More for the War, less for the poor

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,256
Reaction score
2,693
In the continued balancing act that is government budgets, the rich keep getting away with murder.

Give 60 billion more for war, take 24 billion from state aid and the unemployed. And still the Bush tax cuts don't lapse and any shortfall will be borrowed from the investing classes and paid back by taxes.

The war is for the benefit of the ruling elites and wealthy and always was. They should pay for it, but that's not the smart way. Always make others pay. That's how you get to be rich. That's how you get to stay rich.
 
McDeath fluffed
"That's how you get to be rich. That's how you get to stay rich."
--------------------------

But Fluffy there are other ways.
For example W O R K I N G.

But then again you always leave that one out. Whyzzat?
 
Fade said:
McDeath fluffed
"That's how you get to be rich. That's how you get to stay rich."
--------------------------

But Fluffy there are other ways.
For example W O R K I N G.

But then again you always leave that one out. Whyzzat?
Click to expand...

Are you hiring?
 
But Fluffy there are other ways.
For example W O R K I N G.

But then again you always leave that one out. Whyzzat?
Click to expand...

Unless by working, you mean working hard at lying, cheating, and developing ponzi schemes to bilk your fellow man, you won't get rich by working.
You can still make an honest buck and provide for a humble family by working, but you won't get rich.
Last time I saw a legitimate working job that paid a few mil a year was.... never.
 
Fade said:
McDeath fluffed
"That's how you get to be rich. That's how you get to stay rich."
--------------------------

But Fluffy there are other ways.
For example W O R K I N G.

But then again you always leave that one out. Whyzzat?
Click to expand...

You must have a very loose definition of rich.
 
Ilwrath said
"Last time I saw a legitimate working job that paid a few mil a year was.... never."
---------------------------------
Start legitimate working job rant
So in your opinion you have to make at least 3 million bucks a year to be considered rich.
What about the guy that makes 2 million a year?
Or the guy that makes 1 million a year?
How about the guy that makes half a million a year?
If Robert make a quarter of a million a year, is he rich?
If you make $125,000 a year are you rich? 99% of the world would think so!

If I made $75,000 a year for 30 years and acquired 5 houses in the process and now live off that rental income, am I rich? I'm sure any liberal/progressive/socialist would consider me rich (especially McDeath), because if I died, they would want all that property to go to the state instead of my heirs.

Oh yeah, how about the guy that makes $5 million a year but owes $50 million to creditors. Is he still rich, or is he in debt up to his eyeballs? You can be sure he is still taxed like he is rich.

I think You and Robert are the ones that have a strange way to calculate who is and isn't rich.

Somehow I suspect that you think that anyone that makes over $50,000 a year doesn't have a legitimate working job.
End rant
 
ilwrath said:
But Fluffy there are other ways.
For example W O R K I N G.

But then again you always leave that one out. Whyzzat?
Click to expand...

Unless by working, you mean working hard at lying, cheating, and developing ponzi schemes to bilk your fellow man, you won't get rich by working.
You can still make an honest buck and provide for a humble family by working, but you won't get rich.
Last time I saw a legitimate working job that paid a few mil a year was.... never.
Click to expand...
exactly. My mother would sometimes have two jobs....always worked during the summer.....never went on vacation......I was raised by an work-a-holic!

I never did without anything important, but I can only thank my family for being hard workers. but rich?
I'm only rich in education and good values. not money
 
Start legitimate working job rant
Click to expand...
Start dissecting crack-addled rant-

So in your opinion you have to make at least 3 million bucks a year to be considered rich.
What about the guy that makes 2 million a year?
Or the guy that makes 1 million a year?
How about the guy that makes half a million a year?
If Robert make a quarter of a million a year, is he rich?
If you make $125,000 a year are you rich? 99% of the world would think so!
Click to expand...

What kind of crazy nonsense is this? You're just making Sorites Paradox out of money. Clearly the solution is to set a boundary or consensus figure. Personally, I think when someone is making more than 100x the median income, they're rich. I doubt too many people would argue 100x median isn't rich. It's a complete diversion from anything of content, though.

If I made $75,000 a year for 30 years and acquired 5 houses in the process and now live off that rental income, am I rich? I'm sure any liberal/progressive/socialist would consider me rich (especially McDeath), because if I died, they would want all that property to go to the state instead of my heirs.

Oh yeah, how about the guy that makes $5 million a year but owes $50 million to creditors. Is he still rich, or is he in debt up to his eyeballs? You can be sure he is still taxed like he is rich.
Click to expand...

Again, you're letting the trees block the view of the forest.

I think You and Robert are the ones that have a strange way to calculate who is and isn't rich.

Somehow I suspect that you think that anyone that makes over $50,000 a year doesn't have a legitimate working job.
Click to expand...

What are you, nuts? I know plenty of people who make over $50,000 a year who work honest jobs. But, you know what, even $400,000 income only works out to about 10x median income, not the 1000x+ income range of people who negotiate the wars we pay for.
 
I never thought I'd say this, but I can see where Fade is coming from. Here in the first world even the poorest live like kings compared to many other parts of the world - mostly because of social programs. If you're gonna be a poor homeless bum you'd be better of being a poor homeless bum in a place like Canada instead of India or Somalia (although I suppose in Somalia you could always opt for high seas piracy, but you get my drift... um, no pun intended). So for me personally I always think of that and how lucky I am to live in a first world nation. Even though I'm not even close to being rich by first world standards nor will I ever be rich, I know that I'm doing pretty good for myself.

But I don't think Fluffy is talking about rich in global relative terms, where to many "rich" means anyone who isn't starving. I think when he says rich he means people so rich they are in a different world from us even if they live a few blocks over. People who don't drive to work, but are driven around and not to work because they just don't need the money. People who don't fly on Air Canada or American Airlines, but on their own personal jet. People who have so many homes they forgot about some of them. People who don't vote for their elected officials but instead buy them. I think that's what fluffy means by rich.
 
@Mike:

Even if you use the argument that just living in the West makes you "rich," (an argument which I can accept, to a point) it still negates his shouty entreaty to work.
 
of course, my definition of "rich" is having a toilet, clean water, hot water...getting an education.....and being able to do whatever you want with your life....free speech.....stuff like that.

I've never owned a car or a house. But I can walk and take a subway/bus. And even though I live in NY, I feel very safe here.

But, I can tell you one thing...the Really "money" rich have no clue what life is like for the rest of us. They don't have to worry about rent, bills, finding work, putting up with crowded buses/trains budgeting food. Not buying something because you can't afford it........and so on. They just don't know what that feels like.

and THAT is how you tell the difference between the rich and the normal. Attitude: not the amount of money in their bank.
 
Fade said:
If I made $75,000 a year for 30 years and acquired 5 houses in the process and now live off that rental income, am I rich? I'm sure any liberal/progressive/socialist would consider me rich (especially McDeath), because if I died, they would want all that property to go to the state instead of my heirs.
Click to expand...
I thank the socialist Thomas Jefferson for working hard to eliminate inherited wealth. See when one is, as Jefferson was, against the Aristocratic classes perputal wealth and thereby power it helps to create a society where 'all men are created equal' to bring all in on equal footing. Then the horrid liberal Jefferson went on to support free public schools where all were educated in the basis needed for a democratic society.
 
Ilwrath proclaimed as fact
"Clearly the solution is to set a boundary or consensus figure."
------------------------------

My conclusion Ilwrath, is that your solution is "a heap of sh!t".

For example; Suppose I took my life savings and bought 1000 acres of desolate New Mexico land and started my own silver mine and worked it for 30 years, spending every last dime I had trying to strike it rich. Then suppose after 30 years I struck gold or diamonds or something else equally as valuable, instead of silver. Wow, now my 1000 acres of desolate New Mexico land and the minerals located on it are worth lets say, a million dollars an acre. Now What?

Under your solution, I would be limited to how much I could sell my claim for, because it would exceed your made up figure of 1000 x the median income level.

I call BS on you.
Everybody knows what Faethor would sell it for.
Everybody knows what McDeath would sell it for.
And everybody knows what you would sell it for.

What each one would do with that money is a different story for a different day, except for Faethor. I suspect a big chunk of that money would go to his kids!
 
Fade said:
What each one would do with that money is a different story for a different day, except for Faethor. I suspect a big chunk of that money would go to his kids!
Click to expand...
Nope! I hope my children inherit my work ethic and sense of fairness. If I made the millions of dollars you purposed I'd sign up in the club with Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates to spend it all before I died. Though my kids would be favored by affording to attend Ivy League schools, which would be fully paid for if they met a B or better average. Of course if they wanted to go to community college well they could do that instead.
 
My conclusion Ilwrath, is that your solution is "a heap of sh!t".
Click to expand...

Oh goodie! Another trip down fantasy lane...
Essentially, your latest fantasy situation is just gambling. You were betting against the odds that that land contained something useful. It's not really working. That's not a job. You put all your money on minerals instead of black, and let the marble fall where it may. Sure, it looks more honest than playing Vegas, but it's really not all that different. And again, all this is beside the point.

I call BS on you.
Everybody knows what Faethor would sell it for.
Everybody knows what McDeath would sell it for.
And everybody knows what you would sell it for.
Click to expand...

I don't quite see how you can call BS on me. Because hell yeah, you know what I'd sell it for. Who ever said otherwise? If I get lucky and strike it rich, my family would be taken care of, and you'd find me relaxed at a nice isolated beach house unless I'm out with my Ferrari 458 Italia at a Laguna Seca track day.

But ya know what? I'd still pay my rightful taxes and not invest the money in such a way as to manipulate the system and encourage wars. That's what you're just not getting, Fade. I'm not against profit or riches. Hell, I like profit and riches. I'm against the initial point in this post (remember that?). I'm against using wealth to leverage much more wealth by screwing people over. That is what we need to be vigilant of. If the guy who wins the prospector of the year, or the mega-millions powerball, or whatever else will get taxed on that income, so be it, or put in a partial exemption for single-year income or whatever you want. The details and crazy one-off situations you're so fond of trotting out don't matter to the actual point.

Honestly, after I posted the first statement about the last time I saw a legitimate job that made a couple mil... I thought of professional athletes. Sure, it's entertainment, but it's hard to argue it's not a legitimate real job. They get paid staggering amounts of dollars to go out and generate income by encouraging people to pay to watch them. But an interesting thing happens to pro athletes. Despite making tons of money, very few transition into becoming rich, long term. Many even end up declaring bankruptcy after their careers are over. Sure, a lot of those involve incredibly bad decisions about money... But all of them?

So, still, no matter what, it seems to highlight that the only way to keep and maintain vast sums of money in our system is to leverage that money and screw your fellow man. And that's the real point of contention.
 
@ Ilwrath
Quote
"Oh goodie! Another trip down fantasy lane...
Essentially, your latest fantasy situation is just gambling. You were betting against the odds that that land contained something useful. It's not really working."
------------------------------

So, I spend my own money, I dig in the ground for 30 years, and it's still not a real job. Ilwrath, you have lost your way. You are still trying to define a "real working job" in your limited defination of work. Yeah, sure, and Detroit auto workers dont have "real working jobs" because they use electric motors to move those heavy parts, instead of the old way. And Fluffy McDeath doesnt have a "real working job" because he uses a computer to do the heavy math.

Quote
"So, still, no matter what, it seems to highlight that the only way to keep and maintain vast sums of money in our system is to leverage that money and screw your fellow man. And that's the real point of contention."
------------------------------

You have swallowed hook line and sinker McDeath's contention, that once a person reaches a certain level of income, or accumulated wealth, that they automatically turn evil, start wars, and use the "working man" as their own personal slaves in order to get even richer.

That makes as much sense as saying all women become prostitutes if they have children because there is only one way to become pregnant.

By the way, what is a "one-off situation"? I assume you mean a "one of situation", meaning happening only one time.
 
@Fade"

To your example of buying houses and renting them out - sure, that's an income but it isn't an earned income. That is called rent and it is the kind of income that Adam Smith believed should be taxed. If that property wealth could be passed to heirs and they could acquire multiple dwellings each and so forth then it would come to pass in a world of limited land for building that a small number of related people would own all of the houses and would never have to work and those that did work would never be able to buy houses. This situation has happened historically. Often it takes some sort of violence to break this aristocracy and give the little people the chance to benefit from the sweat of their own labours. This sort of transition to an economy where the little guy can work his way up is often denounced by the ruling classes as communism or socialism.
So, I spend my own money, I dig in the ground for 30 years, and it's still not a real job.
Click to expand...
I spend some of my own money on lottery tickets. If I win I have money, but I can't claim to have earned it. Similarly you may dig 30 years spending your own money and end up broke and broken. Is it still a real job in that case? It's work, but is it productive? The work is the same whether or not you get lucky but the outcomes are not dependent on the work.
And Fluffy McDeath doesnt have a "real working job" because he uses a computer to do the heavy math.
Click to expand...
No, I do the math, the computer does the arithmetic.
You have swallowed hook line and sinker McDeath's contention, that once a person reaches a certain level of income, or accumulated wealth, that they automatically turn evil, start wars, and use the "working man" as their own personal slaves in order to get even richer.
Click to expand...
If you have a couple of billion dollars to your name then you might be on the verge of being rich. To get there you may have had to do a few shady things to some people along the way. Certainly you don't get there by being a bleeding heart or giving everyone a break (or even their fair share). People who DO give others a fair shake will get steamrollered by the type of person who is bent on immense wealth. You don't own countries by playing nice.
By the way, what is a "one-off situation"? I assume you mean a "one of situation", meaning happening only one time.
Click to expand...

I think he means this.
 
To be fair, I think everyone here is trying to make a black and white issue out of something that is very much in the gray.
 
Glaucus said:
To be fair, I think everyone here is trying to make a black and white issue out of something that is very much in the gray.
Click to expand...
No - you're wrong. Bark, bark, bark. Grrrrr. woof.

Once upon a time there was much more gray but there is very much less of it now. Are you not familiar with the L-curve? This is a pretty good representation of US income distribution. Remember that while a guy earning a million bucks a years sounds like he's doing pretty good (and he is compared to a lot of folks) a million is only 0.1% of a billion. The people on the extreme end of the wealth spectrum are as gods to the rest of us. They have so much wealth that they basically run the country. They make the rules, they run the game. They are the house and the house always wins. These are the people who hire the government to work for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top