Free Money

[Beyond]

Lazy no. I just know there's a level of stupid I'm not able to get down to. That post was pretty much there.

Lazy yes.
It's all about the will to succeed. If you dont have that will you're lazy by definition.
I was poor as a church mouse at 18 and a high school dropout. I decided I didnt want to live that way so I did something about it.
If you're cruising through life working one shit job after another thats on you.

You've no idea if I'm successful by your measure or not successful by your measure, so you're talking out your rear end.

Where did I say anything about your success?

Read your post again.

Oh fer fuks sake!!
Is it not obvious I was generalizing?

No.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Justin Haskins: Democrat Rashida Tlaib proposes disastrous cash giveaway -- guess who’s going to pay for it? | Fox News

This is a huge problem. We need to provide incentives for people to work and not to game the system and receive free monies. Regardless of party affiliation we need to just be smart and understand basic economics.

What do you mean by incentives?

Duh

You must know that Welfare (AFDC) no longer exists. And, every State operates under TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] in a manner the State Government establishes. Thus, "free money" is limited to Corporations and especially banks.

Incentives meaning no free money. Go to job fairs, work with placement agencies, etc.

Sure, why stop there, why shouldn't they get that post graduate degree, when they don't have the $20 application fee for a community college?

Why are you asking me questions

 

[Wry Catcher]

Justin Haskins: Democrat Rashida Tlaib proposes disastrous cash giveaway -- guess who’s going to pay for it? | Fox News

This is a huge problem. We need to provide incentives for people to work and not to game the system and receive free monies. Regardless of party affiliation we need to just be smart and understand basic economics.

What do you mean by incentives?

You must know that Welfare (AFDC) no longer exists. And, every State operates under TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] in a manner the State Government establishes. Thus, "free money" is limited to Corporations and especially banks.

Incentives meaning no free money. Go to job fairs, work with placement agencies, etc.

Sure, why stop there, why shouldn't they get that post graduate degree, when they don't have the $20 application fee for a community college?

Exactly. I didn't have the energy to even try to respond to that post.

You’re lazy? You think poverty is bad luck. I think It’s due to laziness.

Prove it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure, why stop there, why shouldn't they get that post graduate degree, when they don't have the $20 application fee for a community college?

Exactly. I didn't have the energy to even try to respond to that post.

You’re lazy? You think poverty is bad luck. I think It’s due to laziness.

Lazy no. I just know there's a level of stupid I'm not able to get down to. That post was pretty much there.

Lazy yes.
It's all about the will to succeed. If you dont have that will you're lazy by definition.
I was poor as a church mouse at 18 and a high school dropout. I decided I didnt want to live that way so I did something about it.
If you're cruising through life working one shit job after another thats on you.

You've no idea if I'm successful by your measure or not successful by your measure, so you're talking out your rear end.

Only a few posts up you stated I was part of the top 7%.

It's easy to determine success here by how people talk and feel. If you were successful, you wouldn't believe the things you do; no financial successful person does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the federal tax rate were 10%, that would mean somebody making $30,000 would pay $3,000 in taxes. It would also mean that somebody making a million dollars pays $100,000 in taxes. Now that's on an equal tax rate which we don't have.

The point is no matter what the tax rate, the rich will always pay more than anybody else.

And why shouldn't they? They get more than anybody else.

Incidently the truly wealthy tend to pay a lower % of tax than the less wealthy, because they can afford to pay someone to arrange their finances in a way that takes advantage of tax loopholes, thus lowering their tax bills.

The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 80% of all collected income taxes. If paying 80% of all income taxes is not their fair share, then what should the top 20% be paying for the rest of us?

Link?

Assuming you have evidence for that, you know that only refers to the money knowm about right? It would be interesting to know about the offshore money that isn't taxed.

I haven't said the top 20% should paying for the rest of us. My view is people should be paid decent wages, comemsurate with their productivity.

The vast majority of money earned today, is earned on theevolved discoveries of thousand of years. What right do the wealthy have to declare ownership of the entire history of mankind, essentially ownership of the globe? How are you satisfied for another flesh and blood person to declare that nature or God (whatever you believe) declares him/her owners of what the planet produces?

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Yes, they do pay the taxes for the rest of us, especially considering that nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax at all. If taxation were equal (meaning we all pay the same amount) you wouldn't even be able to get a paycheck because it would all be going to the federal government.

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

Again, if they are paying the tax "for us", they are also taking the profit "for us". So excuse me if I'm less than greatfull.

Yes overseas income is taxable, but a) IRS have to know it's there (not all income is a salary), b) if it's sitting in a tax haven, wrapped within tax loopholes, it won't be taxed. Which is my point.

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

This is the real problem. Someone earning $250k isn't an issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not in absolute dollars but why can they not pay a similar %? And I disagree that I am "privileged".

Why not a similar %? Because they are not getting as much out of the system as those on higher income. The system has not served them as well. Thisisn't about attributing blame, it about looking at facts.

If I was handed a car that worked perfectly, was comfortble to drive, I'd expect to pay more for it than a car that was breaking down every day and leaking oil onto my driveway. The same with paying for a sytem that works better for me than it does for others, regardless of why it works well for me.

It's also absurd for someone who struggles to pay their bills due to a low income, should be handing money over tho the government and then get it back in welfare. (referring to those who can and do work full time jobs.)

Again I've no truck with those doing well, but why pretend they're not doing well, why pretend $250k leave one struggling to pay their way? It doesn't unless they're foolish with their money.

#1) System or are they not go getters like their competitors? We are all born with equal rights.
#2) You should not buy a car that breaks down but you can get around comfortably in a Toyota or an Audi. The Audi will cost you more but will get you to the same place.
#3) Low income is not my fault, it is theirs. My parents came here with $100 and didn't speak the language. No one handed them anything. They have sponsored 10+ families in ~40 years and helped them because they chose to and not because they were forced to. They should be able to spend their monies as they see fit since they earned it.
#4) Because $250k does not go as far as you think. ~30% goes to taxes and cable and cell phones are pricey. In MA the RE taxes are high. Sports cost a lot of money for kids. $250k doesn't take you as far as you think. I am not saying I am poor but I am saying that calling me "rich" is crazy. If I was making $250k in Alabama it would be a different story.

You're obsessed with blame and fault, rather than simply looking at the situation.

I'm not blmaing you for the situation of others, nor do I think you should be giving it up. My only point in that direction is acknoweging your position is what it is.

No matter how little the distance you think $250k goes, it goes a lot further than the $36k that 90% of the poulatio average.

I didn't say "rich", I said "privileged". If I were to speak of making things more equal by distributing some of the money hoarded by the wealthy, you wouldn't be on the radar of "wealthy" people I be referring to. When you you have billions in the bank and continue paying minimum or below average wage, while reaping in $millions or $billions in profit. Tha's where there's a real problem.

You seem to think that by prvileged, I mean you shouldn't have it. That's not the case.

So then what do you mean?

Simply that you are privileged. (regardless of whether or not it's earned). The view I hold is that at your income you should not be in the top 7%, comfortable by all means, but the wealth distribution should be such that you (at current income) should be somewhere in the top 50% or 60%. That someone who regards themselves as "middle Class" in in the top 7% earning bracket, is a comment on the failure of our system, given the bottom 90% averages only $36k.

What I haven't found, but would be interested to see, is what the bottom 10% are earning. To have such a large number earning so little is a failed system.

I ask again, if you had a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

There is no 90% failure. Where do you come up with that? If you are middle-class, it's because you chose to be middle-class like I did. Society didn't make me middle-class, society didn't restrict my income, society didn't restrict me from investing and taking huge risks. That's all on me.

Could I have done much better? Sure I could have. I could have leased my own truck and started my own trucking business. I could have given up the technology I use all the time; mostly for entertainment. I could have rejected eating out. There are a lot of things I could have done, but I chose not to.

I made investments with the money I had left over from living the lifestyle I have. I never got married and had children because I didn't want the expense. I don't like getting into things I can't back out of.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What do you mean by incentives?

You must know that Welfare (AFDC) no longer exists. And, every State operates under TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] in a manner the State Government establishes. Thus, "free money" is limited to Corporations and especially banks.

Incentives meaning no free money. Go to job fairs, work with placement agencies, etc.

Sure, why stop there, why shouldn't they get that post graduate degree, when they don't have the $20 application fee for a community college?

Exactly. I didn't have the energy to even try to respond to that post.

You’re lazy? You think poverty is bad luck. I think It’s due to laziness.

Prove it.

I need to prove an opinion? Per the left leaning Brookings Institute, One needs to graduate HS, get a job and don’t become a single parent and that person will not be poor. Seems simple. Do you understand or do you need me to type slower?

 

[Beyond]

Exactly. I didn't have the energy to even try to respond to that post.

You’re lazy? You think poverty is bad luck. I think It’s due to laziness.

Lazy no. I just know there's a level of stupid I'm not able to get down to. That post was pretty much there.

Lazy yes.
It's all about the will to succeed. If you dont have that will you're lazy by definition.
I was poor as a church mouse at 18 and a high school dropout. I decided I didnt want to live that way so I did something about it.
If you're cruising through life working one shit job after another thats on you.

You've no idea if I'm successful by your measure or not successful by your measure, so you're talking out your rear end.

Only a few posts up you stated I was part of the top 7%.

It's easy to determine success here by how people talk and feel. If you were successful, you wouldn't believe the things you do; no financial successful person does.

In the top 7% income earners. That's a factual statement based on the report I posted. I has nothing to do with what I believe.

It depends what you mean as successful. If being in the top 5% earners means successful in your eyes, I'm successful. Regardless of that, yes I think the way I do. I'm not sure why you think my level of success, however you define that, should impact the facts I observe. Facts are facts regardless of one's relative position to them.

Like another poster I was surprised to find my income puts me in the top 5% earners bracket. In my case I was also disgusted that earning so little put me in that bracket. My work includes producing and analysing stats, so I read stats and their meanings accordingly. I know that my being in the top 5% at my level of earning, means there are large numbers who don't earn enough to feed themselves properly and put a decent roof over their head.

I'd love just one person to challenge the facts I've put forward, rather than their "feels".

 

[Beyond]

And why shouldn't they? They get more than anybody else.

Incidently the truly wealthy tend to pay a lower % of tax than the less wealthy, because they can afford to pay someone to arrange their finances in a way that takes advantage of tax loopholes, thus lowering their tax bills.

The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 80% of all collected income taxes. If paying 80% of all income taxes is not their fair share, then what should the top 20% be paying for the rest of us?

Link?

Assuming you have evidence for that, you know that only refers to the money knowm about right? It would be interesting to know about the offshore money that isn't taxed.

I haven't said the top 20% should paying for the rest of us. My view is people should be paid decent wages, comemsurate with their productivity.

The vast majority of money earned today, is earned on theevolved discoveries of thousand of years. What right do the wealthy have to declare ownership of the entire history of mankind, essentially ownership of the globe? How are you satisfied for another flesh and blood person to declare that nature or God (whatever you believe) declares him/her owners of what the planet produces?

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Yes, they do pay the taxes for the rest of us, especially considering that nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax at all. If taxation were equal (meaning we all pay the same amount) you wouldn't even be able to get a paycheck because it would all be going to the federal government.

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

Again, if they are paying the tax "for us", they are also taking the profit "for us". So excuse me if I'm less than greatfull.

Yes overseas income is taxable, but a) IRS have to know it's there (not all income is a salary), b) if it's sitting in a tax haven, wrapped within tax loopholes, it won't be taxed. Which is my point.

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

This is the real problem. Someone earning $250k isn't an issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

 

[Beyond]

Why not a similar %? Because they are not getting as much out of the system as those on higher income. The system has not served them as well. Thisisn't about attributing blame, it about looking at facts.

If I was handed a car that worked perfectly, was comfortble to drive, I'd expect to pay more for it than a car that was breaking down every day and leaking oil onto my driveway. The same with paying for a sytem that works better for me than it does for others, regardless of why it works well for me.

It's also absurd for someone who struggles to pay their bills due to a low income, should be handing money over tho the government and then get it back in welfare. (referring to those who can and do work full time jobs.)

Again I've no truck with those doing well, but why pretend they're not doing well, why pretend $250k leave one struggling to pay their way? It doesn't unless they're foolish with their money.

#1) System or are they not go getters like their competitors? We are all born with equal rights.
#2) You should not buy a car that breaks down but you can get around comfortably in a Toyota or an Audi. The Audi will cost you more but will get you to the same place.
#3) Low income is not my fault, it is theirs. My parents came here with $100 and didn't speak the language. No one handed them anything. They have sponsored 10+ families in ~40 years and helped them because they chose to and not because they were forced to. They should be able to spend their monies as they see fit since they earned it.
#4) Because $250k does not go as far as you think. ~30% goes to taxes and cable and cell phones are pricey. In MA the RE taxes are high. Sports cost a lot of money for kids. $250k doesn't take you as far as you think. I am not saying I am poor but I am saying that calling me "rich" is crazy. If I was making $250k in Alabama it would be a different story.

You're obsessed with blame and fault, rather than simply looking at the situation.

I'm not blmaing you for the situation of others, nor do I think you should be giving it up. My only point in that direction is acknoweging your position is what it is.

No matter how little the distance you think $250k goes, it goes a lot further than the $36k that 90% of the poulatio average.

I didn't say "rich", I said "privileged". If I were to speak of making things more equal by distributing some of the money hoarded by the wealthy, you wouldn't be on the radar of "wealthy" people I be referring to. When you you have billions in the bank and continue paying minimum or below average wage, while reaping in $millions or $billions in profit. Tha's where there's a real problem.

You seem to think that by prvileged, I mean you shouldn't have it. That's not the case.

So then what do you mean?

Simply that you are privileged. (regardless of whether or not it's earned). The view I hold is that at your income you should not be in the top 7%, comfortable by all means, but the wealth distribution should be such that you (at current income) should be somewhere in the top 50% or 60%. That someone who regards themselves as "middle Class" in in the top 7% earning bracket, is a comment on the failure of our system, given the bottom 90% averages only $36k.

What I haven't found, but would be interested to see, is what the bottom 10% are earning. To have such a large number earning so little is a failed system.

I ask again, if you had a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

There is no 90% failure. Where do you come up with that? If you are middle-class, it's because you chose to be middle-class like I did. Society didn't make me middle-class, society didn't restrict my income, society didn't restrict me from investing and taking huge risks. That's all on me.

Could I have done much better? Sure I could have. I could have leased my own truck and started my own trucking business. I could have given up the technology I use all the time; mostly for entertainment. I could have rejected eating out. There are a lot of things I could have done, but I chose not to.

I made investments with the money I had left over from living the lifestyle I have. I never got married and had children because I didn't want the expense. I don't like getting into things I can't back out of.

Do you believe it's possible for every person to be well off? Well of as in earning in the six figure bracket?

And every person, not as in every individual, but every adult individual currently living in the states to all be earning a 6 figure sum all at the same time.

Do you believe that's possible?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 80% of all collected income taxes. If paying 80% of all income taxes is not their fair share, then what should the top 20% be paying for the rest of us?

Link?

Assuming you have evidence for that, you know that only refers to the money knowm about right? It would be interesting to know about the offshore money that isn't taxed.

I haven't said the top 20% should paying for the rest of us. My view is people should be paid decent wages, comemsurate with their productivity.

The vast majority of money earned today, is earned on theevolved discoveries of thousand of years. What right do the wealthy have to declare ownership of the entire history of mankind, essentially ownership of the globe? How are you satisfied for another flesh and blood person to declare that nature or God (whatever you believe) declares him/her owners of what the planet produces?

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Yes, they do pay the taxes for the rest of us, especially considering that nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax at all. If taxation were equal (meaning we all pay the same amount) you wouldn't even be able to get a paycheck because it would all be going to the federal government.

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

Again, if they are paying the tax "for us", they are also taking the profit "for us". So excuse me if I'm less than greatfull.

Yes overseas income is taxable, but a) IRS have to know it's there (not all income is a salary), b) if it's sitting in a tax haven, wrapped within tax loopholes, it won't be taxed. Which is my point.

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

This is the real problem. Someone earning $250k isn't an issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

But it's not your profit. You are only the worker.

Joe Shmoe decides he wants to be a business owner. He goes to college, gets into a field of work, saves a bunch of money, and takes the risk of opening up a business.

Now he has to buy or lease a building for his business. He has to hire a legal team and accountants. He has to purchase the equipment to make the product or provide the service for that business. He has to hire secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance people. He has to work out all the permits and taxes with the city. He will likely be working at a loss for at least a year. He will lose endless hours of sleep worrying about whether he's going to make it or not. He used his house as collateral and borrowed a bunch of money from the bank, family and friends.

Now he hires you for a job. And after all he went through, all his worrying, all his investment and risk, you think you should be able to walk in and share in his profits.

 

[Beyond]

Link?

Assuming you have evidence for that, you know that only refers to the money knowm about right? It would be interesting to know about the offshore money that isn't taxed.

I haven't said the top 20% should paying for the rest of us. My view is people should be paid decent wages, comemsurate with their productivity.

The vast majority of money earned today, is earned on theevolved discoveries of thousand of years. What right do the wealthy have to declare ownership of the entire history of mankind, essentially ownership of the globe? How are you satisfied for another flesh and blood person to declare that nature or God (whatever you believe) declares him/her owners of what the planet produces?

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Yes, they do pay the taxes for the rest of us, especially considering that nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax at all. If taxation were equal (meaning we all pay the same amount) you wouldn't even be able to get a paycheck because it would all be going to the federal government.

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

Again, if they are paying the tax "for us", they are also taking the profit "for us". So excuse me if I'm less than greatfull.

Yes overseas income is taxable, but a) IRS have to know it's there (not all income is a salary), b) if it's sitting in a tax haven, wrapped within tax loopholes, it won't be taxed. Which is my point.

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

This is the real problem. Someone earning $250k isn't an issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

But it's not your profit. You are only the worker.

Joe Shmoe decides he wants to be a business owner. He goes to college, gets into a field of work, saves a bunch of money, and takes the risk of opening up a business.

Now he has to buy or lease a building for his business. He has to hire a legal team and accountants. He has to purchase the equipment to make the product or provide the service for that business. He has to hire secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance people. He has to work out all the permits and taxes with the city. He will likely be working at a loss for at least a year. He will lose endless hours of sleep worrying about whether he's going to make it or not. He used his house as collateral and borrowed a bunch of money from the bank, family and friends.

Now he hires you for a job. And after all he went through, all his worrying, all his investment and risk, you think you should be able to walk in and share in his profits.

We're back to "why do you think someone has the god given right to own the fruits of another's labour" you haven't adressed that, you seem to just robotically repeat the mantra your masters have trained into you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

#1) System or are they not go getters like their competitors? We are all born with equal rights.
#2) You should not buy a car that breaks down but you can get around comfortably in a Toyota or an Audi. The Audi will cost you more but will get you to the same place.
#3) Low income is not my fault, it is theirs. My parents came here with $100 and didn't speak the language. No one handed them anything. They have sponsored 10+ families in ~40 years and helped them because they chose to and not because they were forced to. They should be able to spend their monies as they see fit since they earned it.
#4) Because $250k does not go as far as you think. ~30% goes to taxes and cable and cell phones are pricey. In MA the RE taxes are high. Sports cost a lot of money for kids. $250k doesn't take you as far as you think. I am not saying I am poor but I am saying that calling me "rich" is crazy. If I was making $250k in Alabama it would be a different story.

You're obsessed with blame and fault, rather than simply looking at the situation.

I'm not blmaing you for the situation of others, nor do I think you should be giving it up. My only point in that direction is acknoweging your position is what it is.

No matter how little the distance you think $250k goes, it goes a lot further than the $36k that 90% of the poulatio average.

I didn't say "rich", I said "privileged". If I were to speak of making things more equal by distributing some of the money hoarded by the wealthy, you wouldn't be on the radar of "wealthy" people I be referring to. When you you have billions in the bank and continue paying minimum or below average wage, while reaping in $millions or $billions in profit. Tha's where there's a real problem.

You seem to think that by prvileged, I mean you shouldn't have it. That's not the case.

So then what do you mean?

Simply that you are privileged. (regardless of whether or not it's earned). The view I hold is that at your income you should not be in the top 7%, comfortable by all means, but the wealth distribution should be such that you (at current income) should be somewhere in the top 50% or 60%. That someone who regards themselves as "middle Class" in in the top 7% earning bracket, is a comment on the failure of our system, given the bottom 90% averages only $36k.

What I haven't found, but would be interested to see, is what the bottom 10% are earning. To have such a large number earning so little is a failed system.

I ask again, if you had a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

There is no 90% failure. Where do you come up with that? If you are middle-class, it's because you chose to be middle-class like I did. Society didn't make me middle-class, society didn't restrict my income, society didn't restrict me from investing and taking huge risks. That's all on me.

Could I have done much better? Sure I could have. I could have leased my own truck and started my own trucking business. I could have given up the technology I use all the time; mostly for entertainment. I could have rejected eating out. There are a lot of things I could have done, but I chose not to.

I made investments with the money I had left over from living the lifestyle I have. I never got married and had children because I didn't want the expense. I don't like getting into things I can't back out of.

Do you believe it's possible for every person to be well off? Well of as in earning in the six figure bracket?

And every person, not as in every individual, but every adult individual currently living in the states to all be earning a 6 figure sum all at the same time.

Do you believe that's possible?

No more than I think everybody can be a star quarterback, singer or song writer, actor or actress.

You were born in a country where you have the constitutional right to pursue happiness. Nowhere in the document does it guarantee happiness. I'll never be a billionaire either, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with our financial system or that billionaires owe me anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Yes, they do pay the taxes for the rest of us, especially considering that nearly half of the people in this country pay no income tax at all. If taxation were equal (meaning we all pay the same amount) you wouldn't even be able to get a paycheck because it would all be going to the federal government.

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

Again, if they are paying the tax "for us", they are also taking the profit "for us". So excuse me if I'm less than greatfull.

Yes overseas income is taxable, but a) IRS have to know it's there (not all income is a salary), b) if it's sitting in a tax haven, wrapped within tax loopholes, it won't be taxed. Which is my point.

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

This is the real problem. Someone earning $250k isn't an issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

But it's not your profit. You are only the worker.

Joe Shmoe decides he wants to be a business owner. He goes to college, gets into a field of work, saves a bunch of money, and takes the risk of opening up a business.

Now he has to buy or lease a building for his business. He has to hire a legal team and accountants. He has to purchase the equipment to make the product or provide the service for that business. He has to hire secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance people. He has to work out all the permits and taxes with the city. He will likely be working at a loss for at least a year. He will lose endless hours of sleep worrying about whether he's going to make it or not. He used his house as collateral and borrowed a bunch of money from the bank, family and friends.

Now he hires you for a job. And after all he went through, all his worrying, all his investment and risk, you think you should be able to walk in and share in his profits.

We're back to "why do you think someone has the god given right to own the fruits of another's labour" you haven't adressed that, you seem to just robotically repeat the mantra your masters have trained into you.

I've addressed that repeatedly. It's not a God given right, it's an agreement between employer and employee. If you're not happy with the money the employer is offering, then don't work for him. It's that simple. If nobody is offering the money you want, then your services are simply not worth the money. Open your own business and pay yourself whatever you like.

 

[Beyond]

You're obsessed with blame and fault, rather than simply looking at the situation.

I'm not blmaing you for the situation of others, nor do I think you should be giving it up. My only point in that direction is acknoweging your position is what it is.

No matter how little the distance you think $250k goes, it goes a lot further than the $36k that 90% of the poulatio average.

I didn't say "rich", I said "privileged". If I were to speak of making things more equal by distributing some of the money hoarded by the wealthy, you wouldn't be on the radar of "wealthy" people I be referring to. When you you have billions in the bank and continue paying minimum or below average wage, while reaping in $millions or $billions in profit. Tha's where there's a real problem.

You seem to think that by prvileged, I mean you shouldn't have it. That's not the case.

So then what do you mean?

Simply that you are privileged. (regardless of whether or not it's earned). The view I hold is that at your income you should not be in the top 7%, comfortable by all means, but the wealth distribution should be such that you (at current income) should be somewhere in the top 50% or 60%. That someone who regards themselves as "middle Class" in in the top 7% earning bracket, is a comment on the failure of our system, given the bottom 90% averages only $36k.

What I haven't found, but would be interested to see, is what the bottom 10% are earning. To have such a large number earning so little is a failed system.

I ask again, if you had a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

There is no 90% failure. Where do you come up with that? If you are middle-class, it's because you chose to be middle-class like I did. Society didn't make me middle-class, society didn't restrict my income, society didn't restrict me from investing and taking huge risks. That's all on me.

Could I have done much better? Sure I could have. I could have leased my own truck and started my own trucking business. I could have given up the technology I use all the time; mostly for entertainment. I could have rejected eating out. There are a lot of things I could have done, but I chose not to.

I made investments with the money I had left over from living the lifestyle I have. I never got married and had children because I didn't want the expense. I don't like getting into things I can't back out of.

Do you believe it's possible for every person to be well off? Well of as in earning in the six figure bracket?

And every person, not as in every individual, but every adult individual currently living in the states to all be earning a 6 figure sum all at the same time.

Do you believe that's possible?

No more than I think everybody can be a star quarterback, singer or song writer, actor or actress.

You were born in a country where you have the constitutional right to pursue happiness. Nowhere in the document does it guarantee happiness. I'll never be a billionaire either, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with our financial system or that billionaires owe me anything.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between my posts and your thoughts. Is there a mental deficiency that causes this? It makes it very difficult to maintain any sort of dialogue, as half my post needs to include explaining what I haven't said. For example I haven't said any of the things you're arguing against in the above post and you haven't answered my question, yet you appear to regard your response as relevant to my question.

 

[Beyond]

Again, if they are paying the tax "for us", they are also taking the profit "for us". So excuse me if I'm less than greatfull.

Yes overseas income is taxable, but a) IRS have to know it's there (not all income is a salary), b) if it's sitting in a tax haven, wrapped within tax loopholes, it won't be taxed. Which is my point.

Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world | Oxfam International

This is the real problem. Someone earning $250k isn't an issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

But it's not your profit. You are only the worker.

Joe Shmoe decides he wants to be a business owner. He goes to college, gets into a field of work, saves a bunch of money, and takes the risk of opening up a business.

Now he has to buy or lease a building for his business. He has to hire a legal team and accountants. He has to purchase the equipment to make the product or provide the service for that business. He has to hire secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance people. He has to work out all the permits and taxes with the city. He will likely be working at a loss for at least a year. He will lose endless hours of sleep worrying about whether he's going to make it or not. He used his house as collateral and borrowed a bunch of money from the bank, family and friends.

Now he hires you for a job. And after all he went through, all his worrying, all his investment and risk, you think you should be able to walk in and share in his profits.

We're back to "why do you think someone has the god given right to own the fruits of another's labour" you haven't adressed that, you seem to just robotically repeat the mantra your masters have trained into you.

I've addressed that repeatedly. It's not a God given right, it's an agreement between employer and employee. If you're not happy with the money the employer is offering, then don't work for him. It's that simple. If nobody is offering the money you want, then your services are simply not worth the money. Open your own business and pay yourself whatever you like.

If you don't regard it as a god given right, why do you repeatedly claim that such a right exists? By what law do you claim it to be true that owning a company includes owning the fruit of another man's labour?

Incidently I do work for myself, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You’re lazy? You think poverty is bad luck. I think It’s due to laziness.

Lazy no. I just know there's a level of stupid I'm not able to get down to. That post was pretty much there.

Lazy yes.
It's all about the will to succeed. If you dont have that will you're lazy by definition.
I was poor as a church mouse at 18 and a high school dropout. I decided I didnt want to live that way so I did something about it.
If you're cruising through life working one shit job after another thats on you.

You've no idea if I'm successful by your measure or not successful by your measure, so you're talking out your rear end.

Only a few posts up you stated I was part of the top 7%.

It's easy to determine success here by how people talk and feel. If you were successful, you wouldn't believe the things you do; no financial successful person does.

In the top 7% income earners. That's a factual statement based on the report I posted. I has nothing to do with what I believe.

It depends what you mean as successful. If being in the top 5% earners means successful in your eyes, I'm successful. Regardless of that, yes I think the way I do. I'm not sure why you think my level of success, however you define that, should impact the facts I observe. Facts are facts regardless of one's relative position to them.

Like another poster I was surprised to find my income puts me in the top 5% earners bracket. In my case I was also disgusted that earning so little put me in that bracket. My work includes producing and analysing stats, so I read stats and their meanings accordingly. I know that my being in the top 5% at my level of earning, means there are large numbers who don't earn enough to feed themselves properly and put a decent roof over their head.

I'd love just one person to challenge the facts I've put forward, rather than their "feels".

Well I don't believe you for one second. Every liberal here either works from home, retired early and financially well off, or has their own business. Me? I'm the only truck driver here.

Your rants are typical of a minimum wage worker who made a lot of irresponsible decisions in life and is now struggling because of their mistakes.

As I explained, I know wealthy people. I have them in my family. I work with them every day. Hell.....my own sister makes six figures a year. None of them talk like you. None of them say government should take most of their money, or that government should force them to pay people who haven't tried in life.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm willing to bet (just by your posts) you never made one investment in your life outside of perhaps your house. That's because people who made investments in their life understand the mental and at times physical anguish they've been through to get what they wanted. They spend the best years of their lives chasing that dream.

Now if you were in the top 5%, you would have to be making anywhere from 165K to 290K depending on what state you live in. The 165K is the lowest cost of living state. It's unlikely unless you're a doctor or chief engineer, you could be making that kind of money unless you had your own business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I said nothing about 250k a year.

And what do you mean by taking the profit for us? How are they doing that? The profit is there for those who invest. It's not a pie that gets cut a certain way, and you got the small piece.

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

But it's not your profit. You are only the worker.

Joe Shmoe decides he wants to be a business owner. He goes to college, gets into a field of work, saves a bunch of money, and takes the risk of opening up a business.

Now he has to buy or lease a building for his business. He has to hire a legal team and accountants. He has to purchase the equipment to make the product or provide the service for that business. He has to hire secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance people. He has to work out all the permits and taxes with the city. He will likely be working at a loss for at least a year. He will lose endless hours of sleep worrying about whether he's going to make it or not. He used his house as collateral and borrowed a bunch of money from the bank, family and friends.

Now he hires you for a job. And after all he went through, all his worrying, all his investment and risk, you think you should be able to walk in and share in his profits.

We're back to "why do you think someone has the god given right to own the fruits of another's labour" you haven't adressed that, you seem to just robotically repeat the mantra your masters have trained into you.

I've addressed that repeatedly. It's not a God given right, it's an agreement between employer and employee. If you're not happy with the money the employer is offering, then don't work for him. It's that simple. If nobody is offering the money you want, then your services are simply not worth the money. Open your own business and pay yourself whatever you like.

If you don't regard it as a god given right, why do you repeatedly claim that such a right exists? By what law do you claim it to be true that owning a company includes owning the fruit of another man's labour?

Incidently I do work for myself, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Well there is another clue you have no education or success. I stated something repeatedly, and you don't understand it. So you keep asking the same question over and over.

 

[Beyond]

Lazy no. I just know there's a level of stupid I'm not able to get down to. That post was pretty much there.

Lazy yes.
It's all about the will to succeed. If you dont have that will you're lazy by definition.
I was poor as a church mouse at 18 and a high school dropout. I decided I didnt want to live that way so I did something about it.
If you're cruising through life working one shit job after another thats on you.

You've no idea if I'm successful by your measure or not successful by your measure, so you're talking out your rear end.

Only a few posts up you stated I was part of the top 7%.

It's easy to determine success here by how people talk and feel. If you were successful, you wouldn't believe the things you do; no financial successful person does.

In the top 7% income earners. That's a factual statement based on the report I posted. I has nothing to do with what I believe.

It depends what you mean as successful. If being in the top 5% earners means successful in your eyes, I'm successful. Regardless of that, yes I think the way I do. I'm not sure why you think my level of success, however you define that, should impact the facts I observe. Facts are facts regardless of one's relative position to them.

Like another poster I was surprised to find my income puts me in the top 5% earners bracket. In my case I was also disgusted that earning so little put me in that bracket. My work includes producing and analysing stats, so I read stats and their meanings accordingly. I know that my being in the top 5% at my level of earning, means there are large numbers who don't earn enough to feed themselves properly and put a decent roof over their head.

I'd love just one person to challenge the facts I've put forward, rather than their "feels".

Well I don't believe you for one second. Every liberal here either works from home, retired early and financially well off, or has their own business. Me? I'm the only truck driver here.

Your rants are typical of a minimum wage worker who made a lot of irresponsible decisions in life and is now struggling because of their mistakes.

As I explained, I know wealthy people. I have them in my family. I work with them every day. Hell.....my own sister makes six figures a year. None of them talk like you. None of them say government should take most of their money, or that government should force them to pay people who haven't tried in life.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm willing to bet (just by your posts) you never made one investment in your life outside of perhaps your house. That's because people who made investments in their life understand the mental and at times physical anguish they've been through to get what they wanted. They spend the best years of their lives chasing that dream.

Now if you were in the top 5%, you would have to be making anywhere from 165K to 290K depending on what state you live in. The 165K is the lowest cost of living state. It's unlikely unless you're a doctor or chief engineer, you could be making that kind of money unless you had your own business.

Again, you seem unable to distinguish between your thoughts an my posts.

I've not said any of the bolded that you are claiming I've said.

I've said already, I work for myself. As in, I work as a consultant, developing BI (stats) for companies and honing their business processes. By absolute luck I was born with an affinity for figures, computing those figures and relating them to real life activity in the company. Give me a few weeks to study a company's production data and I can draw you a pretty accurate picture of a company. It's strengths, weakness, culture and blocks. Once I start speaking to people I can identify the why and where of those strengths and weaknesses.

People pay a lot for that information as it can increase their profits significantly, usually for relatively little change. I get paid to spot what those potential changes are and where they need to be.

I get paid very well for the absolute unadultarated luck of having the right sort of brain to earn a signficant income in this particular time in history. Yes, I've worked really hard at it, but I know a lot of people who work just a hard as I do and harder, who are broke. The difference between me and them is pure unearned luck.

Your masters have trained you to believe those who are not "successful" are simply not trying hard enough, despite the fact this is around 90% of the population.

A 90% failure rate is a fault in the system not the people. This is my point.

 

[Beyond]

I said something about $250k

Taking the profit for us = taking the profit earned by the labour of another.

But it's not your profit. You are only the worker.

Joe Shmoe decides he wants to be a business owner. He goes to college, gets into a field of work, saves a bunch of money, and takes the risk of opening up a business.

Now he has to buy or lease a building for his business. He has to hire a legal team and accountants. He has to purchase the equipment to make the product or provide the service for that business. He has to hire secretaries, cleaning people, maintenance people. He has to work out all the permits and taxes with the city. He will likely be working at a loss for at least a year. He will lose endless hours of sleep worrying about whether he's going to make it or not. He used his house as collateral and borrowed a bunch of money from the bank, family and friends.

Now he hires you for a job. And after all he went through, all his worrying, all his investment and risk, you think you should be able to walk in and share in his profits.

We're back to "why do you think someone has the god given right to own the fruits of another's labour" you haven't adressed that, you seem to just robotically repeat the mantra your masters have trained into you.

I've addressed that repeatedly. It's not a God given right, it's an agreement between employer and employee. If you're not happy with the money the employer is offering, then don't work for him. It's that simple. If nobody is offering the money you want, then your services are simply not worth the money. Open your own business and pay yourself whatever you like.

If you don't regard it as a god given right, why do you repeatedly claim that such a right exists? By what law do you claim it to be true that owning a company includes owning the fruit of another man's labour?

Incidently I do work for myself, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Well there is another clue you have no education or success. I stated something repeatedly, and you don't understand it. So you keep asking the same question over and over.

And despite the conflict in your statement, you repeat the same sound of your master's voice, competely unable to comprehend the difference between your masters voice, your own thoughts and my posts.