The rich get richer, the working people . . . .

[targus]

targus - where would you say that middle class and rich class start?

I would say that middle class starts at 10 times minimum wage and rich starts at 50 times minimum wage.

I can't answer because I don't think in terms of "class".

And I don't think in terms of "minimum wage".

Besides there are many more factors to consider than just income.

A young married couple with no kids - both working - living in a small apartment - riding bikes to work for fun - need a lot less money and a live a more comfortable lifestyle than another couple with an equal income - with four kids - living in a house with a mortgage - and two cars.

Each person's circumstances are different - which is exactly why we don't need "one size fits all" answers from the government that are paid for with our tax money.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I can't answer because I don't think in terms of "class".

In what terms do you think?

A young married couple with no kids - both working - living in a small apartment - riding bikes to work for fun - need a lot less money and a live a more comfortable lifestyle than another couple with an equal income - with four kids - living in a house with a mortgage - and two cars.

How do you know they need less. What if they owe $500,000+ for their education loans?

 

[rbell]

How do you know they need less. What if they owe $500,000+ for their education loans?

Then they are probably morons.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then they are probably morons.

So all couples who where both are doctors and had to borrow for their medical school expenses are morons?

Oh, and depending of their medical specialty their liability insurance could be over $100,000 each per year.

 

[rbell]

So all couples who where both are doctors and had to borrow for their medical school expenses are morons?

*sigh*

I really shouldn't have to go through this, but here goes...

Targus said:

A young married couple with no kids - both working - living in a small apartment - riding bikes to work for fun - need a lot less money and a live a more comfortable lifestyle than another couple with an equal income - with four kids - living in a house with a mortgage - and two cars.

In what terms do you think?

How do you know they need less. What if they owe $500,000+ for their education loans?

Then they are probably morons.

Folks who owe $500K+ but are interested in living a simple, austere lifestyle are not likely to be med students.

(and while we're on the subject, even if they are...it's entirely possible to go through med school and come out owing much, much less than $500K.)

And yes...I do think it is stupid to owe $500,000 before you make a dime.

 

[targus]

In what terms do you think?

Individual circumstances.

How do you know they need less. What if they owe $500,000+ for their education loans?

My last sentence in that post clarifies the point that I was attempting to make.

Each person's circumstances are different - which is exactly why we don't need "one size fits all" answers from the government that are paid for with our tax money.

 

[Eric B]

What difference does it make if someone worked for their money, made it investing in the stock market, inherited it, or just won the lottery?

IT'S THEIR MONEY !!!

What right does anyone else have to claim it?

Exactly! It really takes quite a bit of arrogance for someone to think they have the ability to decide if someone has actually worked hard enough to deserve the money they have. No matter how you slice it this comes down to jealousy and envy. For someone to look at another and actually conclude that he/she deserves some of that persons money is against everything that is just and fair.

That fact however is conveniently dismissed ( just as it is by the liberal politicians), and by doing so it proves it is not about economics, but rather jealousy and envy. Some people are just bothered by other peoples wealth, that is the bottom line.

I'm not arguing for anybody to "claim" it; I'm pointing out that it is still less for you (not just for the poor), and that you and others complain just as much about some sort of unfairness; that something is being taken from you and given to someone else, and what you think others are getting that they don't deserve. You work hard all day, and they get over. That is just as much envy, even if they are in the wrong.
The difference is that if it is flowing to someone officially on a payroll in a high position (and an imaginary entity called "the market" says they are "worth" all of that), you surmise that they necessarily "earned" all of it, and that the only wrongful redistribution then is flowing downward to people receiving a government service. This then is revolted against as if that is really "draining" the entire economy.

But again, the gap between those on the top and everyone else (not just the poor) has grown by the thousands over the century, but they are not working thousands of times harder. They are just demanding more as time goes on, and the companies give it to them lest they go to a competitor.
What you're arguing basically, is "might makes right". Because they are in a position where they can demand more, and know the right people, pull the right strings, and get it, then they automatically "deserve" it.

No, I don't believe the government simply taking from one and giving to the other is the answer. (After all, the rich will find some way around that anyway, and then government has the same problem with corruption and even executive largess, so who will control them?)
Still, the least we can do is be aware of where most of the money (and power) is really being concentrated, and not find a scapegoat, and on the other end of the spectrum, yet.

I already posted a link on this thread that proves that when taxes are lowered it actually brings in more tax revenue.

That is highly disputed. It seems that when taxes for the rich are lowered, that is when the economy begins to sink.
Don't forget, the rich do not invest all the money back in the US economy. Remember, they are all traveling around the world. Many of these ridiculously high retreats they spend both profit and bailout money on are are abroad. (French Riviera, etc). And it has been pointed out how both this, and even business dealings around the world, escape US taxes. All that money is going elsewhere. That's why Poncho has a great point regarding the global aspect of the problem. But people mock him and then go back to blaming the big bad bogeymen in the US only (Dems, etc), and envying their supposed beneficiaries, the poor, as getting all the money.

I forgot whether I posted this somewhere before, but here is a good article on this trend:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

On the flipside, all the money supposedly going to "the poor" and 'wasted' on electronics, new cars, etc. is going back into the economy as well! They're not the ones keeping it, stashing it away, or spending it around the world. So yet again, how can they be blamed for everything?

 

[targus]

But again, the gap between those on the top and everyone else (not just the poor) has grown by the thousands over the century

Do you have a source for this?

I do not believe it to be true.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Do you have a source for this?

I do not believe it to be true.

Read on:

Over two decades, the income gap has steadily increased between the richest Americans, who own homes and stocks and got big tax breaks, and those at the middle and bottom of the pay scale, whose paychecks buy less.

The growing disparity is even more pronounced in this recovering economy. Wages are stagnant, and the middle class is shouldering a larger tax burden. Prices for health care, housing, tuition, gas and food have soared.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0817-02.htm

New U.S. Census data paints a dismal picture of American society. While the rich get richer, the poor are getting poorer. After 10-years living under the Bush supply-side tax cuts structured to benefit the super wealthy, combined with a deep recession, the income inequality between the richest and the poorest in our country grew to the largest disparity ever last year. This news comes, as Republican lawmakers and some conservative Democrats are pushing for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich due to expire at the end of the year. Do tax cuts for the very wealthy stimulate the economy? No. Do lower taxes for the rich create jobs? Nope. The unfunded tax cuts add to the deficit, while keeping more of the country’s wealth in the hands of a very few. So, why are Republicans screeching for tax relief for the super wealthy? Because those are the constituents they work for, not middle class Americans.
http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/09/28...iped-out-by-record-gap-between-rich-and-poor/

This has been written about for some time now.

 

[Eric B]

Here's the most recent one I had seen:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201007/ceo-salaries
(OK, not thousands of times higher, but hundreds of times higher, though there are some who are thousands of times higher).

Here's another somewhat related one on taxes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/the-great-tax-con-job_b_242065.html

 

[targus]

Here's the most recent one I had seen:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201007/ceo-salaries
(OK, not thousands of times higher, but hundreds of times higher, though there are some who are thousands of times higher).

Here's another somewhat related one on taxes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/the-great-tax-con-job_b_242065.html

I am more interested in specifics - as opposed to generalities.

What was the income of the top a century ago and how many were in that category?

What was the income of the bottom a century ago and how many were in that category?

What are the figures now - both income and number in the top and bottom?

With out more information it is not possible to come to a conclusion.

 

[Steven2006]

I'm not arguing for anybody to "claim" it; I'm pointing out that it is still less for you (not just for the poor), and that you and others complain just as much about some sort of unfairness; that something is being taken from you and given to someone else, and what you think others are getting that they don't deserve. You work hard all day, and they get over. That is just as much envy, even if they are in the wrong.
The difference is that if it is flowing to someone officially on a payroll in a high position (and an imaginary entity called "the market" says they are "worth" all of that), you surmise that they necessarily "earned" all of it, and that the only wrongful redistribution then is flowing downward to people receiving a government service. This then is revolted against as if that is really "draining" the entire economy.

But again, the gap between those on the top and everyone else (not just the poor) has grown by the thousands over the century, but they are not working thousands of times harder. They are just demanding more as time goes on, and the companies give it to them lest they go to a competitor.
What you're arguing basically, is "might makes right". Because they are in a position where they can demand more, and know the right people, pull the right strings, and get it, then they automatically "deserve" it.

No, I don't believe the government simply taking from one and giving to the other is the answer. (After all, the rich will find some way around that anyway, and then government has the same problem with corruption and even executive largess, so who will control them?)
Still, the least we can do is be aware of where most of the money (and power) is really being concentrated, and not find a scapegoat, and on the other end of the spectrum, yet.

That is highly disputed. It seems that when taxes for the rich are lowered, that is when the economy begins to sink.
Don't forget, the rich do not invest all the money back in the US economy. Remember, they are all traveling around the world. Many of these ridiculously high retreats they spend both profit and bailout money on are are abroad. (French Riviera, etc). And it has been pointed out how both this, and even business dealings around the world, escape US taxes. All that money is going elsewhere. That's why Poncho has a great point regarding the global aspect of the problem. But people mock him and then go back to blaming the big bad bogeymen in the US only (Dems, etc), and envying their supposed beneficiaries, the poor, as getting all the money.

I forgot whether I posted this somewhere before, but here is a good article on this trend:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html

On the flipside, all the money supposedly going to "the poor" and 'wasted' on electronics, new cars, etc. is going back into the economy as well! They're not the ones keeping it, stashing it away, or spending it around the world. So yet again, how can they be blamed for everything?

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you for or against higher taxes on
"the wealthier"? You seem to be saying two things? What exactly is your answer?

But again, the gap between those on the top and everyone else (not just the poor) has grown by the thousands over the century, but they are not working thousands of times harder. They are just demanding more as time goes on, and the companies give it to them lest they go to a competitor.
What you're arguing basically, is "might makes right". Because they are in a position where they can demand more, and know the right people, pull the right strings, and get it, then they automatically "deserve" it.

First of all, if we are still talking about taxes, most, and by a large majority of business owners that make over $250,000 which is the number currently being debated in this country, are earning nowhere near thousands times their employees.

Second, I really don't care or concern myself with how much someone might make even if it is thousands times more than I. Furthermore when I look at those that you would classify as making much less than someone that does make thousands more than the average, you know what? The majority of them still are living lives with much more luxury than people did the many years ago that you are comparing to. So yes the top might increased in percentages somewhat, but you know the majority of everyone has increased their lifestyles as well. Even the poor, compare how the majority of people that fall into the poverty range live now compared to say 70-100 years ago, and I don't think anyone is wanting to trade places with anyone from the past.

This still comes down to jealousy and envy and while you say you are not arguing for anyone to "claim" anyone wealth, you basically are saying that someone should "decide" what is too much for a person to earn, and you still go back to judging how deserving or how hard or easily someone earns it.

My last thought on your post. You said:

They are just demanding more as time goes on, and the companies give it to them lest they go to a competitor.
What you're arguing basically, is "might makes right".

If the situation gets so lopsided as you suggest, then that creates the opportunity for competition as you alluded to. That is what keeps it in check. If you have seen a situation where this is occurring, start a company that competes with that, and you should do real well for yourself. But here is the thing, that most complainers don't see, the people that do take that plunge also take much risk in order for the chance of the rewards to come later. I have started and owned a few different businesses, and when I chose to put up my house as collateral for an idea I thought would work, and when I worked 70-80 hour weeks, with no vacations or days off for years. The years where I often took no pay while paying people well that were in my employ. The Christmases where my family sacrificed on gifts because I wanted to make sure that my employees all received nice Christmas bonuses. I didn't see too many other people willing to do the same things at the time. But funny thing years later I did have some people comment how "lucky' I was, and they probably just looked at the end results and thought maybe I didn't deserve or wasn't working "that much harder" than they were, in comparison. The ironic thing is I am certain that I never took as large a salary as they perceived at that point either.

Most people just don't get it, they don't see nor understand what makes this country so great. It is the opportunity we all have available to us to take that risk in order to create something. The people that do see it and are willing to take that risk, they are the creator of the jobs and engines that run this economy. The more we have people that resent those that create, and want to punish them for that success, the less people that will be willing to take the RISK. That will be the beginning of the end.

 

[rbell]

I'm not arguing for anybody to "claim" it; I'm pointing out that it is still less for you (not just for the poor), and that you and others complain just as much about some sort of unfairness; that something is being taken from you and given to someone else, and what you think others are getting that they don't deserve. You work hard all day, and they get over. That is just as much envy, even if they are in the wrong.

I believe in exercising my brain...and one way to do that is to read "nonsense words" and try to figure them out. I tried to diagram the above sentence--the pencil stabbed me in the hand, said, "I quit," and walked out of the room.

Nonetheless, what I think you were saying is simply wrong. It's not about fairness. "Fairness" is the silly playground notion that everybody ought to have the same. This is more about a biblical idea of justice. That is what motivated Paul to tell us when a person refuses to work, they should not eat.

Now...the challenge is tempering justice with mercy. And we're all trying to find the balance. But mercy is not about rewarding sloth. And mercy is not about punishing acheivement (these are two basic platforms of the Democratic party).

No, I don't believe the government simply taking from one and giving to the other is the answer.

OK, I love this statement above--but yet your political philosophy runs directly counter to it.



On a slightly unrelated note--have we noticed lately the venom that leftists have toward "the evil rich"--yet the number of government employees making $150,000 or more per year has skyrocketed in the last few months?

I guess getting rich via "public service" is less evil than an honest day's wage for a private company...

 

[targus]

Steven2006, you are right about those not willing to take the risk being the ones that complain about the success of those who do.

Have you ever had an employee thank you for giving them a job?

The few that have thanked me were the same ones who went on to really succeed at some level - either through starting their own business or improving their skill set to increase their earning power.

The ones who felt that the company owed them a living are still working at the same level.

Who would have guessed ? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Steven2006]

Steven2006, you are right about those not willing to take the risk being the ones that complain about the success of those who do.

Have you ever had an employee thank you for giving them a job?

The few that have thanked me were the same ones who went on to really succeed at some level - either through starting their own business or improving their skill set to increase their earning power.

The ones who felt that the company owed them a living are still working at the same level.

Who would have guessed ? :smilewinkgrin:

Yes, I had one fellow that was a great employee, and really "got it". He was a sponge and soaked it all in and truly looked out for the company's welfare when making decisions himself. Years later he went off on his own, (I even sold him (cheaply) part of my company to help him start). He is now very successful.

Sadly I had many more employees that were the antithesis of him, and their lives were always a mess, but of course it was always someone else's fault.

 

[targus]

Sadly I had many more employees that were the antithesis of him, and their lives were always a mess, but of course it was always someone else's fault.

I sold a company once because I just got tired of my employees trying to make all of their personal problems my problems.

It was like have 15 kindergardners working for me.:laugh:

I was (apparently) supposed to solve every little cash flow problem that they experienced - every little mood swing that they came upon - every little disappointment that life threw at them.

Too bad they didn't figure out that it is in learning to solve those little day to day problems that one learns to overcome the big ones.

 

[Steven2006]

I sold a company once because I just got tired of my employees trying to make all of their personal problems my problems.

It was like have 15 kindergardners working for me.:laugh:

I was (apparently) supposed to solve every little cash flow problem that they experienced - every little mood swing that they came upon - every little disappointment that life threw at them.

Too bad they didn't figure out that it is in learning to solve those little day to day problems that one learns to overcome the big ones.

It really is sad, I also had a similar experience. I was expanding over the years and working longer hours and harder days, when I finally concluded that the end result was I was doing so in order to supply all these people with a comfortable living while not improving my own. I wouldn't have minded doing so if even a small group of them wanted to step up and take the ball and grow with me, but people just don't want to put in the effort. Tremendous opportunity staring them in the face, but no takers. So one day I decided to scale down instead so I could be home a few hours earlier with my family instead of so late every night and not leave as early in the mornings. I still worked six days a week, but it went down to about nine hours a day instead of twelve or thirteen. Less stress, more family time, and the business actually made more money. Your right it was like baby sitting at times, except I was working harder in order to pay the children. :laugh:

 

[targus]

Your right it was like baby sitting at times, except I was working harder in order to pay the children. :laugh:

One time my bookkeeper handed out paychecks a day early in error. I was out making calls on clients and she called me to say that a couple of my employees were sitting in my office - not working - in protest to the fact that the bank did not honor the checks because the funds had not yet transferred from the operating account to the payroll account.

When I got back to the office I told these guys to just sit tight and I would go to the bank and cash their checks. When I got back I gave them each an empty envelope with a receipt for the payroll deduction of their full net amount as a reduction against their prior payroll advances.

Those clowns were upset because they were unable to cash their paychecks early - even though they owed me more than they had even earned ! :laugh:

I gave them their pay the next day - after giving them a night to think about it. :laugh:

 

[Steven2006]

It is really sad that our country has gotten to this point. People used to respect hard work and success and strive to do so themselves. Now so many people resent it and think they are owed something.

The ironic thing is all you hear about is the evil business owners, but everyone I have known that have owned a business and were successful were very generous also. Not only with charitable giving, but they were always willing to help anyone that wanted to learn and work hard themselves. Not so much though when people don't want to learn, work hard or just think something is owed them.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Have you ever had an employee thank you for giving them a job?

There are people who don't thank their employer for giving them a job? I know I've always done so and I guessed most everyone did.