Thou Shall Never Touch The Tax Cuts

[Bern80]

You know, I'm not a statistician. But it seems to me that while there may be similarities among people who took themselves from zero to millions, no analysis is made of people with similar variables, including effort, who failed to rise from zero, for whatever reason.

I'm curious as to what percentage of the population tried to do the same things and failed.

And then I'd be curious as to what, if any, additional variables exist which resulted in the failure. Because, even if 80% of millionaires are self-made (and I seriously doubt that number) what percentage of the general population were those 80%? (I'm not sure if I'm asking the question clearly, btw). 1%? 10%?

Why do you doubt that number? What logical reason is there to believe that that isn't possible? I get why libs think that way. It has do with your take on human nature, one of which is that people are usually blameless for whatever position they find themselves in. Just as it can't possibly be the fault of he un-wed mother with 3 kids baggin grociers that she's in that position, nor can it possibly be that through effort you can attain wealth and that his most people do it.

Oh... and one last thing. If a person's million dollar net worth is made up largely of his house, he isn't rich. He's upper middle class.

You need to take notes from Shogun i guess. You're not allowed to define what constitutes wealthy. But since you're on the subject A person's net worth isn't largerly made of their home especially if they really are middle class. What would be typical of your middle class home? 500k maybe. taht only get's you half way there.

 

[jillian]

Doesn't change the basics, though, Dead.

Sure, factors that contribute to success include education, availability of capital in the form of grants or investments, assistance of small business development organizations and the like, but you still have to have the drive to push yourself forward, through frustration after frustration, to get through all of those things.

I procure patents for people. Most of the individuals, after getting their patent, do nothing further. They don't have the motivation, or they lack the knowledge (and the motivation to get the knowledge) to know how to proceed next. Others do have the motivation, and they are the ones that tend to succeed. There are organizations where I live that will develop a business plan for you, go out and try to find capital, take and invention through various stages of develop, seek grants, etc. all at no upfront charge to the inventor. They only make money if the inventor is successful. But many people with an invention or business idea never even seek these guys out, or do the kind of digging that anyone could do to find out they exist.

Fair enough. but even the knowledge of those organizations that help create a business plan, etc., might be something that someone from the lower stratosphere doesn't know how to access. I mean, there's an organization here, it's called "Dress for Success and it helps provide proper interview clothing for poor women, teaches them how to dress and how to conduct themselves, so even those basic skills aren't part of their vocabulary.

And organizations like you described, aside, doesn't at least part of their inability to move the patent further have to do with a lack of contacts that living in the wealthiest social strata would provide easily? Aren't the skills necessary for that type of networking best learned from experience and one's surronds?

Seems, unless someone has the wherewithal to produce and sell the product, at least on a limited basis, they aren't going to get very far. And producing and selling the product, unless it is otherwise funded, often takes a substantial initial investment that someone starting from zero might not have at his disposal.... or know how to obtain.

And that goes to my question above, I think.

 

[jillian]

Why do you doubt that number? What logical reason is there to believe that that isn't possible? I get why libs think that way. It has do with your take on human nature, one of which is that people are usually blameless for whatever position they find themselves in. Just as it can't possibly be the fault of he un-wed mother with 3 kids baggin grociers that she's in that position, nor can it possibly be that through effort you can attain wealth and that his most people do it.



You need to take notes from Shogun i guess. You're not allowed to define what constitutes wealthy. But since you're on the subject A person's net worth isn't largerly made of their home especially if they really are middle class. What would be typical of your middle class home? 500k maybe. taht only get's you half way there.

I doubt the number because no proof has been provided of the number. I'm afraid I do see it the same way as Shogun does.

As for the home, er... I live in NY. A two bedroom condo overlooking the Verrazano goes for about $850,000, a two bedroom condo on the beach in Brighton probably goes for about a million.

A house costs, minimally $700,000 here. A co-op can be more affordable at about $300,000 to $400,000. A studio apartment in Manhattan costs at least $1,500 to $2,000 a month to rent.

*Edit* Don't get me wrong, Denny, there are cheaper neighborhoods to live in, but I think my point is that there are more variables to consider and having the real property doesn't necessarily mean you're rich.

 

[Bern80]

Fair enough. but even the knowledge of those organizations that help create a business plan, etc., might be something that someone from the lower stratosphere doesn't know how to access. I mean, there's an organization here, it's called "Dress for Success and it helps provide proper interview clothing for poor women, teaches them how to dress and how to conduct themselves, so even those basic skills aren't part of their vocabulary.

And organizations like you described, aside, doesn't at least part of their inability to move the patent further have to do with a lack of contacts that living in the wealthiest social strata would provide easily? Aren't the skills necessary for that type of networking best learned from experience and one's surronds?

Seems, unless someone has the wherewithal to produce and sell the product, at least on a limited basis, they aren't going to get very far. And producing and selling the product, unless it is otherwise funded, often takes a substantial initial investment that someone starting from zero might not have at his disposal.... or know how to obtain.

And that goes to my question above, I think.

Commonly people get start up money through small business loans. Those aren't rocket science to get. Or they get a friend to invest capital for them and said friend hopes to get a return. That is essentially all the stock market is, companies asking for money because they can't generate that level of capital on their own.

Again yes, for some it's gonna be hard, but most people that have the drive find a way. they are goal oriented and can see clearly the steps that need to be taken to get from A to B. True not all people have that ability, but what do you suggest we do about it?

 

[Steerpike]

Jillian:

It's certainly easier the more education and resources you have, but it's not impossible for the others who have the drive to put in the effort.

For example, I have an inventor with almost no formal education, and he lives out in the middle of nowhere, and has little or no money to work with. The guy has literally spent years, day in and day out, pursuing his idea, educating himself at the library, tracking down any and every bit of information he could on groups that can help. Last year his company got off the ground and he took in some base level investments. I don't know yet where they'll end up, but the path they are on now looks pretty good.

And I kid you not, this guy come from (and is still in actually) the lowest socioeconomic and educational level. He found that information and now has a shot at making something of his idea. Literally anyone could do what he has done with respect to getting things off the ground. But it takes a hell of a lot of time and effort.

 

[jillian]

Jillian:

It's certainly easier the more education and resources you have, but it's not impossible for the others who have the drive to put in the effort.

For example, I have an inventor with almost no formal education, and he lives out in the middle of nowhere, and has little or no money to work with. The guy has literally spent years, day in and day out, pursuing his idea, educating himself at the library, tracking down any and every bit of information he could on groups that can help. Last year his company got off the ground and he took in some base level investments. I don't know yet where they'll end up, but the path they are on now looks pretty good.

And I kid you not, this guy come from (and is still in actually) the lowest socioeconomic and educational level. He found that information and now has a shot at making something of his idea. Literally anyone could do what he has done with respect to getting things off the ground. But it takes a hell of a lot of time and effort.

Oh, I know it's do-able. I think I've said my Dad is a self-made type. But tell me this, does your guy have a family? A wife who helped pay the bills while he pursued his dream? Or... no wife or family and the freedom to do it.

Just curious, because someone driving a cab 12 hours a day isn't going to be able to put into an idea what he did unless they are truly exceptional. And while I applaud the exceptional, they aren't the gauge by which society in general should be measured.

 

[Bern80]

I doubt the number because no proof has been provided of the number. I'm afraid I do see it the same way as Shogun does.

Convesely little evidence has been provided that it isn't that way, yet you lean to one side already. You've seen the debate going on about my source. read it and judge for yourself.

As for the home, er... I live in NY. A two bedroom condo overlooking the Verrazano goes for about $850,000, a two bedroom condo on the beach in Brighton probably goes for about a million.

A house costs, minimally $700,000 here. A co-op can be more affordable at about $300,000 to $400,000. A studio apartment in Manhattan costs at least $1,500 to $2,000 a month to rent.

The other thing you have to remember about a home counting toward this million dollar net worth is that it must be an asset. Net worth is assets minues libabilites. I said a home is most peoples greatest asset. Well that really was incorrect. That's only true when you own it. Your home is not an asset until you own it, all of it. It's a liability. Until you own your home out right, it does not count as an asset and thus does not count toward your net worth.

 

[jillian]

Convesely little evidence has been provided that it isn't that way, yet you lean to one side already. You've seen the debate going on about my source. read it and judge for yourself.

No. I found your premise unproven, so it wasn't a matter of believing the other side. You just set forth a hypothesis which I think might stand on shaky foundations, so I'm not prepared to accept it. It's irrelevant to me really, since whether or not it's correct really don't impact on the aspects of this conversation that interest me or the questions I posited which are still unanswered in terms of ascertained variables.

The other thing you have to remember about a home counting toward this million dollar net worth is that it must be an asset. Net worth is assets minues libabilites. Your home is not an asset until you own it, all of it. Until you own your home out right, it does not count as an asset and thus does not count toward your net worth.

Right. But if you've owned it for 30 years, your mortgage is paid off (in some cases, 15 years). Also, if you purchased the property 30 years ago, you probably paid a fraction of its current worth.

 

[midcan5]

I agree that some are lucky enough to make it through determination and hard work, but I bet a larger number do not, even with the same work habits. Maybe we need to define rich?

'The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.'

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/12/define-rich.html

 

[Steerpike]

Oh, I know it's do-able. I think I've said my Dad is a self-made type. But tell me this, does your guy have a family? A wife who helped pay the bills while he pursued his dream? Or... no wife or family and the freedom to do it.

Just curious, because someone driving a cab 12 hours a day isn't going to be able to put into an idea what he did unless they are truly exceptional. And while I applaud the exceptional, they aren't the gauge by which society in general should be measured.

That's a good point. This guy has a wife, and although they make very little it was enough to keep them afloat while he pursued the project.

The other thing, which I just thought of, is when I saw his lack of means I decided to put in a lot of pro bono time for the guy. That certainly helped when it came to patent fees. But I like to think that someone in a similar financial condition would be able to find that kind of help elsewhere.

 

[jillian]

That's a good point. This guy has a wife, and although they make very little it was enough to keep them afloat while he pursued the project.

The other thing, which I just thought of, is when I saw his lack of means I decided to put in a lot of pro bono time for the guy. That certainly helped when it came to patent fees. But I like to think that someone in a similar financial condition would be able to find that kind of help elsewhere.

What it comes down to is a person being able to draw upon resources, most of which are internal, many of which are environmental.

Just to digress for a moment, I always found patents interesting. I had a friend in law school who had an engineering degree from MIT and then after law school fell naturally into patents.

I did a lot of copyright/trademark when I had my practice, btw, the flip side of the IP world.

 

[Bern80]

No. I found your premise unproven, so it wasn't a matter of believing the other side. You just set forth a hypothesis which I think might stand on shaky foundations, so I'm not prepared to accept it. It's irrelevant to me really, since whether or not it's correct really don't impact on the aspects of this conversation that interest me or the questions I posited which are still unanswered in terms of ascertained variables.



Right. But if you've owned it for 30 years, your mortgage is paid off (in some cases, 15 years). Also, if you purchased the property 30 years ago, you probably paid a fraction of its current worth.

The number of people that actually own their home out right is less than a third of all people in homes.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_2.pdf

tons of graphs here but one of them is graph by region and breakdown of people paying their mortgage vs. those that have mortgages paid off.

 

[Steerpike]

What it comes down to is a person being able to draw upon resources, most of which are internal, many of which are environmental.

Just to digress for a moment, I always found patents interesting. I had a friend in law school who had an engineering degree from MIT and then after law school fell naturally into patents.

I did a lot of copyright/trademark when I had my practice, btw, the flip side of the IP world.

What area do you practice in, out of curiosity? I do almost entirely patent work, though I handle trademark matters from time to time. I also did a bit of teaching - family law and Constitutional law, of all things. That was a blast.

Now I just deal with IP.

 

[Steerpike]

Oh, and speaking of the teaching gig, it just reminded me of how much external pressures can affect people of certain socio-economic backgrounds.

I taught law classes for a while at an inner-city college program for people who wanted to be paralegals. The class was almost entirely made up of poor black females, most of whom had children and no husbands.

Out of the entire class, there was one young lady in particular who was so damn smart she made the class a joy just by herself. She could easily have held her own in law school with any person I knew. I talked to her after class numerous times and told her she had to make her way into law school. That's what she wanted, but she lacked confidence and resources. I put her in touch with people, but I don't know if she ever made it in. She says she was getting criticism from her own family and other women in her community for being in school in the first place, and it made it hard. Can you believe that?

 

[midcan5]

What it comes down to is a person being able to draw upon resources, most of which are internal, many of which are environmental.

Exactly, I know someone who married a heiress to one of the largest corporations on earth. Funny what a little capital can do even though they eventually divorced. But rich people do not suffer from increases in taxes as Clinton proved, and none of the wealthy people I know will suffer unless there is a full scale revolution, of course then they'll move. The more critical piece is a fair stable society in which everyone benefits.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

 

[jillian]

What area do you practice in, out of curiosity? I do almost entirely patent work, though I handle trademark matters from time to time. I also did a bit of teaching - family law and Constitutional law, of all things. That was a blast.

Now I just deal with IP.

When I had my practice, I did about 1/3 entertainment litigation (I repped record companies, mostly), 1/3 matrimonial and about 1/3 transactional real estate. I love teaching. Got to teach a few contiuing ed law courses for producers which was awesome. After my record company clients got "acquired" by a larger corporation, that kind of work dried up for me and I decided it was time to have a real life and spend more time with my family. So I took a law job that requires way fewer hours, but if you don't mind, I apologize, but I'm not comfortable talking about what I'm doing now publicly.

 

[Steerpike]

So I took a law job that requires way fewer hours, but if you don't mind, I apologize, but I'm not comfortable talking about what I'm doing now publicly.

I understand. I worked for a very large firm and we had record companies as clients. The quality of life wasn't great though. I went out on my own for a while and then went to a mid-sized firm. It's much better, and the quality of life issue is important. I've read that the very large firms are having trouble retaining attorneys because of it.

 

[jillian]

I understand. I worked for a very large firm and we had record companies as clients. The quality of life wasn't great though. I went out on my own for a while and then went to a mid-sized firm. It's much better, and the quality of life issue is important. I've read that the very large firms are having trouble retaining attorneys because of it.

One of the men I worked with also came from a large, white shoe firm. The hours were brutal for him. I'm not surprised to hear that there's a high attrition rate. I loved working for myself and did it for a long time, but when my son got older and started to complain that I was "always on the phone" and "never home", I figured he's only young once. I find that job satisfaction and law are sometimes mutually exclusive, no matter how much you love the actual law itself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The number of people that actually own their home out right is less than a third of all people in homes.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_2.pdf

tons of graphs here but one of them is graph by region and breakdown of people paying their mortgage vs. those that have mortgages paid off.

No one actually owns property anymore anyway. The Government demands payment every year on it and if you fail to pay, it is seized.

 

[Zoomie1980]

You know, I'm not a statistician. But it seems to me that while there may be similarities among people who took themselves from zero to millions, no analysis is made of people with similar variables, including effort, who failed to rise from zero, for whatever reason.

I'm curious as to what percentage of the population tried to do the same things and failed.

And then I'd be curious as to what, if any, additional variables exist which resulted in the failure. Because, even if 80% of millionaires are self-made (and I seriously doubt that number) what percentage of the general population were those 80%? (I'm not sure if I'm asking the question clearly, btw). 1%? 10%?

Oh... and one last thing. If a person's million dollar net worth is made up largely of his house, he isn't rich. He's upper middle class.

Depends on your definition of "try". "Trying" for a year or two doesn't cut it. Self made people put in a lifetime of effort. It's taken me over 30 years to get where I am. The real problem is, as I have said before, discipline and staying power, willing to hold to a vision through thick and thin, over the long haul. Most that bother to try come up with an excuse to give up. They make a bad choice or a series of bad choices.

I can take every person on this forum that is unhappy with their state in life, go over their life in detail from age 15 and on and pinpoint the three, four, five or so bad choices they made to get where they are. And it's usually the same things over and over again. Things like

1) Should have stayed in school

2) Should have pushed myself and taken college prep classes instead of the regular stuff

3) Should have majored in something I could have actually made money in, instead of something I could only make a living with by being a teacher....

4) Should have opted for the chevy instead of the bmw

5) Should have signed up for the $50/month payroll deduction for retirement back when I was 25

6) SHould have joined the military and let them pay for college...

7) Should have gotten so mad at my boss I just quit....with nothing else lined up.

8) Should not have shoplifted that blow drier....

9) My kids never needed Nike's when noname sneakers would have done fine....

10) Should have bought my clothes at Penny's instead of Van Maur and Lord and Taylor...

I could go on and on....