Thou Shall Never Touch The Tax Cuts

[Bern80]

You can't. It is not a quantifiable attribute.

Aren't you trying to quantify it when you set up a hypothetical where two people from different backgrounds have the same willpower?

Why should it be easy? Life is complicated. The obstacles people face are many and unforeseen.

It's as complicated as you make it.

For any individual person, I generally wouldn't say that anything is not achievable. However, in the aggregate, it is quite easy to say that things will not be achievable by the majority. If someone were 5'3" tall, I wouldn't say that it is impossible for them to start on a professional basketball team. However, if you were to ask me if all 5'3" people were capable (assuming they all put forth all of their effort) of playing professional basketball, I would be a fool to say yes. Even if there were many more professional basketball teams, the fact is that if you are 5'3" tall, you are suffering from a major handicap when it comes to professional basketball. Not everyone, despite their respective "best efforts" will succeed. That is also true for people 7'2", although I think we can all agree that someone 7'2" has an easier shot (no pun intended).

I think the best you can say is you don't know, where the aggregate is concerned. You can break things down into groups like we're doing. Take all the people who want to be pro ball players. What do we know? We know height is valuable. We know as the height of our pool decreases the harder it will be for those individuals to make it pro. You can see the parralel to success in attaining wealth. The less conducive your background is to your goal the harder you will have to work to attain it. I simply believe the group of people that attainment is impossible for is very small.

Try not to stereotype. We are idealists because we believe it is possible to create a world where people have greater opportunities to achieve their goals. However, we recognize life's limitations, even if we want to reduce those limitations. We are not blind and stupid.

Then you will be sorely dissappointed. You can't create opportunity. It's always there. They will be harder to find for some then others. What you want to do is create ease of opportunity. The strong members of society are those that overcome adversity through their willpower and hard work. We've been throwing around names like the children of the Hiltons and Trumps. They are certainly wealthy, but are they valuable, strong members of society? Not really. Strength comes through difficulty. Strong societies are those that experience adversity and perservere. So what are you really doing for society by eliminating adversity?

 

[Shogun]

And who pays those roads, transportation and infrastructure???

The top 1% pay for 37% of it
The top 5% pay for 58% of it
The top 10% pay for over 70% of it.

You peons in the bottom 90% don't pay for sh!t but are by far the biggest USERS of it all!!!

take your fucking ass to india if you don't like it. I hear they have a caste system that should solve your fear of a lower economic class.

 

[Shogun]

I don't really care what definition of environment he chooses to use.

Considering the scope of our conversation in another thread your statement is a blasting cap of sad irony.

 

[Bern80]

Considering the scope of our conversation in another thread your statement is a blasting cap of sad irony.

Your perception of what the scope is, is incorrect.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not exactley sure how letting you define your terms makes me a dumbass to begin with so I'm not really offended.

I don't care what defiinition you use because I don't beleive it changes the outcome in that I don't believe environment (however you choose to define it) is more important than the actions of thd individual in creating success.

The concept that some just can't wrap their head around is that by in large success, wealth, etc. doesn't just 'happen' to people. I think most would probably agree with that, but that also runs counter to the notion that environment is the overriding factor in makeing a person wealthy. It also means when we talk about things like leveling the playing field or presenting more opportunities none of those things are going to make an individual wealthy. Could it happen? Yeah. People inherit the lottery or born to billionaires, but again they are the exception.

I perfect microcosm are professional athelets. They make tons of money playing sports. How many of them do you think didn't have to a work a lick to get where they are? Few if any. Why do you think people in the busines world are so different that the majority them didn't work for it?

uh, because one doesn't become a starting quarterback for the winning superbowl team based on WHO HE KNOWS RATHER THAN WHAT HIS ABILITIES HAVE TO OFFER?

good grief, dude.

I'm laughing pretty hard at your attention to manipulated definitions too! Hell, I"D label what are exceptions using that same lame assed book too! Which, ironically enough, relies on the same type of manipulation of definitions that you JUST cried about.


classic.

 

[Bern80]

uh, because one doesn't become a starting quarterback for the winning superbowl team based on WHO HE KNOWS RATHER THAN WHAT HIS ABILITIES HAVE TO OFFER?

good grief, dude.

I'm laughing pretty hard at your attention to manipulated definitions too! Hell, I"D label what are exceptions using that same lame assed book too! Which, ironically enough, relies on the same type of manipulation of definitions that you JUST cried about.


classic.

Laugh all you want. You're the one asserting something that you have provided no evidence for - that most people acheive wealth through connections and not work.

 

[Shogun]

yea.. while you toss out every example i've slapped you with in some lame assed attempt to defend a book that is as significant as kinseys sex books this side of the sexual revolution.


Maybe if you neg rep me I won't have lost respect for your dishonest, scummy fucking litigious arguement that is as solid and transparent as a bowl of jello.

ps, considering your standard of evidence it really is no skin off of my nuts when you point a finger at anyones sources.

 

[Bern80]

yea.. while you toss out every example i've slapped you with in some lame assed attempt to defend a book that is as significant as kinseys sex books this side of the sexual revolution.


Maybe if you neg rep me I won't have lost respect for your dishonest, scummy fucking litigious arguement that is as solid and transparent as a bowl of jello.

ps, considering your standard of evidence it really is no skin off of my nuts when you point a finger at anyones sources.

Clearly you are too emotional to continue this conversation. Your name calling is baseless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clearly you are too emotional to continue this conversation. Your name calling is baseless.

He resorts to personal attacks in every argument. He turns everything into personal attacks. Then he ignores whats being said and twists it into some personal insult.

 

[Shogun]

Golly gee wally, coming from the guy who started calling people names about ten posts back I really can see how you hopped onto that moral highground regarding name calling.


Holy shit, your consistency is as impressive as your sources and honesty.

 

[Bern80]

Golly gee wally, coming from the guy who started calling people names about ten posts back I really can see how you hopped onto that moral highground regarding name calling.


Holy shit, your consistency is as impressive as your sources and honesty.

Generally it's wise to make sure there is actual proof of an action before accussing people. I have been through all my posts in both threads, you will need to point out where I called you any type of name.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Generally it's wise to make sure there is actual proof of an action before accussing people. I have been through all my posts in both threads, you will need to point out where I called you any type of name.

He probably means me

 

[Shogun]

you didn't accuse me of being larkin in some soft-gloved assumption that I'm too liberal to keep up with you?


oh, silly me. This must be one of those "do as I say not..." moments.

 

[Bern80]

you didn't accuse me of being larkin in some soft-gloved assumption that I'm too liberal to keep up with you?


oh, silly me. This must be one of those "do as I say not..." moments.

So you equate Larkinn to something like 'dumbass' or 'dickhead'? ooookkaaay. I was noting simply that your argument styles are amazingly similar. If that's insulting to you because you think his style is a poor one, well then yeah I guess I called you a name.

coming from the guy who started calling people names

...and to you comparing you to larkinn qualifies? You're really getting desperate to cover up the fact your foot is way down your throat.

 

[Shogun]

So you equate Larkinn to something like 'dumbass' or 'dickhead'? ooookkaaay. I was noting simply that your argument styles are amazingly similar. If that's insulting to you because you think his style is a poor one, well then yeah I guess I called you a name.

Of course you did. Feel free to cite a single source declaring your shiny little halo though. My argument style revolves around a thread full of critical thinking that has forced you to admit what you otherwise would never have admitted about your silly fucking single source. In reflexive anger you lashed out by calling me larkin ans insinuating that I have not been taking your manipulated stats to task so much as trolling the threads. It won't shock me if you can't figure out how transparent are your own actions. You seem to think your shit comes in a fresher shade of turd for some reason.


...and to you comparing you to larkinn qualifies? You're really getting desperate to cover up the fact your foot is way down your throat.

HA!

yea, IM the one choking on my posts, arent I Mr. backtrack and damage control!




I've slapped your hand out of the cookie jar and you think IM the one welling up with tears? That's probably very clear every time you come back around to admitting an thing or two about your lame fucking source in this circular argument you are using as a dance lesson.

 

[Bern80]

So you equate Larkinn to something like 'dumbass' or 'dickhead'? ooookkaaay. I was noting simply that your argument styles are amazingly similar. If that's insulting to you because you think his style is a poor one, well then yeah I guess I called you a name.

Of course you did. Feel free to cite a single source declaring your shiny little halo though. My argument style revolves around a thread full of critical thinking that has forced you to admit what you otherwise would never have admitted about your silly fucking single source. In reflexive anger you lashed out by calling me larkin ans insinuating that I have not been taking your manipulated stats to task so much as trolling the threads. It won't shock me if you can't figure out how transparent are your own actions. You seem to think your shit comes in a fresher shade of turd for some reason.


...and to you comparing you to larkinn qualifies? You're really getting desperate to cover up the fact your foot is way down your throat.

HA!

yea, IM the one choking on my posts, arent I Mr. backtrack and damage control!




I've slapped your hand out of the cookie jar and you think IM the one welling up with tears? That's probably very clear every time you come back around to admitting an thing or two about your lame fucking source in this circular argument you are using as a dance lesson.

Where have I backtracked? My position has not changed one bit. If you believe it has please cite.

Me getting angry? yes, I'm the one that has started interjecting 'shity' and 'fucking' into his posts (cause they add so much). You wanted me to quote where you said you called my source crap. Claiming you didn't, but have done so anyway for the last few posts. Did you read it in that time and determine it was indeed crap?

 

[Shogun]

Where have I backtracked? My position has not changed one bit. If you believe it has please cite.

Me getting angry? yes, I'm the one that has started interjecting 'shity' and 'fucking' into his posts (cause they add so much). You wanted me to quote where you said you called my source crap. Claiming you didn't, but have done so anyway for the last few posts. Did you read it in that time and determine it was indeed crap?

Your source IS crap. It's a load of shit and both of us know why your numbers don't reflect what you was insinuating yesterday. If I use words like FUCKING then too FUCKING bad. Did I call you an ad hominem or otherwise suggest that YOU are a fucking dipshit for trying to pass along that lump of shit as a valid source? no. Have I insinuated that you are a troll like Larkin in order to minimize your position? no. I've stuck to the specific piece of illogic in your arguement that was as obvious as the day is long. Which, again, is why I kept asking you for MORE sources before you hopped onto a soapbox about a single book. Spare me the boohoo routine. I expect it from the RGS types but I had thought you were worthy of a little more consideration.


and yes, your position has changed since, today, you will admit the statistic relevance of a cropped sample and TODAY you are actually clarifying that 80% relates to ONLY the bracket of self made millionaires instead of the entire wealthy population.

 

[rayboyusmc]

that most people acheive wealth through connections and not work.

Have you proved elsewise?

Let me research this tonight at home and see if there is any data.

You seem to miss one of the main points of this thread. If a person does have connections to people in power who then pass laws, give subsidies, etc based on relationships and nothing else, this is total crap. When people in elected postion of power use that power to financially benefit their buddies, that is a conflict of interest.

Why does the Oil industry still get subsidies?

 

[Bern80]

Your source IS crap. It's a load of shit and both of us know why your numbers don't reflect what you was insinuating yesterday. If I use words like FUCKING then too FUCKING bad. Did I call you an ad hominem or otherwise suggest that YOU are a fucking dipshit for trying to pass along that lump of shit as a valid source? no. Have I insinuated that you are a troll like Larkin in order to minimize your position? no. I've stuck to the specific piece of illogic in your arguement that was as obvious as the day is long. Which, again, is why I kept asking you for MORE sources before you hopped onto a soapbox about a single book. Spare me the boohoo routine. I expect it from the RGS types but I had thought you were worthy of a little more consideration.


and yes, your position has changed since, today, you will admit the statistic relevance of a cropped sample and TODAY you are actually clarifying that 80% relates to ONLY the bracket of self made millionaires instead of the entire wealthy population.

Except for what you're suggesting is cropped, isn't. 80% referrs to EVERYONE with net worth above 1 million dollars. That's what it was at the beginning of this tangent and that's what it still is.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Older data, but all I could find with a quick search:

The Nation, October 20, 1997
Editorial

FORBES 400 WORLD SERIES

It's that time of year again, when rich people feel downright middle class compared with people even richer. Why, if you have to ask the price of a Learjet 31A, you can't afford one ($5,775,000). It took a net worth of $475 million to get on this year's Forbes 400 lineup of the ultra-rich, up from $415 million in 1996. Oprah Winfrey, ranked 343rd with $550 million, is the only black person on the team.

The estimated combined wealth of the Forbes 400 increased 31 percent, from $477 billion in 1996 to upwards of $624 billion this year. When Forbes introduced the first 400 in 1982, their combined net worth was $92 billion. Today, that wouldn't even field a Forbes Five. While the average worker barely kept up with inflation last year, the richest American, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, more than doubled his net worth, from $18.5 billion to $39.8 billion. It would take the median U.S. household earning $35,500 some 600,000 years to make as much as Bill Gates did last year. He is worth more than the G.N.P. of Central America.

Today the United States has 170 billionaires by Forbes's count, up from 135 last year, and more than 36 million people living below the official poverty line--and millions more living in poverty above it. The latest poverty thresholds are $7,995 for a single person and $12,516 for a family of three. According to the Census Bureau, the top 5 percent of households (with income above $119,540) increased their share of the national income from 15.6 percent in 1981 to 21.4 percent last year; the bottom 80 percent lost ground to those above. The top 5 percent has an even larger share of national wealth, holding about 60 percent of all net worth, according to economist Edward Wolff.

Forbes celebrates bootstrappers, but its 400 are better represented by Jim Hightower's remark about George Bush, "He was born on thrid base and thought he hit a triple." (Steve "Flat Tax" Forbes can relate. The Forbes family is conspiciously abstent from the 400, but Fortune pegged inheritor Steve's personal wealth at $439 million in 1996, enough to make that year's cut.) "Born on Third Base," a new study by the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy, shows that a majority of the Forbes 400 inherited their way onto the list, inherited already substantial and profitable companies, or received key start-up capital from a family member.


42 percent were born on home plate. These include older dynasties like the Rockefellers and du Ponts, and newer family fortunes from companies like Walmart and Gap. The Waltons of Wal-Mart are ranked nine through thirteen on the Forbes 400, with a combined $32 billion. Forbes thinks some of those born on home plate hit a home run. For example, it calls Philip Anschutz "self-made" even though he would have made the 400 cut just from the mineral wealth he inherited from his father.

At least 6 percent were born on third base. They inherited wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company, and grew this initial fortune into Forbes 400 size. For example, Edward Johnson III inherited Fidelity from his father and led it the mutual fund world series.

At least 7 percent were born on second base. They inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member. Examples include poultry tycoons Donald Tyson and Frank Perdue.

At least 14 percent were born on first base. For example, Bill Gates's parents were well-off professionals and he went to a private school where he and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen began their exploration of computers.
Nike founder Phil Knight was born in the batter's box and hustled his way to number 17 on the Forbes 400 with $5.4 billion. But the high-priced Air Jordans that bring such profits aren't self-made: The typical Nike worker is an Asian girl or woman working in a sweatshop for less than $10 a week. Forbes comments, "An unrepentant Phil Knoght blasts his sweatshop critics: 'This isn't an issue that should even be on the political agenda today. It's just a sound bite of globalization.'"

Rich Americans have been scoring off workers' sacrifice flies for decades. It's time to give workers their fair share at bat.

HOLLY SKLAR AND CHUCK COLLINS