Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share #51 Posted June 22, 2016 They are not protecting it. They are hoarding it. It's bad policy, it's unfair, and it's also really really shitty economics. The constant focus on shareholers and Wall Street drives companies to prioritize products over quality and reinvesting in their communities to improve the American standard of living. It forces them to outsource, gut the labor and middle class (and therefore the real spending power of this nation) instead in favor of a constant casino or crash credit based model, that is driven towards ever more speculative behavior during periods of growth as it tries to frivolously out-do itself, before the thing inevitably crashes down and resets, and the entire cycle can repeat. The rich have money because they inherit it, rig the system, and the richest among them literally have so much they can't waste it. What you are describing, is literally the upper middle class. And the penny pinching that is necessary by them when they are middle class to reach upper middle class, with a little bit of luck factored in too. That's what the middle class and lower middle class used to do, but in our rat race to the bottom, we are applying the ethos of a lower class to the upper one, till we get to the rich, and then we apply the ethos of royalty...as we celebrate them in mass media funded articles celebrating their "business acumen" and "visionary leadership" and "jurisprudent consideration of all alternatives". Meanwhile, to our working poor, we are progressively working towards applying the ethos of Calcutta, India to them. A capitalist society means each earns commensurate with their skills and level of effort. A CEO is not worth 500 times an hourly employee. They are not 500 times smarter (hell, some of the WORST CEO's are the highest compensated), and they do not work 500 times harder. Sure, they are "on call" and make a lot of personal sacrifices for the company, but so do workers, and not to a degree that merits 500x pay. You deliberately have executive compensation in the form of stock options that is designed to obscure real compensation packages, and it works....because the average idiot American thinks CEO's make less than they do, but still somehow thinks that's too much anyway. Fixing income inequality will literally fix the economy. It will never grow the way it is now. This is third world, banana republic, backwards level BS going on right now. In every point in human history income inequality has grown beyond this point it has ended very badly for a lot of people...ESPECIALLY the rich. A bunch of dead French aristocrats from the 1700s might like to have a word with the idiots rigging the game now about the possible consequences...why do you think they have private security forces and want to disarm ordinary Americans, for example??? Not to mention, economies have never been sustainable with this much wealth concentrated in the hands of the few who literally do nothing with it except "invest in companies" which sounds good on paper until you realize that the majority of "jobs" created by those companies are incredibly low income, or overseas. It's bad business, it's bad economy, it's bad policy. Poor kids don't get to be caddies. How do you think you get into a country club in the first place? Connections. Plus who wants a caddy that doesn't know golf, make recommendations, etc.? Poor kids don't have easy access to golf courses to learn ettiquette, the game, etc. Plus a member's kid will always get hired as a caddy first. I don't take this post to be about how rich people waste their money (and they do, as you said they just have more to burn without feeling real consequences), rather I take it to be about the opportunities for jobs and careers the rich enjoy that poor kids don't, and how that disadvantages them far more than race, sexuality, and all the other BS distractions the media has the lemmings in this country focused on instead of parental wealth and lineage. Amazing that all these years later we're back to such a bullshit concept as birthright. Rich people and poor people do not at all have a level playing field, and judging them according to the same sliding scale is not legit because the rich face significantly fewer challenges. "Life in the 21st century in America" Rich kid (childhood) -Parents can afford to live in a decent neighborhood. Rich's kids will go to a good school because the decent neighborhoods tend to have good schools. Poor kid (childhood) -Cannot afford to live in a decent neighborhood. Therefore has to live above means to get into a good neighborhood, or live in a worse one. Poor's kids, therefore, will either go to a good school in a good neighborhood, but will not be able to take advantage of it since his parents have to really rub sticks together to pay for tuition, and socially the kid will be hurt when he can't do activities the other rich kids can. Plus his parents will feel compelled by society, in order to give him a decent childhood, to provide him with some of the gadgets, toys, and entertainment his peers have so that he can fit in, enjoy the same experiences, have some fun, and relate with his peers. Also setting them back further financially. Or, they can send him to the neighborhood school in the bad neighborhood where he will get a terrible education, probably be subjected to bullying if he's actually trying to make something of himself intellectually, be given the least experienced or worst performing teachers in the classroom to learn from, and have little to no good counseling of any kind available at the school either to him or his parents. Because of the school's reputation, even good grades are looked at with a heavy grain of salt. ========================= Rich kid (teenager) -Begins building his resume for the college application process. Activities, travel, and volunteer activities are easy to finance...and programs like study abroad in high school, etc. are viable for the family to afford. Also begins meeting friends of the family, and being exposed to options for jobs and careers. Can even begin working at a decent paying job around this time. Jobs like golf caddy, tennis club pro, teaching assistant or tutor at a respected learning institution, or interns at respected companies, even while still in high school, can be had with the right connections. Poor kid (teenager) -May be able to focus on one or two activities, but will have to help the family out at times which may mean working at age 16 to help pay bills, often at whatever jobs are available. Even if they don't have to help the family out, they may have to start working to start saving towards college. Will not be able to afford travel, and lacks the connections to get a good paying job. Working in food service, retail, a laundry, or another high labor low wage job, is common. If the kid isn't asked or chooses not to work, he will have to take on added chores at home since there is more to be done and with both parents likely working by this point (sometimes two jobs, if need be), less person-hours for the parents to complete tasks, so they will need help. ====================== Rich kid (college) -Will apply to and get into more schools. The experiences he's had put him at an advantage, and make him more sophisticated. Colleges do somewhat favor students who pay full freight (even though they "officially" say they don't), so their application acceptance rates are higher based on income alone. They benefit from "legacy" if they apply to a school one of their parents or relatives went, which a poor kid would never benefit from since their parents are likely at best, high school grads. Since their parents have money and aren't drowning in debt, they can co-sign for a credit card with their kid at this point, and teach him how to use it, how to use the rewards it earns, how to avoid interest, and otherwise be responsible with it. If their kid is irresponsible one month, they can cancel the card, lesson learned as punishment, and they can afford the one month hit. But more than likely, the kid will learn the lessons from the parents, and have yet another advantage on his poor counterpart. The rich kid also will be able to find decent wage employment during summers, etc. if not traveling or doing other "life altering experiences" that look good on a job or grad school application, and has access to more internships and things of that nature due to familial connections. Poor kid (college) -Will not get into as many schools as the rich kid, partly due to having fewer "world class" experiences to rant and rave about in an essay, not benefitting from legacy or paying full ride. Will be dependent on scholarships and student loans (which of course is a big expense post graduation). They will not be surrounded by friends and family who can advise them through college as the rich kid will, because colleges are notorious for giving their own students HORRENDOUS academic and career advice, and will likely suffer from some disillusionment and sensory overload as they try to pick a major and a career and navigate the college experience as their richer counterparts splurge on spring break in Cancun, while they just go home. Their grades will suffer somewhat, since they will have to work to put themselves through school in some shape or form, and this limits time for studying or fun (fun is necessary for everyone...you HAVE to unwind every once in a while or you will go stir crazy). This puts them in a less competitive position for jobs now. Also won't get to learn much with credit unless they venture out on their own, and their parents won't steer them away from the pitfalls of it since they may not understand it themselves. Unless the poor kid picks a business major at a school with a good business dept. with teachers who are personally interested in making sure their students understand personal finance, they will never receive good advice about managing money, avoiding (not evading) taxes, using credit, saving money, budgeting, and investment options. ========================= Rich kid (post college) -Parents can help with renting first apartment, networking for first job, buying amenities. Internships and other experiences in college give them a leg up for good jobs...they know the game when they get there vs. the poor kid who is always still learning. They will have built up some credit, or have their parents to co-sign for a first apartment, so that application process is easier. If they don't want to work, going to grad school isn't really a big deal. Poor kid (post college) -Has to start repaying student loans now, and therefore must find work immediately. May not be able to find work in desired field, so has to take a job in whatever in the meantime, probably below skill level and at lower pay. Must continue to work to pay student loans while trying to land a better job. Income from that job may be so low, they may have to work 2 jobs. Probably will be limited in locations he can work because he must stay close to home to take care of parents. Thus limiting the number of jobs to choose from, where the rich kid can relocate. Can't just bail on them, after all, since their sacrifice to pay the cost of living in a better neighborhood was the only reason he got the chance to go to college in the first place, instead of all those poor kids who grew up in the ghetto and were out of the education system at or before high school. May get into credit card debt due to no/bad advice on such, limited income, and combination of student loans and high cost of living "where the jobs are". May have difficulty getting approved for a place to live, or may move back home to save on money. If living at home, this further stunts their life growth as women don't want to date men who live at home. ========================= Rich kid (young adult) -Can date easily, has money to pay for things on dates and a good job, no problem. Appears an ideal mate barring any terrible personal habits or physical characteristics. The money also provides them the opportunities to continue to do exciting things that are then conversation fodder for women that make them interested. If he is interested in settling down, can pick and choose his mate easily. Then the two of them can move in together, pool their income, save on living expenses by sharing a roof, and grow their wealth further. If interested in homeownership, they have 2 incomes to put towards that goal, which will allow them to build the wealth a renter never could, while still continuing to grow their savings. Poor kid (young adult) -Will have a hard time dating since many women aren't interested in someone who lives with mom and dad. Largely, the women who aren't put off by this will be sympathetic to it, but only because they themselves are also poor. Which closes out many opportunities of "marrying up." Personal finance will continue to be a struggle, as the young adult will now be bombarded with scams and offers, an alliteratively literal littered landscape of land mines they need to avoid, but may not know how to. ESCO scam, when they pay their first energy bill. "Work at home" scams if they try to supplement their income...things like Amway, pyramid schemes, or others that force you to sell things to others at financial risk to yourself, but convincing you that you'll succeed so that it's no problem even though statistics say otherwise. Identity theft, when they mistakenly trust someone on the other end of an official sounding phone call they've never been taught to avoid. In order to better their job prospects, they are likely to waste money on useless "services" that aren't necessary and don't usually add value - resume writers, headhunters (headhunters who work for companies trying to fill positions are legit, but ones who work for a person seeking work are almost always not). They may waste money on lottery tickets, figuring, what the hell, it's worth a shot to be rich, even though they'll never win, and those small amounts can add up to tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. ===================== Rich kid (fully adult) -Settled, married, has a house, and an inheritance coming from his rich parents when they finally bite the bullet. Building wealth more every day, and earns enough by this point to save more. Poor kid (fully adult) -Still struggling, living paycheck to paycheck. Eventually moves out, maybe eventually marries, but the two pooled incomes don't happen until later (time value of money) and they don't have big money saved for a down payment on a house, so they rent long term or if they do buy, take an ARM (DON'T DO IT!). Cost of living constantly goes up as a result of either decision, whereas the rich person enjoys a fixed 30 year rate since they qualified for that by putting at least 20% down when they bought their house. The poor person can't get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage by putting down 3% on FHA if they buy, and rent goes up every year if they rent. When the poor person's parents die, there is no inheritance...only funeral home bills in excess of whatever little is left behind. ========================== To say that based on what these two start out with and end up with, that the poor person's fate is "strictly" the fault of their work ethic or intelligence is downright stupid and unfair. The stereotype of the stupid poor person who is broke, borderline illiterate, but sporting new Jordans and Beats by Dre is specifically put out in front of you by the media to piss you off. No one likes that person. People who were raised in ghetto neighborhoods hate those people. People who live in them now hate those people. They're the reason no one wants to live in their neighborhood, that they fear for their safety at night, that they can't sleep when music is blasting, and that these idiots zipping around in their leased cars are why they're scared to cross a street or drive around themselves. But the average poor person is not this, they are very hard working, and if you really keep your eyes peeled, you will see them all around you. And they bust their ass because it's the right thing to do, because they were taught this, but they literally don't possess the means nor the knowledge to ever get out of that cycle, and it's not because of their hard work...it's because of who their parents were. Not everyone is going to be a businessman or famous inventor, so you can't hold one exception out there, and say this is what you can be. If everyone is Steve Jobs or Daymond John, no one is Steve Jobs or Daymond John. The system is failing the majority of people who aren't rich, and it's time to take a look at why. Casting the blame at poor people based on a stereotype that is probably true in around 20% of all cases at most, is an irresponsible and stupid way of dismissing a problem that is a lot more serious than the people in power would have you believe. Because they know, if you (as a society) do, the gig is up...and it's off with their heads like France in the 1700s. You make some good points about American companies putting the interests of shareholders and profitability over quality and what's right for America, but at the same time, you seem to leave out the average American consumer who just wants everything cheap. They play a part in the game as well, in fact a big part. I'm also a bit confused by what you say. On the one hand you point out how the poor have the means to buy the latest this and that while begging for a free ride on the subway, but then you say that the poor basically don't have a chance. It can't be both and quite frankly, I disagree with the idea that poor folks can't get ahead and thus must rely on handouts. Yes the playing field isn't even, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. We've seen plenty of people rise from poverty. The thinking that you have leads many to want more programs like this councilman is proposing and I think it's dangerous. Look at what happened in Germany not that long ago. They had generous social benefits and after a while, more and more people decided that they were better off collecting benefits and not working. Why work when you have a nice safety net? Once the new government came in and made reforms, the economy turned around considerably and well you know the rest and where Germany is today versus the other major European players in the E.U. In short, I'd say that handouts lead to more handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 22, 2016 Share #52 Posted June 22, 2016 You make some good points about American companies putting the interests of shareholders and profitability over quality and what's right for America, but at the same time, you seem to leave out the average American consumer who just wants everything cheap. They play a part in the game as well, in fact a big part. I'm also a bit confused by what you say. On the one hand you point out how the poor have the means to buy the latest this and that while begging for a free ride on the subway, but then you say that the poor basically don't have a chance. It can't be both and quite frankly, I disagree with the idea that poor folks can't get ahead and thus must rely on handouts. Yes the playing field isn't even, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. We've seen plenty of people rise from poverty. The thinking that you have leads many to want more programs like this councilman is proposing and I think it's dangerous. Look at what happened in Germany not that long ago. They had generous social benefits and after a while, more and more people decided that they were better off collecting benefits and not working. Why work when you have a nice safety net? Once the new government came in and made reforms, the economy turned around considerably and well you know the rest and where Germany is today versus the other major European players in the E.U. In short, I'd say that handouts lead to more handouts. America was built on the cheap from day 1! Ask the Irish and Africans let's not be surprised this is a big part of our culture just been exacerbated with extra time and funds for the middle class over the last 70 years .There are two gauges for wealth. One of course is monetary the second is purely of knowledge, application and self-worth. So to that point you could be poor monetarily and have access to knowledge and understanding of oneself. You got propulsion and upward mobility. Imagine lacking not only monetary access. accesss to knowledge and the ability to apply that to oneself. It's a double wammy so I understand what Subway Guy's alluding to. There's a whole spectrum that you're not looking at or maybe you're not aware of. Just because we don't see infrared doesn't mean it's not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 22, 2016 Share #53 Posted June 22, 2016 So to your point that handouts lead to more handouts . I disagree when I go to places like Sweden you have a building where there are multiple levels of income and economic status living together. My opinion that's the key so instead of seeing 100 people with $100 tennis shoes. Young people can be exposed to an engineer ,software developer ,doctor better spreading and integrating neighborhoods would be a better bet rationally. But most Americans are so fear driven partly because all they only been exposed to people that look as they do ironically the same issue were talking about. To be successful you have to be exposed to others that already are. What can you learn when everyone is like you. But I feel that most people fear that type of thinking because the competition and wanting to feel like they have a place. If he does what I do and what do I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share #54 Posted June 22, 2016 So to your point that handouts lead to more handouts . I disagree when I go to places like Sweden you have a building where there are multiple levels of income and economic status living together. My opinion that's the key so instead of seeing 100 people with $100 tennis shoes. Young people can be exposed to an engineer ,software developer ,doctor better spreading and integrating neighborhoods would be a better bet rationally. But most Americans are so fear driven partly because all they only been exposed to people that look as they do ironically the same issue were talking about. To be successful you have to be exposed to others that already are. What can you learn when everyone is like you. But I feel that most people fear that type of thinking because the competition and wanting to feel like they have a place. If he does what I do and what do I do? Oh please. Sweden isn't the U.S. Sweden is MUCH smaller than the U.S., has a different culture and way of thinking, and more importantly has VERY generous social benefits. Comparing a relatively homogeneous country like Sweden, which has just recently started to experience true immigration is a joke. Just about every European country that has seen immigration has quickly sort to stem social benefits to the new comers, so this whole idea that other countries are SO open to giving out handouts and so above the U.S. in their way of thinking regarding handouts and fear of others is laughable. Countries like Sweden want to provide benefits for its own people (in other words, fellow Swedes), and the thinking is that the social benefits won't be exhausted due to the Northern European countries having low unemployment to begin with and strong economies, so people overall tend to work. You can look at Denmark as another example. I'll admit that people of different economic statuses live together in Sweden, but part of that is due to the high standard of living to begin with, so even a so called "poor" Swede would likely have a better standard of living than in most other countries. That's precisely why you've had little immigration historically from Scandinavia to the U.S. and other places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 22, 2016 Share #55 Posted June 22, 2016 Oh please. Sweden isn't the U.S. Sweden is MUCH smaller than the U.S., has a different culture and way of thinking, and more importantly has VERY generous social benefits. Comparing a relatively homogeneous country like Sweden, which has just recently started to experience true immigration is a joke. Just about every European country that has seen immigration has quickly sort to stem social benefits to the new comers, so this whole idea that other countries are SO open to giving out handouts and so above the U.S. in their way of thinking regarding handouts and fear of others is laughable. Countries like Sweden want to provide benefits for its own people (in other words, fellow Swedes), and the thinking is that the social benefits won't be exhausted due to the Northern European countries having low unemployment to begin with and strong economies, so people overall tend to work. You can look at Denmark as another example. I'll admit that people of different economic statuses live together in Sweden, but part of that is due to the high standard of living to begin with, so even a so called "poor" Swede would likely have a better standard of living than in most other countries. That's precisely why you've had little immigration historically from Scandinavia to the U.S. and other places. You're taking it some place it doesn't need to go.. Plain and simple upward mobility comes from intermixing people of different social status no one can aspire to anything you can't see or touch. Get real the United States got it's start from cheap and free labor.. and built an empire on it. People make millions of dollars by moving money around and doing nothing it's ironic that we throw around this word handouts. In my opinion the people that make the most noise don't really contribute as much as they think they do. Tax..tax tax.. That's not enough anymore..These aren't builders, scientists,engineers ,entrepreneurs inventors.. My point again.. You can bootstrap it and start from the bottom and work your way to the top no question. But there're two things that dictate that if you don't have monetary wealth. Wealth of knowledge is the only other way. They had the knowledge to put it all together they were very lucky enough to obtain the ability to execute.. Grit,morals,values,ethics,principals more valuable then currency none of them genetic all learnt and acquired any one that started from the bottom and work their way up had someone to teach them these unparalleled skills and invaluable knowledge. My question is what do I say to a person that lacks both monetary wealth as well as wealth of knowledge? Are you saying that if the person saw a clear path to success and had access to it that they would still choose to leech and mooch off the system? This is where you're losing me. Do you feel these people have a chance? It's genetic maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 22, 2016 Share #56 Posted June 22, 2016 Poor kids don't get to be caddies. How do you think you get into a country club in the first place? Connections. Plus who wants a caddy that doesn't know golf, make recommendations, etc.? Poor kids don't have easy access to golf courses to learn ettiquette, the game, etc. Plus a member's kid will always get hired as a caddy first. I don't take this post to be about how rich people waste their money (and they do, as you said they just have more to burn without feeling real consequences), rather I take it to be about the opportunities for jobs and careers the rich enjoy that poor kids don't, and how that disadvantages them far more than race, sexuality, and all the other BS distractions the media has the lemmings in this country focused on instead of parental wealth and lineage. You know what's funny is that I had a conversation with my parents about how I technically have more education than my boss. He has a 2 year associates degree, and I finished my 3rd year of a 4 year bachelor degree. I guess times were a little bit different back when he started, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if he got in through connections. Getting to this conversation, yeah, there's "many poor people who do ____" but at the same time, we're a nation of around, what, 300+ million people? There's going to be many people who do many things. I'm working two jobs this summer: A full-time government job (that I found out about through recruiters at CCNY) and a part-time retail job (and the retail job is only because my project isn't giving any overtime like it was for the past couple of years). At the government job, when I told the new recruits that they could get overtime, a lot of them were very excited. At the retail job, a lot of people can't wait to punch out after working a 5 hour shift. But at the same time, there were people at the government job who were like "We have to work a full 8 hours, 5 days a week?" and at the retail job, there's people who are using it as a second job. So to sit there and stereotype "lazy poor people with $100 Jordans" and "young adults bumming around the house", yes those people exist and I can't stand either group. But to imply that those are the majority of people in the country and the cause of our problems is just stupid. Here's a few articles to consider: http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/millennials-turns-out-the-entitled-generation-is-willing-to-sacrifice/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/millennials-work-five-stereotypes-generation-y-jobs https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-changing-culture/201602/do-millennials-have-lesser-work-ethic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 22, 2016 Share #57 Posted June 22, 2016 You know what's funny is that I had a conversation with my parents about how I technically have more education than my boss. He has a 2 year associates degree, and I finished my 3rd year of a 4 year bachelor degree. I guess times were a little bit different back when he started, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if he got in through connections. Getting to this conversation, yeah, there's "many poor people who do ____" but at the same time, we're a nation of around, what, 300+ million people? There's going to be many people who do many things. I'm working two jobs this summer: A full-time government job (that I found out about through recruiters at CCNY) and a part-time retail job (and the retail job is only because my project isn't giving any overtime like it was for the past couple of years). At the government job, when I told the new recruits that they could get overtime, a lot of them were very excited. At the retail job, a lot of people can't wait to punch out after working a 5 hour shift. But at the same time, there were people at the government job who were like "We have to work a full 8 hours, 5 days a week?" and at the retail job, there's people who are using it as a second job. So to sit there and stereotype "lazy poor people with $100 Jordans" and "young adults bumming around the house", yes those people exist and I can't stand either group. But to imply that those are the majority of people in the country and the cause of our problems is just stupid. Here's a few articles to consider: http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/millennials-turns-out-the-entitled-generation-is-willing-to-sacrifice/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/millennials-work-five-stereotypes-generation-y-jobs https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-changing-culture/201602/do-millennials-have-lesser-work-ethic Exactly..We've all come across those types of people it's far and fewer then you think. And to be frankly honest stereotyping prime example of being lazy and oversimplifying. Oh the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share #58 Posted June 22, 2016 You know what's funny is that I had a conversation with my parents about how I technically have more education than my boss. He has a 2 year associates degree, and I finished my 3rd year of a 4 year bachelor degree. I guess times were a little bit different back when he started, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if he got in through connections. Getting to this conversation, yeah, there's "many poor people who do ____" but at the same time, we're a nation of around, what, 300+ million people? There's going to be many people who do many things. I'm working two jobs this summer: A full-time government job (that I found out about through recruiters at CCNY) and a part-time retail job (and the retail job is only because my project isn't giving any overtime like it was for the past couple of years). At the government job, when I told the new recruits that they could get overtime, a lot of them were very excited. At the retail job, a lot of people can't wait to punch out after working a 5 hour shift. But at the same time, there were people at the government job who were like "We have to work a full 8 hours, 5 days a week?" and at the retail job, there's people who are using it as a second job. So to sit there and stereotype "lazy poor people with $100 Jordans" and "young adults bumming around the house", yes those people exist and I can't stand either group. But to imply that those are the majority of people in the country and the cause of our problems is just stupid. Here's a few articles to consider: http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/millennials-turns-out-the-entitled-generation-is-willing-to-sacrifice/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/millennials-work-five-stereotypes-generation-y-jobs https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-changing-culture/201602/do-millennials-have-lesser-work-ethic Oh my let's not dare stereotype those people, even though there are a great deal of them that exist... Sadly more and more people are becoming this way too, so Subway Guy has a very good point. You're taking it some place it doesn't need to go.. Plain and simple upward mobility comes from intermixing people of different social status no one can aspire to anything you can't see or touch. Get real the United States got it's start from cheap and free labor.. and built an empire on it. People make millions of dollars by moving money around and doing nothing it's ironic that we throw around this word handouts. In my opinion the people that make the most noise don't really contribute as much as they think they do. Tax..tax tax.. That's not enough anymore..These aren't builders, scientists,engineers ,entrepreneurs inventors.. My point again.. You can bootstrap it and start from the bottom and work your way to the top no question. But there're two things that dictate that if you don't have monetary wealth. Wealth of knowledge is the only other way. They had the knowledge to put it all together they were very lucky enough to obtain the ability to execute.. Grit,morals,values,ethics,principals more valuable then currency none of them genetic all learnt and acquired any one that started from the bottom and work their way up had someone to teach them these unparalleled skills and invaluable knowledge. My question is what do I say to a person that lacks both monetary wealth as well as wealth of knowledge? Are you saying that if the person saw a clear path to success and had access to it that they would still choose to leech and mooch off the system? This is where you're losing me. Do you feel these people have a chance? It's genetic maybe? You took it there so don't complain to me about where it's going. In any event, to answer your question, in some cases I believe they would. There are a lot of folks out here like that. They are easily influenced by their peers and care very much about how they are seen and keeping up appearances and don't want to work hard for what they get. Some of it is cultural quite frankly. I won't go into specifics, but if you live in a neighborhood where education isn't valued and trying to get ahead is scoffed at well it may be easy to just mooch off of the system. I tutor two types of kids... They're either middle to upper class and then you have mainly poor kids that get free tutoring through a program that I agreed to participate in. I was just tutoring a kid up in Westchester that is spoiled rotten. Kid never studies and gets everything handed to him, so why should he work for anything? Then there's some of the poor kids that get free tutoring but purposely skip out because they're concerned about how their peers will view them and their reputation in the hood. They really don't believe that they can improve their economic standing regardless of how much help they get, even though they're wasting sessions that cost as much as $60.00 a pop in some cases. It's a trend that I find rather alarming. Some of it is cultural, some of it is generational, and some of it is passed on through the parents who aren't very educated themselves, and just yell that their kids need to do good, but say that to save face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted June 22, 2016 Share #59 Posted June 22, 2016 Aside from the outstanding points made by SubwayGuy, this conversation has largely devolved into a circle-jerk. Before it devolves further, let me just say this: when one takes into account all the shit that the upper class have pulled in the last thirty-five years or so in order to unfairly build up their already significant wealth, one begins to understand the concept of modern-day America as a crony-capitalist oligarchy that combines the worst elements of both liberalism AND conservatism. At this point in time, defending the rich is simply indefensible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 22, 2016 Share #60 Posted June 22, 2016 Oh my let's not dare stereotype those people, even though there are a great deal of them that exist... Sadly more and more people are becoming this way too, so Subway Guy has a very good point. You took it there so don't complain to me about where it's going. In any event, to answer your question, in some cases I believe they would. There are a lot of folks out here like that. They are easily influenced by their peers and care very much about how they are seen and keeping up appearances and don't want to work hard for what they get. Some of it is cultural quite frankly. I won't go into specifics, but if you live in a neighborhood where education isn't valued and trying to get ahead is scoffed at well it may be easy to just mooch off of the system. I tutor two types of kids... They're either middle to upper class and then you have mainly poor kids that get free tutoring through a program that I agreed to participate in. I was just tutoring a kid up in Westchester that is spoiled rotten. Kid never studies and gets everything handed to him, so why should he work for anything? Then there's some of the poor kids that get free tutoring but purposely skip out because they're concerned about how their peers will view them and their reputation in the hood. They really don't believe that they can improve their economic standing regardless of how much help they get, even though they're wasting sessions that cost as much as $60.00 a pop in some cases. It's a trend that I find rather alarming. Some of it is cultural, some of it is generational, and some of it is passed on through the parents who aren't very educated themselves, and just yell that their kids need to do good, but say that to save face. After all of this I can't deny you do have some valid points. This is what you do for living so I have to respect and submit the things that I don't see or may not understand. I'd like to believe that this group that we speak is a percentage of a percentage. I've met quite a few people quite a few characters haven't really come across too many people in this group. But history and the facts don't lie as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share #61 Posted June 22, 2016 After all of this I can't deny you do have some valid points. This is what you do for living so I have to respect and submit the things that I don't see or may not understand. I'd like to believe that this group that we speak is a percentage of a percentage. I've met quite a few people quite a few characters haven't really come across too many people in this group. But history and the facts don't lie as well. lol... Not for a living, but I've been doing it enough to know what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 22, 2016 Share #62 Posted June 22, 2016 Aside from the outstanding points made by SubwayGuy, this conversation has largely devolved into a circle-jerk. Before it devolves further, let me just say this: when one takes into account all the shit that the upper class have pulled in the last thirty-five years or so in order to unfairly build up their already significant wealth, one begins to understand the concept of modern-day America as a crony-capitalist oligarchy that combines the worst elements of both liberalism AND conservatism. At this point in time, defending the rich is simply indefensible... Agreed don't want to take anything away from the excellent points made Subway Guy as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share #63 Posted June 22, 2016 Aside from the outstanding points made by SubwayGuy, this conversation has largely devolved into a circle-jerk. Before it devolves further, let me just say this: when one takes into account all the shit that the upper class have pulled in the last thirty-five years or so in order to unfairly build up their already significant wealth, one begins to understand the concept of modern-day America as a crony-capitalist oligarchy that combines the worst elements of both liberalism AND conservatism. At this point in time, defending the rich is simply indefensible... So what would prefer then? Communist Cuba where everyone is dirt poor and driving cars from the 50s and 60s? Yeah, no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 22, 2016 Share #64 Posted June 22, 2016 Oh my let's not dare stereotype those people, even though there are a great deal of them that exist... Sadly more and more people are becoming this way too, so Subway Guy has a very good point. And there's a great deal of them who don't fit the stereotype. In fact, more of them don't fit the stereotype compared to the ones that do, which defeats the whole point of stereotyping in the first place. You took it there so don't complain to me about where it's going. In any event, to answer your question, in some cases I believe they would. There are a lot of folks out here like that. They are easily influenced by their peers and care very much about how they are seen and keeping up appearances and don't want to work hard for what they get. Some of it is cultural quite frankly. I won't go into specifics, but if you live in a neighborhood where education isn't valued and trying to get ahead is scoffed at well it may be easy to just mooch off of the system. I tutor two types of kids... They're either middle to upper class and then you have mainly poor kids that get free tutoring through a program that I agreed to participate in. I was just tutoring a kid up in Westchester that is spoiled rotten. Kid never studies and gets everything handed to him, so why should he work for anything? Then there's some of the poor kids that get free tutoring but purposely skip out because they're concerned about how their peers will view them and their reputation in the hood. They really don't believe that they can improve their economic standing regardless of how much help they get, even though they're wasting sessions that cost as much as $60.00 a pop in some cases. It's a trend that I find rather alarming. Some of it is cultural, some of it is generational, and some of it is passed on through the parents who aren't very educated themselves, and just yell that their kids need to do good, but say that to save face. The plural of anecdote isn't data. What percentage of the middle/upper class kids you tutor are like that spoiled kid from Westchester, and what's your no-show rate on the low-income tutoring program? And most importantly, what's your sample size? On top of the sample size, none of that means anything if you don't have a control group. What would be the similar statistics for other generations? You think wannabe gangsters trying to look cool and spoiled kids are something new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted June 23, 2016 Share #65 Posted June 23, 2016 And there's a great deal of them who don't fit the stereotype. In fact, more of them don't fit the stereotype compared to the ones that do, which defeats the whole point of stereotyping in the first place. The plural of anecdote isn't data. What percentage of the middle/upper class kids you tutor are like that spoiled kid from Westchester, and what's your no-show rate on the low-income tutoring program? And most importantly, what's your sample size? On top of the sample size, none of that means anything if you don't have a control group. What would be the similar statistics for other generations. You think wannabe gangsters trying to look cool and spoiled kids are something new? VG the man's got a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted June 23, 2016 Share #66 Posted June 23, 2016 So what would prefer then? Communist Cuba where everyone is dirt poor and driving cars from the 50s and 60s? Yeah, no thanks. Geographically, Cuba is a tropical paradise. And physically, Cuban women are gorgeous- best of Old World meets the best of the New World. And what fool doesn't like American cars from the 1950s and 1960s? C'mon, those were the greatest. So no, I couldn't give a f**k what socio-economic-political system they have, communist or otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted June 23, 2016 Share #67 Posted June 23, 2016 You make some good points about American companies putting the interests of shareholders and profitability over quality and what's right for America, but at the same time, you seem to leave out the average American consumer who just wants everything cheap. They play a part in the game as well, in fact a big part. I'm also a bit confused by what you say. On the one hand you point out how the poor have the means to buy the latest this and that while begging for a free ride on the subway, but then you say that the poor basically don't have a chance. It can't be both and quite frankly, I disagree with the idea that poor folks can't get ahead and thus must rely on handouts. Yes the playing field isn't even, but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. We've seen plenty of people rise from poverty. The thinking that you have leads many to want more programs like this councilman is proposing and I think it's dangerous. Look at what happened in Germany not that long ago. They had generous social benefits and after a while, more and more people decided that they were better off collecting benefits and not working. Why work when you have a nice safety net? Once the new government came in and made reforms, the economy turned around considerably and well you know the rest and where Germany is today versus the other major European players in the E.U. In short, I'd say that handouts lead to more handouts. It is both. The example I gave showed a rich and a poor person both making all the correct decisions in life. The rich person ends up on easy street, the poor person ends up living paycheck to paycheck, but avoiding government assistance, and never really building wealth for a comfortable retirement. What kind of life is that, when all you do is work for someone else forever? I dismiss the "well then start your own business with a genius idea" retort because it is not feasible. Most business startups will fail. Even with the best ideas, best people, and strongest work ethic, it can fail. It's a gamble, and it requires a little bit of luck to actually work. Rich people can take this plunge at significantly less risk to themselves, and in the even the idea is initially successful, have a much easier time generating and raising 2nd stage capital to fund expansion, whereas a poorer business owner will not get that as easily. Using exceptional outliers like Jobs or Daymond John, for example, is no different than telling a poor black kid that because LeBron James made it from rags to riches, he should try to be the best NBA player. Or like telling a poor kid who just immigrated from the Dominican Republic that his way out should be to become the next Manny Ramirez. This cannot be the approach we take to an entire social class, where we tell them that unless they are a 1 in a million success, they will never be able to retire, have a decent life, or get out of living paycheck to paycheck. And as a result, people who work for a living will have to support these people in retirement with tax dollars for social programs that would be smaller in scope if this were not such a pervasive problem. Which furthers the cycle by reducing the earnings of the people working when this generation is in impoverished retirement, increasing the odds that those workers will end up in the same place themselves in their golden years. Consumers want everything cheap because the standard of living has eroded so badly, they don't really have a choice. Protectionist measures that brought foreign product pricing more in line with domestic, coupled with a few other things, could bring balance back to a point that is slightly better than what we have now. I realize most of these will go over everyone's head, but try and learn about them: -Cost of living decreases like single payer healthcare or decoupling healthcare from employment and allowing individuals to shop among various options for varying levels of coverage, would reduce the cost of living. -Less luxury buildings, fewer tax breaks for developers who build luxury buildings and huge mansions, and more incentives to construct starter houses, and more housing for the middle class. This increases supply and reduces cost, instead of littering the housing market with unaffordable properties that mostly sit idle while the middle class is forced to compete for an ever shrinking share of living space...while they are forced to compete further with the poor who qualify for subsidized housing or low-income housing, that they don't qualify for, which reduces the number of units available to them as a whole. Bringing back rent regulation in the most sought after cities. -Tax cuts for businesses for hiring Americans. Payroll taxes make no sense. Why should a company be taxed for hiring an American? Also, overall reduction in the tax rates businesses pay. -These would have to be balanced by revenue increasing behaviors: -financial transactions tax on buys and sells that generate short term capital gains or losses. Less gaming the stock market, flash trading, etc. if it costs a fee to do. No fee on buys and sells that generate long term capital gains or losses (position held for > 1 year), because you don't want to discourage real investment. Other effect this has? It makes shorting stocks (which drives share prices down) less viable because all short sells are short term transactions due to the need to cover the position within a year. -Companies must publish their median employee pay, prorated to a 35 hour work week at 52 weeks a year. Any individual employee's compensation in excess of, say, 50 times this amount, is no longer tax deductible to the business as an expense. Pit the shareholders against excess executive compensation, and the company will either have to pay its average employees more to allow high executive compensation, or cut executive compensation, which leaves more money for the business. -Executive compensation must be in cash, or stock, or restricted stock...with a fair value on the date it is given as compensation. The value of the compensation is clear, it is not based on "probability" of hitting a target. No more stock options. -Long term capital gains no longer generate a preferential tax rate for anyone making above the AMT threshold, except for those investments that are in a qualifying 401k, 457, 529, or IRA account. Why? Because these accounts all have contribution limits that the rich can't exceed to avoid taxes. Once they exceed the limit, the rest is taxable at ordinary income rates. -More tax brackets. It's absurd with the stratospheric changes in wealth levels at the top, that our top tax bracket starts at only around $500,000 / year in income. A person who makes $20 million or more a year should not be paying the same tax rate as someone who makes $500,000 / year. Reagan did this, and it's been awful for the country. Create additional tax brackets at 1M (2M couple), 2M (4M couple), 5M (10M couple), and 10M (20M couple) with rates that are higher than the 39.5% top rate, preferably up to as high as 65% at the 10M (20M) bracket. Note that this doesn't mean that is their actual tax rate. It only means that is the tax rate applied to the portion of their income that exceeds that amount. This is how our tax code works. A millionaire pays the same tax rate on the first $50,000 of their income that a person who ONLY makes $50,000 pays on their ENTIRE income. And remember, under Eisenhower, the last truly conservative president, tax rates on high earners were extremely high on the upper bounds of their income, and the US enjoyed the prosperity to build the interstate system. -Infrastructure spending. Lawsuits, delays, greater commute times...these cost the country a fortune in productivity. If a family taking a day at the beach is sitting in traffic or on a crowded train, they're going to spend less time at the beach spending money. If an employee is late because of Metro-North, they are not going to get as much work done when at work, and if their pay is docked for being late, they are not going to spend as much of their own money in the coming weeks. If the MTA has to constantly pay lawsuits for injured customers due to crowding and fights on trains, or write "excuse" letters for employees who were late to their jobs, it's going to waste a ton of time and resources that might better be devoted to capital improvements. Not to mention the enormous payouts municipalities are subject to when something terrible does happen, like WMATA's now legendary smoke conditions, or that bridge collapse in Minnesota. Clogged and snarled roads also delay deliveries. Goods cannot be sold if they haven't made it to market. How many times has something not been available that you wanted, and you walked out of a store? Good infrastructure might look expensive, but bad infrastructure is expensive too. These are all things that can be done to correct this. If people are given a fair shake, more will buy into the system. Only the worst of the system beaters will still be lazy and try to do nothing, and then...wait for it...you can actually go after them specifically without harming a bunch of hard working poor people too! If people have something to lose, they won't turn to crime. Then the criminals will stand out more, and be easier to nab. If there's no reason to justify crime with this loony-liberal "he was picked on as a child" nonsense that is used to justify everything from rape to murder, then you can get harsher sentences for people who commit crimes habitually that prevent repeat offenders from roaming the streets. But to simply say that no one deserves a "handout" because a few abuse it, is to deny the many a benefit that they need due to the unreasonable constraints society has put on close to half the people living in it. And Rob is right about people's experiences. The US is extremely segregated. Minorities tend to cluster in cities, and not just that, in specific enclaves. You have Chinatowns, Koreatowns, Spanish neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods. The assimilation aspect of our so called diversity is not on display at all. And this all starts because of, and "for" the children. Can't have white kids going to school with black kids...they'll start talking slang and wanting to be a rapper, do drugs, and commit crimes. So self segregate. Can't have spanish kids going to school with white kids...they'll forget where they come from, and our proud community spirit will be lost. Can't have Chinese kids going to school with any other race...they'll get lazy and Americanized, and then they'll never cure AIDS when they get older. And this sort of thinking forces everyone into their own little corner with the other people that look like them, and then they sit around and see all the generalizations of the other poor people out there, and do you know what they all say? "We're hard working, it's just those that aren't." And the image of those lazy (insert group here) is so repulsive to them, that they vote to make life harder for ALL poor and working people, or they stand idly by while our government does it of its own accord, and do you know who suffers because of it? THEY DO. This has been the model for 35 years and it's still working because people will not educate themselves. It's easy to play the stock market. Buy low, sell high. If you're young, hold on. Get things that pay a dividend and reinvest it. That's really all you need to know. It goes in cycles, up and down. If it goes down, buy. If it goes up, hold. If it goes up and something catastrophic is about to happen, sell. But you know what most people would rather do than memorize those few sentences? Waste money buying lottery tickets. And that head in the sand mentality, plus people's fragile little self esteem, which now we are taught must be mollycoddled throughout childhood until it can get raped like a virgin in the adult world, is why so few educate themselves, and why it's so easy for the ultra wealthy to divide and conquer. Because you don't read your bills. You don't understand money. You don't know how the game is played. You don't read the fine print. Because if you did, you'd be angry and sad. And you might actually try and change something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted June 23, 2016 Share #68 Posted June 23, 2016 Geographically, Cuba is a tropical paradise. And physically, Cuban women are gorgeous- best of Old World meets the best of the New World. And what fool doesn't like American cars from the 1950s and 1960s? C'mon, those were the greatest. So no, I couldn't give a f**k what socio-economic-political system they have, communist or otherwise... So what would prefer then? Communist Cuba where everyone is dirt poor and driving cars from the 50s and 60s? Yeah, no thanks. There is not as much of a difference as you think between what we have here, and Cuba. Cuba has its share of uber wealthy aristocrats who control everything too. It's just the poor here have a better standard of living than the poor there. But then so do our rich. What you both are probably trying to compare with is an actual communist state that has never existed, where everyone citizen gets a check in the mail for the same hourly rate regardless of what job they do. No one is suggesting that. This is the problem with people's thinking. Everything is so black and white (pun intended). When in reality it's shades of grey. Consider this: What people think the wealth distribution should be: Top 1% 10% Top 25%: 40% Top 50%: 75% An actual Ideal wealth distribution (based on my opinion having studied the issue): Top 1%: 15% Top 25%: 50% Top 50%: 80% Acutal wealth distribution: Top 1%: 35% (note the top 5% collectively have about 60% of the wealth) Top 25%: 80% Top 50%: 95% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share #69 Posted June 23, 2016 And there's a great deal of them who don't fit the stereotype. In fact, more of them don't fit the stereotype compared to the ones that do, which defeats the whole point of stereotyping in the first place. The plural of anecdote isn't data. What percentage of the middle/upper class kids you tutor are like that spoiled kid from Westchester, and what's your no-show rate on the low-income tutoring program? And most importantly, what's your sample size? On top of the sample size, none of that means anything if you don't have a control group. What would be the similar statistics for other generations? You think wannabe gangsters trying to look cool and spoiled kids are something new? 1. Stereotypes exist for a reason and I'll leave it at that. 2. You're talking about case studies, and I'm talking about real life. The kids that get free tutoring tend to not care because their parents aren't paying for it. Simple as that. I'm not going into how many kids I tutor etc. I've been tutoring off and on since college when I feel like it. I've tutored enough of them to know what I'm talking about. Kids that get tutoring where the parents pay for it (regardless of economic background)... Far fewer late cancellations or no-shows. VG the man's got a point. Don't make me laugh... Geographically, Cuba is a tropical paradise. And physically, Cuban women are gorgeous- best of Old World meets the best of the New World. And what fool doesn't like American cars from the 1950s and 1960s? C'mon, those were the greatest. So no, I couldn't give a f**k what socio-economic-political system they have, communist or otherwise... "Tropical paradise" where a large majority of the people are dirt poor... It is both. The example I gave showed a rich and a poor person both making all the correct decisions in life. The rich person ends up on easy street, the poor person ends up living paycheck to paycheck, but avoiding government assistance, and never really building wealth for a comfortable retirement. What kind of life is that, when all you do is work for someone else forever? I dismiss the "well then start your own business with a genius idea" retort because it is not feasible. Most business startups will fail. Even with the best ideas, best people, and strongest work ethic, it can fail. It's a gamble, and it requires a little bit of luck to actually work. Rich people can take this plunge at significantly less risk to themselves, and in the even the idea is initially successful, have a much easier time generating and raising 2nd stage capital to fund expansion, whereas a poorer business owner will not get that as easily. Using exceptional outliers like Jobs or Daymond John, for example, is no different than telling a poor black kid that because LeBron James made it from rags to riches, he should try to be the best NBA player. Or like telling a poor kid who just immigrated from the Dominican Republic that his way out should be to become the next Manny Ramirez. This cannot be the approach we take to an entire social class, where we tell them that unless they are a 1 in a million success, they will never be able to retire, have a decent life, or get out of living paycheck to paycheck. And as a result, people who work for a living will have to support these people in retirement with tax dollars for social programs that would be smaller in scope if this were not such a pervasive problem. Which furthers the cycle by reducing the earnings of the people working when this generation is in impoverished retirement, increasing the odds that those workers will end up in the same place themselves in their golden years. Consumers want everything cheap because the standard of living has eroded so badly, they don't really have a choice. Protectionist measures that brought foreign product pricing more in line with domestic, coupled with a few other things, could bring balance back to a point that is slightly better than what we have now. I realize most of these will go over everyone's head, but try and learn about them: -Cost of living decreases like single payer healthcare or decoupling healthcare from employment and allowing individuals to shop among various options for varying levels of coverage, would reduce the cost of living. -Less luxury buildings, fewer tax breaks for developers who build luxury buildings and huge mansions, and more incentives to construct starter houses, and more housing for the middle class. This increases supply and reduces cost, instead of littering the housing market with unaffordable properties that mostly sit idle while the middle class is forced to compete for an ever shrinking share of living space...while they are forced to compete further with the poor who qualify for subsidized housing or low-income housing, that they don't qualify for, which reduces the number of units available to them as a whole. Bringing back rent regulation in the most sought after cities. -Tax cuts for businesses for hiring Americans. Payroll taxes make no sense. Why should a company be taxed for hiring an American? Also, overall reduction in the tax rates businesses pay. -These would have to be balanced by revenue increasing behaviors: -financial transactions tax on buys and sells that generate short term capital gains or losses. Less gaming the stock market, flash trading, etc. if it costs a fee to do. No fee on buys and sells that generate long term capital gains or losses (position held for > 1 year), because you don't want to discourage real investment. Other effect this has? It makes shorting stocks (which drives share prices down) less viable because all short sells are short term transactions due to the need to cover the position within a year. -Companies must publish their median employee pay, prorated to a 35 hour work week at 52 weeks a year. Any individual employee's compensation in excess of, say, 50 times this amount, is no longer tax deductible to the business as an expense. Pit the shareholders against excess executive compensation, and the company will either have to pay its average employees more to allow high executive compensation, or cut executive compensation, which leaves more money for the business. -Executive compensation must be in cash, or stock, or restricted stock...with a fair value on the date it is given as compensation. The value of the compensation is clear, it is not based on "probability" of hitting a target. No more stock options. -Long term capital gains no longer generate a preferential tax rate for anyone making above the AMT threshold, except for those investments that are in a qualifying 401k, 457, 529, or IRA account. Why? Because these accounts all have contribution limits that the rich can't exceed to avoid taxes. Once they exceed the limit, the rest is taxable at ordinary income rates. -More tax brackets. It's absurd with the stratospheric changes in wealth levels at the top, that our top tax bracket starts at only around $500,000 / year in income. A person who makes $20 million or more a year should not be paying the same tax rate as someone who makes $500,000 / year. Reagan did this, and it's been awful for the country. Create additional tax brackets at 1M (2M couple), 2M (4M couple), 5M (10M couple), and 10M (20M couple) with rates that are higher than the 39.5% top rate, preferably up to as high as 65% at the 10M (20M) bracket. Note that this doesn't mean that is their actual tax rate. It only means that is the tax rate applied to the portion of their income that exceeds that amount. This is how our tax code works. A millionaire pays the same tax rate on the first $50,000 of their income that a person who ONLY makes $50,000 pays on their ENTIRE income. And remember, under Eisenhower, the last truly conservative president, tax rates on high earners were extremely high on the upper bounds of their income, and the US enjoyed the prosperity to build the interstate system. -Infrastructure spending. Lawsuits, delays, greater commute times...these cost the country a fortune in productivity. If a family taking a day at the beach is sitting in traffic or on a crowded train, they're going to spend less time at the beach spending money. If an employee is late because of Metro-North, they are not going to get as much work done when at work, and if their pay is docked for being late, they are not going to spend as much of their own money in the coming weeks. If the MTA has to constantly pay lawsuits for injured customers due to crowding and fights on trains, or write "excuse" letters for employees who were late to their jobs, it's going to waste a ton of time and resources that might better be devoted to capital improvements. Not to mention the enormous payouts municipalities are subject to when something terrible does happen, like WMATA's now legendary smoke conditions, or that bridge collapse in Minnesota. Clogged and snarled roads also delay deliveries. Goods cannot be sold if they haven't made it to market. How many times has something not been available that you wanted, and you walked out of a store? Good infrastructure might look expensive, but bad infrastructure is expensive too. These are all things that can be done to correct this. If people are given a fair shake, more will buy into the system. Only the worst of the system beaters will still be lazy and try to do nothing, and then...wait for it...you can actually go after them specifically without harming a bunch of hard working poor people too! If people have something to lose, they won't turn to crime. Then the criminals will stand out more, and be easier to nab. If there's no reason to justify crime with this loony-liberal "he was picked on as a child" nonsense that is used to justify everything from rape to murder, then you can get harsher sentences for people who commit crimes habitually that prevent repeat offenders from roaming the streets. But to simply say that no one deserves a "handout" because a few abuse it, is to deny the many a benefit that they need due to the unreasonable constraints society has put on close to half the people living in it. And Rob is right about people's experiences. The US is extremely segregated. Minorities tend to cluster in cities, and not just that, in specific enclaves. You have Chinatowns, Koreatowns, Spanish neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods. The assimilation aspect of our so called diversity is not on display at all. And this all starts because of, and "for" the children. Can't have white kids going to school with black kids...they'll start talking slang and wanting to be a rapper, do drugs, and commit crimes. So self segregate. Can't have spanish kids going to school with white kids...they'll forget where they come from, and our proud community spirit will be lost. Can't have Chinese kids going to school with any other race...they'll get lazy and Americanized, and then they'll never cure AIDS when they get older. And this sort of thinking forces everyone into their own little corner with the other people that look like them, and then they sit around and see all the generalizations of the other poor people out there, and do you know what they all say? "We're hard working, it's just those that aren't." And the image of those lazy (insert group here) is so repulsive to them, that they vote to make life harder for ALL poor and working people, or they stand idly by while our government does it of its own accord, and do you know who suffers because of it? THEY DO. This has been the model for 35 years and it's still working because people will not educate themselves. It's easy to play the stock market. Buy low, sell high. If you're young, hold on. Get things that pay a dividend and reinvest it. That's really all you need to know. It goes in cycles, up and down. If it goes down, buy. If it goes up, hold. If it goes up and something catastrophic is about to happen, sell. But you know what most people would rather do than memorize those few sentences? Waste money buying lottery tickets. And that head in the sand mentality, plus people's fragile little self esteem, which now we are taught must be mollycoddled throughout childhood until it can get raped like a virgin in the adult world, is why so few educate themselves, and why it's so easy for the ultra wealthy to divide and conquer. Because you don't read your bills. You don't understand money. You don't know how the game is played. You don't read the fine print. Because if you did, you'd be angry and sad. And you might actually try and change something. 1. You make some very good points that I completely agree with, starting with the failure of most start-ups. A few reasons for that, one being people opening businesses that don't know how to do so efficiently, not to mention the amount of capital needed in most cases. I should also say that I have a great deal of respect for you. You've one of the most logical posters on the forum... Very knowledgeable. 2. I'll also agree about consumers. It is more expensive to buy American products, no question about it. 3. Your basketball and baseball examples will continue to exist because blacks and Hispanics tend to perform the worse in school and the argument could be made that they value education less that say Asians and Whites. That leads to a lot of other ongoing cycles, going back to this whole donation system... 4. I agree with most of what you say with the exception of rent regulation. Let the market dictate the prices. I'm more Republican on that end. That's just a form of handouts that I don't support. Also disagree about the taxes. If anything, the poor should be taxed more than they are. They pay some of the smallest amount of taxes, and benefit the most from handouts. There is something wrong with that and the folks paying are the middle and upper middle class. 5. Most folks don't understand the stock market so lottery tickets it is... lol 6. Your last bit about segregation... Kids at least here in NYC are fairly integrated and you already have that going on... I see white kids trying to act black when it suits them, and I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference when they grow up. They either go on the straight path or they don't. There is not as much of a difference as you think between what we have here, and Cuba. Cuba has its share of uber wealthy aristocrats who control everything too. It's just the poor here have a better standard of living than the poor there. But then so do our rich. What you both are probably trying to compare with is an actual communist state that has never existed, where everyone citizen gets a check in the mail for the same hourly rate regardless of what job they do. No one is suggesting that. This is the problem with people's thinking. Everything is so black and white (pun intended). When in reality it's shades of grey. Consider this: What people think the wealth distribution should be: Top 1% 10% Top 25%: 40% Top 50%: 75% An actual Ideal wealth distribution (based on my opinion having studied the issue): Top 1%: 15% Top 25%: 50% Top 50%: 80% Acutal wealth distribution: Top 1%: 35% (note the top 5% collectively have about 60% of the wealth) Top 25%: 80% Top 50%: 95% That's capitalism at work! More handouts certainly doesn't change any of those models now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted June 23, 2016 Share #70 Posted June 23, 2016 1. Stereotypes exist for a reason and I'll leave it at that. 2. You're talking about case studies, and I'm talking about real life. The kids that get free tutoring tend to not care because their parents aren't paying for it. Simple as that. I'm not going into how many kids I tutor etc. I've been tutoring off and on since college when I feel like it. I've tutored enough of them to know what I'm talking about. Kids that get tutoring where the parents pay for it (regardless of economic background)... Far fewer late cancellations or no-shows. Don't make me laugh... "Tropical paradise" where a large majority of the people are dirt poor... 1. You make some very good points that I completely agree with, starting with the failure of most start-ups. A few reasons for that, one being people opening businesses that don't know how to do so efficiently, not to mention the amount of capital needed in most cases. I should also say that I have a great deal of respect for you. You've one of the most logical posters on the forum... Very knowledgeable. 2. I'll also agree about consumers. It is more expensive to buy American products, no question about it. 3. Your basketball and baseball examples will continue to exist because blacks and Hispanics tend to perform the worse in school and the argument could be made that they value education less that say Asians and Whites. That leads to a lot of other ongoing cycles, going back to this whole donation system... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/28/five-stereotypes-about-poor-families-and-education/ 4. I agree with most of what you say with the exception of rent regulation. Let the market dictate the prices. I'm more Republican on that end. That's just a form of handouts that I don't support. Also disagree about the taxes. If anything, the poor should be taxed more than they are. They pay some of the smallest amount of taxes, and benefit the most from handouts. There is something wrong with that and the folks paying are the middle and upper middle class. This is what makes me really mad. I am not old enough to vote, and my family has supported Bernie Sanders, and we will now support Hillary. Why should the poor be taxed more? Of course they pay the smallest amount of taxes. They make less money. These people are caught up in a loop. There is barely and upward mobility in this country. What will you achieve by taxing them? It would hurt more than it would help as they would not be able to pay the additional taxes. They would then be evicted from their homes, it would be harder to get a good education, and it would be harder for them to get quality jobs. If anything, the rich should be taxed significantly more. There is an argument that they worked hard and they got into their high paying jobs, and therefore they should not be heavily taxed. However, people who are poor work a lot harder, just to make sure that they have food on the table, and to ensure that they aren't evicted. These people need are help, and we shouldn't be putting an additional burden on them. For those who are rich, $10,000 is nothing, but for someone who is poor that is everything. That is why I hate when people advocate for the flat tax. Also, a lot of rich people are born with privilege and with a lot of money. These people aren't doing anything to help society. They just invest their money in stocks, hoping to get even richer. While I am not saying this should be illegal, their money could go to better use than enriching themselves. Trickle down economics does not work! These people do not need 1000 shirts, or 200 cars. These people aren't going to spend a vast majority of their money. Instead of stealing money that the poor don't have, instead we should take more from the wealthy. What do you mean by "handouts"? Do you mean programs that allow poor people to stay in their homes, or programs that help them save money for retirement, or programs that allow them to put food on the table. If you are complaining about how much it costs, then why don't you get rid of tax breaks for CEO bonuses, or oil subsidies, or capital gains tax breaks, or corporate tax subsidies, or helping the big banks, or tax cuts on yachts and jets. Oh yeah, the rich work so hard, and as a result they deserve to keep every penny that they earn. There is so much income inequality in this country. Please watch Inequality for All by Robert Reich. I can't stand when people ignore the facts! http://inequalityforall.com 5. Most folks don't understand the stock market so lottery tickets it is... lol 6. Your last bit about segregation... Kids at least here in NYC are fairly integrated and you already have that going on... I see white kids trying to act black when it suits them, and I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference when they grow up. They either go on the straight path or they don't. That's capitalism at work! More handouts certainly doesn't change any of those models now does it? Read this comic strip. By the way. I support having lower income NYers paying $1.35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 25, 2016 Share #71 Posted June 25, 2016 1. Stereotypes exist for a reason and I'll leave it at that. 2. You're talking about case studies, and I'm talking about real life. The kids that get free tutoring tend to not care because their parents aren't paying for it. Simple as that. I'm not going into how many kids I tutor etc. I've been tutoring off and on since college when I feel like it. I've tutored enough of them to know what I'm talking about. Kids that get tutoring where the parents pay for it (regardless of economic background)... Far fewer late cancellations or no-shows. 1. There's a lot more to my generation than hipsters and welfare queens. 2. And what are those case studies if not real life examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted June 25, 2016 Share #72 Posted June 25, 2016 1. Stereotypes exist for a reason and I'll leave it at that. 2. You're talking about case studies, and I'm talking about real life. The kids that get free tutoring tend to not care because their parents aren't paying for it. Simple as that. I'm not going into how many kids I tutor etc. I've been tutoring off and on since college when I feel like it. I've tutored enough of them to know what I'm talking about. Kids that get tutoring where the parents pay for it (regardless of economic background)... Far fewer late cancellations or no-shows. Don't make me laugh... "Tropical paradise" where a large majority of the people are dirt poor... 1. You make some very good points that I completely agree with, starting with the failure of most start-ups. A few reasons for that, one being people opening businesses that don't know how to do so efficiently, not to mention the amount of capital needed in most cases. I should also say that I have a great deal of respect for you. You've one of the most logical posters on the forum... Very knowledgeable. 2. I'll also agree about consumers. It is more expensive to buy American products, no question about it. 3. Your basketball and baseball examples will continue to exist because blacks and Hispanics tend to perform the worse in school and the argument could be made that they value education less that say Asians and Whites. That leads to a lot of other ongoing cycles, going back to this whole donation system... 4. I agree with most of what you say with the exception of rent regulation. Let the market dictate the prices. I'm more Republican on that end. That's just a form of handouts that I don't support. Also disagree about the taxes. If anything, the poor should be taxed more than they are. They pay some of the smallest amount of taxes, and benefit the most from handouts. There is something wrong with that and the folks paying are the middle and upper middle class. 5. Most folks don't understand the stock market so lottery tickets it is... lol 6. Your last bit about segregation... Kids at least here in NYC are fairly integrated and you already have that going on... I see white kids trying to act black when it suits them, and I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference when they grow up. They either go on the straight path or they don't. That's capitalism at work! More handouts certainly doesn't change any of those models now does it? That's why I'm against handouts like a $1.35 fare - because it is smoke and mirrors - and in favor of using economic incentives that pit the rich against the shareholders in order to ensure distribution of wealth that is more equitable that what we have now (and closer to the ratios in my last post). Taxing the poor won't do that. Taxing businesses that contribute to the problem, and giving breaks to businesses that don't, will. High tax rates on the upper limits of high income individuals, penalizes the behavior that leads to such astronomical wealth disparity and pays for the social programs that inevitably become necessary when such astronomical wealth disparity is widespread. It's why I believe in a high estate tax with a moderate threshold (say 80% on everything above 2 million indexed to inflation, except for a residence if and only if it's kept as a primary residence, and then it will only be taxed if sold). Because then you force each generation to earn its keep instead of allowing familial wealth to create pseudo dynasties where rich kids can freely hobknob, never work a day in their life, or have infinite attempts to get a business off the ground, while hoarding resources that would be utilized better economically by a lower social class, as they would be directly reinvested into economy to generate actual growth. Cutting down on fraud and enforcing fair standards across the board instead of the current pay to play model will disincentivize illegal behavior and destroy the reputations and wealth of those who violate the most egregious of laws. When you create a society where metal illness or disability are the only reason to end up on the dole, then you can have a serious discussion about taking care of both categories of people, and also a serious discussion about people who are collecting benefits but neither category applies to. But that would require people to open a book, read about history, or otherwise learn something instead of dicking around on their cellphones watching fights (minorities) or cat videos (white people). There is not enough opportunity in America for enough people, and rather than educate themselves and take the fight to the right people, people would rather be pissy, and that's why no one is civil anymore in this country, no one has manners, and the people that do choose to act out, usually take it out on their fellow 99%ers because it's more convenient or easier to. Why do you think there is so much black on black crime? Fighting over scraps, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 27, 2016 Author Share #73 Posted June 27, 2016 That's why I'm against handouts like a $1.35 fare - because it is smoke and mirrors - and in favor of using economic incentives that pit the rich against the shareholders in order to ensure distribution of wealth that is more equitable that what we have now (and closer to the ratios in my last post). Taxing the poor won't do that. Taxing businesses that contribute to the problem, and giving breaks to businesses that don't, will. High tax rates on the upper limits of high income individuals, penalizes the behavior that leads to such astronomical wealth disparity and pays for the social programs that inevitably become necessary when such astronomical wealth disparity is widespread. It's why I believe in a high estate tax with a moderate threshold (say 80% on everything above 2 million indexed to inflation, except for a residence if and only if it's kept as a primary residence, and then it will only be taxed if sold). Because then you force each generation to earn its keep instead of allowing familial wealth to create pseudo dynasties where rich kids can freely hobknob, never work a day in their life, or have infinite attempts to get a business off the ground, while hoarding resources that would be utilized better economically by a lower social class, as they would be directly reinvested into economy to generate actual growth. Cutting down on fraud and enforcing fair standards across the board instead of the current pay to play model will disincentivize illegal behavior and destroy the reputations and wealth of those who violate the most egregious of laws. When you create a society where metal illness or disability are the only reason to end up on the dole, then you can have a serious discussion about taking care of both categories of people, and also a serious discussion about people who are collecting benefits but neither category applies to. But that would require people to open a book, read about history, or otherwise learn something instead of dicking around on their cellphones watching fights (minorities) or cat videos (white people). There is not enough opportunity in America for enough people, and rather than educate themselves and take the fight to the right people, people would rather be pissy, and that's why no one is civil anymore in this country, no one has manners, and the people that do choose to act out, usually take it out on their fellow 99%ers because it's more convenient or easier to. Why do you think there is so much black on black crime? Fighting over scraps, that's why. I'm sorry but I think it's preposterous to levy higher estate taxes because if you do that the wealth will be distributed via another avenue. I would also be concerned about those individuals investing less in our market for fear of being penalized in the end when their assets have to distributed. Seems very "un-American" to strip someone of the monies that is rightfully theirs. In my field I deal with a lot of estates in different languages that have to translated, and while some of these individuals are quite wealthy, they've amassed that wealth over time and have a right to distribute it the way they see fit. Taxing the poor accordingly is a start since they will at least pay their fare share. Besides, it's not like the poor are really paying the fare anyway, since we both know that a great deal of them farebeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted June 27, 2016 Share #74 Posted June 27, 2016 I'm sorry but I think it's preposterous to levy higher estate taxes because if you do that the wealth will be distributed via another avenue. I would also be concerned about those individuals investing less in our market for fear of being penalized in the end when their assets have to distributed. Seems very "un-American" to strip someone of the monies that is rightfully theirs. In my field I deal with a lot of estates in different languages that have to translated, and while some of these individuals are quite wealthy, they've amassed that wealth over time and have a right to distribute it the way they see fit. Taxing the poor accordingly is a start since they will at least pay their fare share. Besides, it's not like the poor are really paying the fare anyway, since we both know that a great deal of them farebeat. Even if it is rightfully theirs, it could be put to better use. $10,000 won't make as much of a difference to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted June 29, 2016 Share #75 Posted June 29, 2016 I'm sorry but I think it's preposterous to levy higher estate taxes because if you do that the wealth will be distributed via another avenue. I would also be concerned about those individuals investing less in our market for fear of being penalized in the end when their assets have to distributed. Seems very "un-American" to strip someone of the monies that is rightfully theirs. In my field I deal with a lot of estates in different languages that have to translated, and while some of these individuals are quite wealthy, they've amassed that wealth over time and have a right to distribute it the way they see fit. Taxing the poor accordingly is a start since they will at least pay their fare share. Besides, it's not like the poor are really paying the fare anyway, since we both know that a great deal of them farebeat. It is not theirs, it belongs to their parents. They did not earn it, their parents did. 2 million dollars tax free (indexed to inflation) is MORE THAN ENOUGH to "get themselves off the ground", and if it isn't, they're a suckfailure that deserves to be broke and bankrupt...because if they had any skills or work ethic, they'd be able to use 2 million dollars (indexed to inflation) and their skills and work ethic to get through life more comfortably than most people. The surplus above 2 million dollars absolutely should have the hell taxed out of it, because, well, eff the heirs. They didn't earn that money. It is un American to reward each according to birthright rather than by their own merit. Higher estate taxes are better for the economy than high property taxes, high sales taxes, high payroll taxes, and taxes built into consumer products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.