you're never going to see that checkered flag before him, if ever. How many metaphors are we up to, incidentally?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The elephant in the room is that when there aren't as many jobs as there are people, someone will always be screwed. On an individual basis it is, of course, possible for many people to improve their situations with hard work. But when everyone does it the lowest levels of the pyramid don't magically disappear, there still has to be a whole heap of people at the bottom.

absolutely - and trillions of dollars in military spending takes those jobs away from the private sector, and trillions of dollars in 'social programs' takes those jabs away from the private sector

we know where a LARGE chunk of the problem is

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

absolutely - and trillions of dollars in military spending takes those jobs away from the private sector, and trillions of dollars in 'social programs' takes those jabs away from the private sector.

Do they?

The argument that puts 'wealth creators' as the be all and end all of economic wellbeing falls slightly flat in a thread which shows that the wealth currently being created is heading straight to the already wealthy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think everyone should get off their asses. Even the rich people who inherited their money from Daddy. But the way the system works now, they don't have to. Heck, if they don't do a lick of work in their lives, they are rewarded under the current system. But you like those sort of dead-asses, I take it?

The few I know, yes. The rest? I envy them.
So, in your view, it's not that you have it, it's all about how you got it? So, you would not want to pass down the wealth you managed to accumulate to your son when you pass away? How does Amy and the rest of your family fell about that?

How does that negate the idea of the "have-nots" taking responsibility for their own well-being instead of trying too extort it from the "haves"?

So you're suggesting that 93% of the US population don't take responsibility or work hard.

I know a lot of people making $100k or so who are, therefore, in that 93%, who work very hard and don't expect handouts.

Many of them pay tax at a higher rate than Mitt Romney.

I think you are, as usual, full of BS.

And you continue to ignore that people such as Mitt Romney give huge portions of their income to charity.

Which is, of course, complete irrelevant.

...

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

But when everyone does it the lowest levels of the pyramid don't magically disappear, there still has to be a whole heap of people at the bottom.

True dat. It just will never happen that everyone will be doing that. I agree, there will always be shufflers, and whiners, and extortionists, and lazy-bums and freeloaders....all begging the goobermint to Nanny them.

Are you suggesting that the 93% who didn't get richer are all shufflers, and whiners, and extortionists, and lazy-bums and freeloaders?

You are full of BS, as usual.

...

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

[regulator 0]

Of course if it was george soros that we were talking about instead of mitt romney it would probably just fine with you.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Of course if it was george soros that we were talking about instead of mitt romney it would probably just fine with you.

You ASSume too much.

...

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

[champu 1]

.2%... 1%... 7%...

What certainly is experiencing solid growth is the size of the group of people you'll call "rich" at any given moment.

[rickjump1 0]

Do people who suffer from wealth envy automatically suffer from penis envy?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

absolutely - and trillions of dollars in military spending takes those jobs away from the private sector, and trillions of dollars in 'social programs' takes those jabs away from the private sector.

Do they?

The argument that puts 'wealth creators' as the be all and end all of economic wellbeing falls slightly flat in a thread which shows that the wealth currently being created is heading straight to the already wealthy.

that's an odd little non-sequitor just for the purpose of pressing on the class envy theme - tired, old theme.

Why are you assuming that cutting (any and all) spending ONLY goes to the rich. I'm not rich, I pay taxes. I'd like to keep more. don't you?

The default shouldn't be push the spending to "My pet programs". It should be cut it - cut for real.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

that's an odd little non-sequitor just for the purpose of pressing on the class envy theme - tired, old theme.

You were talking cutting spending leading to job creation. That tends to involve mention of wealth creators, although if that was not the mechanism you were referencing then please expand on what you meant.

Quote

Why are you assuming that cutting (any and all) spending ONLY goes to the rich. I'm not rich, I pay taxes. I'd like to keep more. don't you?

Since, again, you were talking about cutting spending to boost job creation I think that statement is the non-sequitor (sic).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?