Proff of Income Inequality

[Cecilie1200]

Money is not the root of evil, nor is it a stairway to heaven..

True, but it makes life much more enjoyable.

Tell that to

Robin Williams, Kurt Corbain .....

It wasn't wealth that made them miserable, and think how miserable their mental illnesses would have made them if they'd ALSO been poor.

 

[Moonglow]

Money is not the root of evil, nor is it a stairway to heaven..

True, but it makes life much more enjoyable.

To a degree, but many things in life that are enjoyable and healthy do not cost much..If vast wealth was the cure all, then why do rich people commit suicide at a higher rate than poor people?

 

[OnePercenter]

This post and the thread title are "Proff" that the OP is dumbass.

Lots of liquid income is the answer. Something you don't have due to your failed voting record, and you screwed you kids and Grand Kids too.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sorry Sparky, Democrats had the entire government from 2009 to 2011 when Obama, Pelosi and Reid bombed.

Modern income inequality? Seriously?!

From 2009 to 2011 which years did Democrats have 60 or more votes in the Senate, House majority, and the White House?

 

[boedicca]

This post and the thread title are "Proff" that the OP is dumbass.

Lots of liquid income is the answer. Something you don't have due to your failed voting record, and you screwed you kids and Grand Kids too.

Clearly, you've had a few extra portions of corn squeezin's with your turkey TV dinner today.

 

[Moonglow]

This post and the thread title are "Proff" that the OP is dumbass.

Lots of liquid income is the answer. Something you don't have due to your failed voting record, and you screwed you kids and Grand Kids too.

Clearly, you've had a few extra portions of corn squeezin's with your turkey TV dinner today.

You mean sour mash?

 

[Meathead]

Sorry Sparky, Democrats had the entire government from 2009 to 2011 when Obama, Pelosi and Reid bombed.

Modern income inequality? Seriously?!

From 2009 to 2011 which years did Democrats have 60 or more votes in the Senate, House majority, and the White House?

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

• From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
• From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
• For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

You were wrong!

 

[OnePercenter]

WTF are you complaining about. Income EQUALITY started in the 1970s due to conservatives?

So why are you bitching about EQUALITY - isn't that you're Utopian wet dream? You should thank 1970s conservatives for being your fluffers.

I haven't 'bitched,' I've pointed out how stupid you are. You're Welcome!

 

[OnePercenter]

Clearly, you've had a few extra portions of corn squeezin's with your turkey TV dinner today.

So you can invest without liquid assets?

 

[OnePercenter]

From 2009 to 2011 which years did Democrats have 60 or more votes in the Senate, House majority, and the White House?

What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

• From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
• From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
• For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

You were wrong![/QUOTE]

You forgot Independents.

 

[boedicca]

Clearly, you've had a few extra portions of corn squeezin's with your turkey TV dinner today.

So you can invest without liquid assets?

Non sequitur, bub. I bet you're like the bald guy tasting coffee IRL:

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Vintage Ferraris are rare works of art. They are collector's items, like a Picasso or Rembrandt. Why shouldn't they go to the highest bidder?

And why does it matter if there are people with enough wealth to buy such things?

They are investments to make more money, period.

The issue is spendable income and the fact that the rich and wealthy have more due to income equality.

Incomes are unequal. So what?

Some professions require much higher levels of skills. Some high income earners make their money via risky investments. Some invest in valuable objects like art and Ferraris.

As long as the money is earned legally, what's the problem?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Money is not the root of evil, nor is it a stairway to heaven..

True, but it makes life much more enjoyable.

But can it buy you love?

 

[Moonglow]

Clearly, you've had a few extra portions of corn squeezin's with your turkey TV dinner today.

So you can invest without liquid assets?

Playing the margins?

 

[EverCurious]

Apologies I went off on a little tangent here:

I think they should teach personal budgeting, it seems like folks are just clueless about it. The immediately buying a house and car thing is bad enough, but then they get into credit cards (because they've acquired debts outside their living means with the car/house purchase) and just get fucked. You're average credit union savings account might pay 1.25% interest back to you, but when you talk about credit cards, they're charging you 13-23% on average. Anytime you buy something on a credit card you need to add that cost into the price and decide if it's worth having "right now" - I mean even at the base, within 4-5 years, if you're paying minimum CC payment, you will be charged double on the item purchased - and it just gets worse after that. Credit cards are dangerous as fuck if you don't pay them off every month and I think people need to be taught that danger /before/ they get out on their own and fall into the dead end money pit trap.

Not to confuse; but houses are oft a good investment for those who don't plan on moving out of the area in a 10 year time frame, depending on your location of course, but if you can get a house and pay the same on a mortgage as the average rent and you're planning to be there a while, then hell yes do it because it's more than a home, it's an investment that you can nearly always later pull cash out of in an emergency situation - when you can get a mortgage for about the same as rent, figure it's like 5 years before break even, 7-10 before you pull ahead on the "doing for yourself" meter. Houses are good up to about double the average rent, simply because, even with housing market flex, you're more likely to be paying into your own piggy bank rather than someone else's. However, when you start to get spreads of like rent $500/m vs a mortgage of $2k, then it gets a lot more dicey and you have to decide based on much longer term plans, like if you plan on moving within 30 years and stuff - figure it's going to take at least 20 years to pull balanced worth out of the home at that kind of a spread and like 30 to get "ahead" on it. (Of course all of that changes based on the housing market and shit so the above is just a general guideline of consideration.)

Cars on the other hand are an automatic loss, the second you sign the paperwork you're losing money on it no matter what, so you have to keep that in mind. Leasing... unless you're doing a lease to own within 1 yr (which comes with a bit higher interest rate, but is easier to qualify for) it's a serious waste imho, buy a used car and save yourself a bundle. The /only/ thing that even comes close to possibly making up for the auto-loss of investment on a car is if it comes with a maintenance plan that covers annual expenses - which is why leasing to own in a 1-2year term might work - if you buy new and have a 4-5 year annual maintenance plan then you're at least eliminating some necessary expenses from your budget.

Both of the above, buying cars or houses, rely heavily on having a steady job as well so I personally don't really recommend it until you've gotten into a "career" type job; don't necessarily need upward mobility per say (like a receptionist kind of job) but job security is very important for a mortgage - and a bit important for a car purchase. You can "usually" get away with buying a car on a "bottom rung" type job, like anything in non-corporate fast food, service positions, etc. because, generally speaking, you should be able to find a replacement job to cover the $200-300ish a month car payment, so job security is a bit less important there. Houses are kind of a catch 22 on the other hand, because rent is just throwing away money, but qualifying for a mortgage and maintaining a mortgage require job stability - so basically it hinges on the job security a lot more than if you'll be getting eventual raises and stuff, but at the same time if you /don't/ have upward mobility in your pay, you'll likely be in a far worse cash strap.


As for further than general budgeting stuff, the best way to get (and stay) wealthy is to always live /well/ within your means and make small investments over time. You can't just go out and buy a house and a new car and expect to not pay a bunch in interest, but the thing folks don't realize is that it works in the reverse; small investments in the right place at the right time, or in a conglomerate investing service, accrue interest /to you/ - and that is how the wealthy end up so wealthy because they can and do make bigger and bigger investments over time thus saturating the market and ensuring that their overall portfolio earns them more than they are investing out of their actual paychecks. With a balance of risk investments and bonds, one can do very, very well on a stable market - and once you have a bank roll in the system, it takes a serious [read stupid] mistake or massive once every 30 year type recession (like the one we're in now) to unseat you from your returns covering your losses and requiring you to invest more annually than your returns. Of course, I estimate you'd need to be comfortable with a minimum of like $10k/y investing to find that kind of security balance, but for little fish, $100-1,000/y (like your tax return) well placed can rabbit and give a really tidy return over the long haul - for retirement planning and emergency type stuff.

It all goes back to basic budgeting though, weighing the wants vs the needs and balancing the short and long term costs and benefits to you the buyer. Like a car is almost a necessity for most folks, so that lends it to being a more logical purchase to pay 5% interest on than say a big screen TV at 18% interest. A lot of folks have what I call "little shit" issues, like for example cable tv, I mean it's what $40-60 a month so it doesn't sound like much, but if you're only watching your cable channels for 2 hours a night it's probably not worth it in the greater scope of things; get your news from the web/papers and entertain yourself with something else for a couple hours instead. $40-60 a month can buy a tank of gas or a weeks worth of food and if your budget is "questionable" that's a much better idea.

 

[jknowgood]

Money is not the root of evil, nor is it a stairway to heaven..

True, but it makes life much more enjoyable.

But can it buy you love?

An hour at a time. Lol

 

[boedicca]

Vintage Ferraris are rare works of art. They are collector's items, like a Picasso or Rembrandt. Why shouldn't they go to the highest bidder?

And why does it matter if there are people with enough wealth to buy such things?

They are investments to make more money, period.

The issue is spendable income and the fact that the rich and wealthy have more due to income equality.

Incomes are unequal. So what?

Some professions require much higher levels of skills. Some high income earners make their money via risky investments. Some invest in valuable objects like art and Ferraris.

As long as the money is earned legally, what's the problem?

I love how OneBraincell keeps saying Income EQUALITY.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Vintage Ferraris are rare works of art. They are collector's items, like a Picasso or Rembrandt. Why shouldn't they go to the highest bidder?

And why does it matter if there are people with enough wealth to buy such things?

They are investments to make more money, period.

The issue is spendable income and the fact that the rich and wealthy have more due to income equality.

Incomes are unequal. So what?

Some professions require much higher levels of skills. Some high income earners make their money via risky investments. Some invest in valuable objects like art and Ferraris.

As long as the money is earned legally, what's the problem?

I love how OneBraincell keeps saying Income EQUALITY.

I don't understand what his issue is, being a "OnePercenter". He'd probably be complaining about the progressive income tax, if it were true.

 

[boedicca]

Vintage Ferraris are rare works of art. They are collector's items, like a Picasso or Rembrandt. Why shouldn't they go to the highest bidder?

And why does it matter if there are people with enough wealth to buy such things?

They are investments to make more money, period.

The issue is spendable income and the fact that the rich and wealthy have more due to income equality.

Incomes are unequal. So what?

Some professions require much higher levels of skills. Some high income earners make their money via risky investments. Some invest in valuable objects like art and Ferraris.

As long as the money is earned legally, what's the problem?

I love how OneBraincell keeps saying Income EQUALITY.

I don't understand what his issue is, being a "OnePercenter". He'd probably be complaining about the progressive income tax, if it were true.

OneBraincell's monicker is like rightwinger's - the opposite of what they are.

 

[OnePercenter]

Incomes are unequal. So what?

Some professions require much higher levels of skills. Some high income earners make their money via risky investments. Some invest in valuable objects like art and Ferraris.

As long as the money is earned legally, what's the problem?

Whom makes most of the money in the US 1970 vs. today.

I've NEVER made risky investments, if it's questionable you either pass or hedge.