The Graduated Income Tax

[Markle]

so if billionaires make it off the working man then we should get the billionaires off the working man so the working man can earn what he really should??

What?

 

[Andylusion]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

People who make more money benefit from our society more, and therefore they should pay more to keep it.

What I do not like is being forced to pay more money that will simply be wasted. I would happily pay more income taxes in order to benefit society as a whole if I knew that it was not being squandered.

I don't even buy that.

A poor person, and a rich person, both benefit from law and order equally.

A poor person and rich person, both benefit from roads and sewers equally.

Both would be starving, both would be sick, both would victimized by criminals, if society didn't provide those things.

The rich person benefits from his wise use of capital more, than a poor person who blows his money on beer, drugs, and smokes.

That has nothing to do with society. Both equally benefit from society.

Both do not equally benefit from their own capital, because one uses his capital poorly, while the other uses it wisely.

 

[Markle]

A large percent of the mega-rich were born rich, which, dumb@ss, has nothing to do with hard work.

As you know, this is not true.

Please share with us what percentage of Forbes 400 richest Americans are self-made and what percentage inherited their wealth. I believe you're afraid to do so.

 

[Andylusion]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.

Either you're rich and playing us for fools, or you're dumb as sh1t. (I'm betting dumb as sh1t.) The graduated income tax often fails to tax the rich at as high a percent as the middle-class is taxed, given all the tax breaks the rich can use. And, the fact is, the income tax is used to redistribute wealth, so maybe your dumb@ss should focus more on cutting the poor off of government welfare programs before you worry about ending the graduated tax rate later. Even if the income tax wasn't used redistribute wealth, the reason to tax the rich at a higher rate is because they can bear more. Do you think you can run the US military on the backs of baby factories and the disabled, who themselves don't have any use for the US military?

Being rich does require luck. Hard work alone doesn't life you out of the middle-class. A large percent of the mega-rich were born rich, which, dumb@ss, has nothing to do with hard work. Other mega-rich people had the luck to get into positions that directed money to them -- sure, they put in hard work, but that alone isn't nearly enough.

No, that isn't true. The vast majority of rich, are rich from their own work. Very few inherit it.

 

[Markle]

BS, the rich do not create demand,

Just foolish.

 

[Andylusion]

BS, the rich do not create demand,

Just foolish.

Left-wing ideology is pretty close to a mental disorder. You should expect mindless claims like this.

 

[Muhammed]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

People who make more money benefit from our society more, and therefore they should pay more to keep it.

What I do not like is being forced to pay more money that will simply be wasted. I would happily pay more income taxes in order to benefit society as a whole if I knew that it was not being squandered.

I don't even buy that.

A poor person, and a rich person, both benefit from law and order equally.

A poor person and rich person, both benefit from roads and sewers equally.

Both would be starving, both would be sick, both would victimized by criminals, if society didn't provide those things.

The rich person benefits from his wise use of capital more, than a poor person who blows his money on beer, drugs, and smokes.

That has nothing to do with society. Both equally benefit from society.

Both do not equally benefit from their own capital, because one uses his capital poorly, while the other uses it wisely.

Kid, you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous opinion.

For example; I get MUCH more use out of those roads and bridges than any poor person.

 

[Andylusion]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

People who make more money benefit from our society more, and therefore they should pay more to keep it.

What I do not like is being forced to pay more money that will simply be wasted. I would happily pay more income taxes in order to benefit society as a whole if I knew that it was not being squandered.

I don't even buy that.

A poor person, and a rich person, both benefit from law and order equally.

A poor person and rich person, both benefit from roads and sewers equally.

Both would be starving, both would be sick, both would victimized by criminals, if society didn't provide those things.

The rich person benefits from his wise use of capital more, than a poor person who blows his money on beer, drugs, and smokes.

That has nothing to do with society. Both equally benefit from society.

Both do not equally benefit from their own capital, because one uses his capital poorly, while the other uses it wisely.

Kid, you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous opinion.

For example; I get MUCH more use out of those roads and bridges than any poor person.

Without those roads and bridges and so on, there would be no food in the city. Everyone would be starving. The poor beggar on the street would starve, and you would starve.

Both would starve to death, without modes of transportation to bring goods into the city.

Beyond that even, who would the beggar beg from if there were no roads, thus no cars, thus no people? When you see him on the side of the highway bumming for a buck, without roads, there would be no side of the highway.

If the beggar wants to get to the other side of town by bus, no roads... no bus.

So, no I reject your claim. I think the beggar benefits from the roads as much as anyone. It may not be directly with his own automobile, but he benefits just as much indirectly.

 

[Muhammed]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

People who make more money benefit from our society more, and therefore they should pay more to keep it.

What I do not like is being forced to pay more money that will simply be wasted. I would happily pay more income taxes in order to benefit society as a whole if I knew that it was not being squandered.

I don't even buy that.

A poor person, and a rich person, both benefit from law and order equally.

A poor person and rich person, both benefit from roads and sewers equally.

Both would be starving, both would be sick, both would victimized by criminals, if society didn't provide those things.

The rich person benefits from his wise use of capital more, than a poor person who blows his money on beer, drugs, and smokes.

That has nothing to do with society. Both equally benefit from society.

Both do not equally benefit from their own capital, because one uses his capital poorly, while the other uses it wisely.

Kid, you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous opinion.

For example; I get MUCH more use out of those roads and bridges than any poor person.

Without those roads and bridges and so on, there would be no food in the city. Everyone would be starving. The poor beggar on the street would starve, and you would starve.

Both would starve to death, without modes of transportation to bring goods into the city.

Beyond that even, who would the beggar beg from if there were no roads, thus no cars, thus no people? When you see him on the side of the highway bumming for a buck, without roads, there would be no side of the highway.

If the beggar wants to get to the other side of town by bus, no roads... no bus.

So, no I reject your claim. I think the beggar benefits from the roads as much as anyone. It may not be directly with his own automobile, but he benefits just as much indirectly.

What does this thread have to do with beggars?

 

[Andylusion]

The purpose of the personal income tax is to raise money from the citizenry so that, when added with all the other money raised by the government, the government has sufficient money to do the things that the Constitution says that the Federal government ought to do. It is NOT to “level the playing field,” or to redistribute wealth, or to accomplish any other SOCIAL purpose.


The “fairest” personal income tax would be a PER CAPITA tax. That is to say, everyone who pays taxes pays the same amount. Just like in a club or an association. The amount would only vary according to the needs of the government, and one’s personal income would not be relevant to the calculation.


But it has been proposed that since people who have greater incomes can easily pay more (though what that has to do with anything, I don’t know), so one might contemplate a PERCENTAGE tax, with everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income. So that Person Y, who makes twice as much as Person X, pays twice as much in tax as Person X. Well, this is not fair to Person Y, who derives no more benefit from his citizenship than person X…why should be pay twice as much in taxes? No good reason, actually.


Now before we go to the next step, imagine an economy where all of the “income” is pooled into a giant fund. The Central Government takes that pool of money and generates a large number of numbered balls, with one ball for each person in the society. Each ball has an amount written on it, corresponding to an annual income, from $10 thousand through $10 million. The total of the amounts printed on the balls is equal to the total available income in the society. Then each person blindly picks a ball out of the barrel, and his annual income for that year will be the amount printed on the ball – either $10 thousand, ten million, or any number in between, entirely by chance.


IN THAT SCENARIO, it would make perfect sense to have a GRADUATED PERCENTAGE income tax. Because the people who make the most did nothing to earn that exalted income; it came purely by chance, so OF COURSE they cannot complain if a higher percentage of their income is confiscated as personal income tax. In fact, the graduated income tax is entirely fair, in that scenario.


But that is not real life. In real life, most of the people making the top incomes have reached that income level by some combination of HARD WORK, raw talent, superior intelligence, and intelligent risk taking. There are some people who have high incomes due to extreme good fortune, nepotism, or nefarious schemes, successfully executed, but these are a minority and public policy should not be decided on the basis of abnormal situations. And of course there is no rule that requires that the activity or products or services that generate high income must be intrinsically valuable to society; much of what we pay dearly for has minimal intrinsic value…consider a latte at Starbucks. An entertaining video game. A tasty snack. A catchy tune. None of these has any intrinsic value, but they might generate enormous quantities of cash.


The political Left in the country constantly tries, overtly and covertly, to make the case that those with the highest incomes are either lucky or evil, hence astronomical income tax rates FOR THEM is entirely justified by the “needs” of others. But this is bullshit, peddled by a population (Leftists) of whom very few have ever experienced a truly productive or valuable moment in their pathetic little lives. It is not coincidence that the cars in the corporate parking lot at 8pm are high-end cars; for the most part, the people who can afford them are the very same people who work 50, 60, and more hours a week. It is not “luck" that enables them to buy those high-end cars.


Therefore, I submit to you that the graduated income tax is the least fair personal tax system imaginable. It punishes success in the same way as if high incomes were just randomly distributed among the population, through no merit at all on the part of the high earner. And the people who are advocating for marginal tax rates of 70-90% (not that they even understand what a “marginal tax rate” is) are evil, and don’t deserve serious consideration.

And don't forget, there is a word for any politician who tells you that he is being "compassionate." It starts with "T" and ends with "hief."

People who make more money benefit from our society more, and therefore they should pay more to keep it.

What I do not like is being forced to pay more money that will simply be wasted. I would happily pay more income taxes in order to benefit society as a whole if I knew that it was not being squandered.

I don't even buy that.

A poor person, and a rich person, both benefit from law and order equally.

A poor person and rich person, both benefit from roads and sewers equally.

Both would be starving, both would be sick, both would victimized by criminals, if society didn't provide those things.

The rich person benefits from his wise use of capital more, than a poor person who blows his money on beer, drugs, and smokes.

That has nothing to do with society. Both equally benefit from society.

Both do not equally benefit from their own capital, because one uses his capital poorly, while the other uses it wisely.

Kid, you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your ridiculous opinion.

For example; I get MUCH more use out of those roads and bridges than any poor person.

Without those roads and bridges and so on, there would be no food in the city. Everyone would be starving. The poor beggar on the street would starve, and you would starve.

Both would starve to death, without modes of transportation to bring goods into the city.

Beyond that even, who would the beggar beg from if there were no roads, thus no cars, thus no people? When you see him on the side of the highway bumming for a buck, without roads, there would be no side of the highway.

If the beggar wants to get to the other side of town by bus, no roads... no bus.

So, no I reject your claim. I think the beggar benefits from the roads as much as anyone. It may not be directly with his own automobile, but he benefits just as much indirectly.

What does this thread have to do with beggars?

I would assume the lowest form of "poor", would be beggar. If you mean working poor, most of them have a car, and OBVIOUSLY... use and benefit from roads.

 

[BulletProof]

No, that isn't true. The vast majority of rich, are rich from their own work. Very few inherit it.

I didn't say how many inherited. I said every mega-rich person got lucky, because hard work alone doesn't lift you out of the middle-class. Where would Bill Gates be today if IBM hadn't out-sourced the PC operating system? Where would Bill Gates be today if the PC were a flop? Where would Bill Gates be today if someone hadn't sold DOS to his small company? Does your little neocon brain really think there aren't thousands of brilliant techies who are no less hard working as Bill Gates, but aren't mega-rich today?

There are millions of Americans who work super-hard but live paycheck to paycheck, because they weren't lucky enough to be smart enough to channel their hard work into more rewarding paths.

 

[Andylusion]

No, that isn't true. The vast majority of rich, are rich from their own work. Very few inherit it.

I didn't say how many inherited. I said every mega-rich person got lucky, because hard work alone doesn't lift you out of the middle-class. Where would Bill Gates be today if IBM hadn't out-sourced the PC operating system? Where would Bill Gates be today if the PC were a flop? Where would Bill Gates be today if someone hadn't sold DOS to his small company? Does your little neocon brain really think there aren't thousands of brilliant techies who are no less hard working as Bill Gates, but aren't mega-rich today?

There are millions of Americans who work super-hard but live paycheck to paycheck, because they weren't lucky enough to be smart enough to channel their hard work into more rewarding paths.

There are two problems I have with this.

Let's even say that it is smarts or luck.

That still doesn't justify giving people who are not as smart, the wealth earned and created by those that are.

But I would even question that. I don't think it's luck.

Most of the wealthy, ended up wealthy after many failures. Walt Disney was told he lacked imagination, and had no good ideas.

Henry Ford, learned about automobiles on his own, and had two failed business ventures before founding Ford Motor Company.

Hersey, opened 6 or 7 different candy companies, all of which failed one after another, before creating Hersey Kisses.

Did you know that Bill Gates first company failed completely?

I forget which drink it was, either Snapple or some other brand, where the founders were so broke, they ended up living in their cars, in the plant parking lot.

That's not "luck". That is effort, determination, and refusing to stay down after being knocked off your feet.

Henry John Heinz, went completely bankrupt in a company to sell horseradish. But he kept trying, until he created Heinz Ketchup.

When Dave Thomas was looking for investors to start a fast food shop, he was told by many that there was no room in the market for another fast food store.

Chris Gardner, was a failure in sales, and ended up homeless. He slept in subway bathrooms. He's now a multi-millionaire, with his own brokerage company. Go ready his story. It wasn't luck, or smarts. It was determination to improve his life.

These are the people you wish to punish for being successful.

And you say what about all the other "thousands of brilliant techies who are no less hard working as Bill Gates"?

IF they worked as hard as Gates, they would be successful. When Gates was spending hours polishing some software, and getting his buddy a suit and tie, to give a presentation in front of IBM executives, they were playing beer pong, and smoking dupe.

Same is true of Warren Buffet. In high school, he was saving up money from a paper route, to buy pinball machines to put in local businesses to make more money.

That's not luck. That's wise use of resources.

What were you doing in high school? Working a steady job? Saving and investing? No? Then you can't complain that others have "luck". That is BS, and you know it.

 

[BulletProof]

Most of the wealthy, ended up wealthy after many failures. Walt Disney was told he lacked imagination, and had no good ideas.

That shows you that mega-wealth is luck. If hard work creates success, these wealthy people wouldn't have had any failures. And, when these wealthy people fail, other people often end up paying for it, such as in bankruptcy.

IF they worked as hard as Gates, they would be successful. When Gates was spending hours polishing some software, and getting his buddy a suit and tie, to give a presentation in front of IBM executives, they were playing beer pong, and smoking dupe.

I don't got into stupid celebrity worship, including of the mega-rich (Joel Olsteen wouldn't have a mega-church if he weren't mega-rich and flaunted his wealth). It's nothing but stupid celebrity worship to claim the mega-rich succeeded without luck. The difference between Gates with and without luck is that without luck, he would have been nothing but a software engineering living in the middle-class, for all his hours polishing software. IBM outsourced DOS because of a Federal consent degree and an easy error on IBM's part thinking hardware mattered more than software, not because of anything Bill Gates did.

Bill Gates was born to a well-off family. Warren Buffet was born into a rich family.

 

[Andylusion]

Most of the wealthy, ended up wealthy after many failures. Walt Disney was told he lacked imagination, and had no good ideas.

That shows you that mega-wealth is luck. If hard work creates success, these wealthy people wouldn't have had any failures. And, when these wealthy people fail, other people often end up paying for it, such as in bankruptcy.

IF they worked as hard as Gates, they would be successful. When Gates was spending hours polishing some software, and getting his buddy a suit and tie, to give a presentation in front of IBM executives, they were playing beer pong, and smoking dupe.

I don't got into stupid celebrity worship, including of the mega-rich (Joel Olsteen wouldn't have a mega-church if he weren't mega-rich and flaunted his wealth). It's nothing but stupid celebrity worship to claim the mega-rich succeeded without luck. The difference between Gates with and without luck is that without luck, he would have been nothing but a software engineering living in the middle-class, for all his hours polishing software. IBM outsourced DOS because of a Federal consent degree and an easy error on IBM's part thinking hardware mattered more than software, not because of anything Bill Gates did.

Bill Gates was born to a well-off family. Warren Buffet was born into a rich family.

Please spare me mindless stupidity. Only a complete moron would say that working through failure after failure until you finely found something that works through your determination and effort...... is luck.

If that's your definition of luck, then you have disqualified yourself from this discussion.

Second, I didn't mention celebrities, and this is the first time in 20 years of talking about this topic, that someone brought up Joel Olsteen in a discussion about wealthy elite and how they became wealthy.

A software engineer does not live out a middle class life. More like and upper class life. Unless you think $150K is middle class....

Second, I highly doubt your counter-factual opinion. Bill Gates was driven to start a company, just like he did before. If the IBM deal had fallen through, he would have started another company, and kept going.

Remember Steve Jobs was offered a big contract with I believe Intel. He refused. He was still successful.

Most of the super wealthy just kept going until they found something that worked.

Phil Robertson was literally laughed out of the store, when he first started trying to sell his duck callers. But he kept going. He was laughed out of the store again. He kept going. He kept trying to sell his duck callers until some stores started selling them.

And he wasn't rich, or smart, or lucky. He was bartender with a drinking problem.

Dave Ramsey was rolling around with copies of his book, in the trunk of his car. He couldn't get anyone to buy them. Now he is the number 2 national radio show.

That wasn't luck. That was effort and determination.

You are just wrong on this. Just flat out, you are wrong. You are one of these people that is looking for, and gasping onto any excuse for your own failure in life, to justify your hatred of those that pushed through and succeeded. Makes you feel better about yourself, to claim the only others are better off, is because of luck. Wrong. Just flat out, wrong.

 

[BulletProof]

Please spare me mindless stupidity. Only a complete moron would say that working through failure after failure until you finely found something that works through your determination and effort...... is luck.

The only one here guilty of mindless stupidity is you. If hard work equals success then failure proves that your premise is false: Hard work does not equal success.

Second, I didn't mention celebrities, and this is the first time in 20 years of talking about this topic, that someone brought up Joel Olsteen in a discussion about wealthy elite and how they became wealthy.

There's that mindless stupidity again. I'm not accusing you of celebrity worship of Hollywood celebrities, but of celebrity worship of the mega-rich. Joel Olsteen was a parenthetical comment about celebrity worship of the wealthy.

A software engineer does not live out a middle class life. More like and upper class life. Unless you think $150K is middle class....

In the places of tech industry concentration, I'd say $150K is middle-class. Even a thousand miles from Google and Microsoft offices, I don't consider $150K to break out of the upper-middle class. In any case, you don't consider that mega-wealthy, do you?

Second, I highly doubt your counter-factual opinion. Bill Gates was driven to start a company, just like he did before. If the IBM deal had fallen through, he would have started another company, and kept going.

You don't think there are thousands of hard workers who started companies, but who aren't mega-rich? The only thing to distinguish Bill Gates from thousands of others is: Luck. I've already pointed out a few examples of his luck. You have only wishful speculation that he would have still been mega-rich if IBM didn't out-source DOS.

Most of the super wealthy just kept going until they found something that worked.

Your thinking is completely backwards. We could be talking about lottery winners and you would be proudly declaring their virtue of continuing buying lottery tickets until they won, and insisting they won because of persistence, not luck. Yet, there are millions of persisted lottery ticket buyers who don't win. The only thing that distinguishes the lottery winner from the persistent loser is luck.

Phil Robertson was literally laughed out of the store, when he first started trying to sell his duck callers. But he kept going. He was laughed out of the store again. He kept going. He kept trying to sell his duck callers until some stores started selling them.

1) Being lucky enough to be chosen for a cable show is what make Robertson wealthy, not his duck whistle.
2) Being lucky enough to have a single idea to allegedly improve a duck whistle is what made a better duck whistle, if it were better (the patent expired long before he was wealthy).
3) Being lucky enough tap into the public's fickleness and becoming a big celebrity rather than just another guy on a cable show. His merchandise sales follow his celebrity.

Phil Robertson would never of gotten rich trying to sell a duck whistle, no matter how determined he was to sell it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so if billionaires make it off the working man then we should get the billionaires off the working man so the working man can earn what he really should??

What?

The liberal said that billionaires make their billions off the backs of the workingman. So I suggested that we pass a law to get the billionaires off the backs of the workingman so the workingman can earn what he really should earn. In truth what the workingman would earn would be nothing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please spare me mindless stupidity. Only a complete moron would say that working through failure after failure until you finely found something that works through your determination and effort...... is luck.

The only one here guilty of mindless stupidity is you. If hard work equals success then failure proves that your premise is false: Hard work does not equal success.

Second, I didn't mention celebrities, and this is the first time in 20 years of talking about this topic, that someone brought up Joel Olsteen in a discussion about wealthy elite and how they became wealthy.

There's that mindless stupidity again. I'm not accusing you of celebrity worship of Hollywood celebrities, but of celebrity worship of the mega-rich. Joel Olsteen was a parenthetical comment about celebrity worship of the wealthy.

A software engineer does not live out a middle class life. More like and upper class life. Unless you think $150K is middle class....

In the places of tech industry concentration, I'd say $150K is middle-class. Even a thousand miles from Google and Microsoft offices, I don't consider $150K to break out of the upper-middle class. In any case, you don't consider that mega-wealthy, do you?

Second, I highly doubt your counter-factual opinion. Bill Gates was driven to start a company, just like he did before. If the IBM deal had fallen through, he would have started another company, and kept going.

You don't think there are thousands of hard workers who started companies, but who aren't mega-rich? The only thing to distinguish Bill Gates from thousands of others is: Luck. I've already pointed out a few examples of his luck. You have only wishful speculation that he would have still been mega-rich if IBM didn't out-source DOS.

Most of the super wealthy just kept going until they found something that worked.

Your thinking is completely backwards. We could be talking about lottery winners and you would be proudly declaring their virtue of continuing buying lottery tickets until they won, and insisting they won because of persistence, not luck. Yet, there are millions of persisted lottery ticket buyers who don't win. The only thing that distinguishes the lottery winner from the persistent loser is luck.

Phil Robertson was literally laughed out of the store, when he first started trying to sell his duck callers. But he kept going. He was laughed out of the store again. He kept going. He kept trying to sell his duck callers until some stores started selling them.

1) Being lucky enough to be chosen for a cable show is what make Robertson wealthy, not his duck whistle.
2) Being lucky enough to have a single idea to allegedly improve a duck whistle is what made a better duck whistle, if it were better (the patent expired long before he was wealthy).
3) Being lucky enough tap into the public's fickleness and becoming a big celebrity rather than just another guy on a cable show. His merchandise sales follow his celebrity.

Phil Robertson would never of gotten rich trying to sell a duck whistle, no matter how determined he was to sell it.

No idea what your point is. hJ Heinz went bankrupt eight times before he hit on a formula to sell food. When you go to work for that company they give you a book about it so that you will Understand true nature of capitalism. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most of the wealthy, ended up wealthy after many failures. Walt Disney was told he lacked imagination, and had no good ideas.

That shows you that mega-wealth is luck. If hard work creates success, these wealthy people wouldn't have had any failures. And, when these wealthy people fail, other people often end up paying for it, such as in bankruptcy.

IF they worked as hard as Gates, they would be successful. When Gates was spending hours polishing some software, and getting his buddy a suit and tie, to give a presentation in front of IBM executives, they were playing beer pong, and smoking dupe.

I don't got into stupid celebrity worship, including of the mega-rich (Joel Olsteen wouldn't have a mega-church if he weren't mega-rich and flaunted his wealth). It's nothing but stupid celebrity worship to claim the mega-rich succeeded without luck. The difference between Gates with and without luck is that without luck, he would have been nothing but a software engineering living in the middle-class, for all his hours polishing software. IBM outsourced DOS because of a Federal consent degree and an easy error on IBM's part thinking hardware mattered more than software, not because of anything Bill Gates did.

Bill Gates was born to a well-off family. Warren Buffet was born into a rich family.

Please spare me mindless stupidity. Only a complete moron would say that working through failure after failure until you finely found something that works through your determination and effort...... is luck.

If that's your definition of luck, then you have disqualified yourself from this discussion.

Second, I didn't mention celebrities, and this is the first time in 20 years of talking about this topic, that someone brought up Joel Olsteen in a discussion about wealthy elite and how they became wealthy.

A software engineer does not live out a middle class life. More like and upper class life. Unless you think $150K is middle class....

Second, I highly doubt your counter-factual opinion. Bill Gates was driven to start a company, just like he did before. If the IBM deal had fallen through, he would have started another company, and kept going.

Remember Steve Jobs was offered a big contract with I believe Intel. He refused. He was still successful.

Most of the super wealthy just kept going until they found something that worked.

Phil Robertson was literally laughed out of the store, when he first started trying to sell his duck callers. But he kept going. He was laughed out of the store again. He kept going. He kept trying to sell his duck callers until some stores started selling them.

And he wasn't rich, or smart, or lucky. He was bartender with a drinking problem.

Dave Ramsey was rolling around with copies of his book, in the trunk of his car. He couldn't get anyone to buy them. Now he is the number 2 national radio show.

That wasn't luck. That was effort and determination.

You are just wrong on this. Just flat out, you are wrong. You are one of these people that is looking for, and gasping onto any excuse for your own failure in life, to justify your hatred of those that pushed through and succeeded. Makes you feel better about yourself, to claim the only others are better off, is because of luck. Wrong. Just flat out, wrong.

Capitalism is Luck determination brains and unbelievable persistence and that is because we have no idea what the future will be or what customers will demand;so what ultimately becomes a huge success can only come from the excessive and incredible experimentation brought on by the combination of luck determination brains and persistence.now you understand why Lib Soviet central planning can never be successful. It merely represents the idiotic guessing Of a few Lib commie bureaucrats.

 

[BulletProof]

No idea what your point is. hJ Heinz went bankrupt eight times before he hit on a formula to sell food. When you go to work for that company they give you a book about it so that you will Understand true nature of capitalism. Do you understand?

I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand that a bankruptcy is proof that hard work doesn't equal success. Do you get my point?

Starting over is just like buying another lottery ticket. Heinz bought "nine lottery tickets", and the ninth was a winner. Also, I wouldn't call him mega-rich. He was an elderly man by the time Heinz incorporated. Rather, his children were mega-rich lottery winners by being born into wealth.

All you've shown is that hard work and persistence increases one's chance of getting that winning lottery ticket, and that was never in dispute. Show that you're not an idiot and explain why there are millions of hard working and persistent people who are not mega-rich, and many of them are intelligent. If it's not luck, what is it? Or, just take Heinz, if it's not luck, why did he have eight failures? I'm done with you here. You're being stupid and I have better things to do than tell you that you're being stupid. It's just too bad we don't have IQ tests for voting.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[QUOTE="BulletProof, post: ]

I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand that a bankruptcy is proof that hard work doesn't equal success. Do you get my point?



[/QUOTE] if I said that hard work equals success I will pay you $10,000. Bet?????