Current Events > Socialism is poor people saying "Gimme, gimme gimme!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mal_Fet posted...

I know that socialists aren't the most forward-thinking individuals, but...

people who resort to ad hominem attacks are just showing the world they can't argue with substance
---

I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge that this discussion of greed is happening at a time when these folks are in charge of the U.S. government

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar/
Jared Kushner failed to get a $500,000,000 bailout from Qatar shortly before U.S. policy became harsher towards the country
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/republican-lawmakers-buy-health-insurance-stocks-as-repeal-effort-moves-forward/
GOPers are buying up health insurance stocks while they work to repeal Obamacare
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6
EPA Chief met with Dow Chemical before rolling back ban on pesticides
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/rooftop-solar-panels-tax-credits-utility-companies-lobbying.html
Utility companies lobbying to slow growth of rooftop solar panels
---

^ was just about to post how revoking corporations' rights to lobby the gov't would be a step in the right direction for solving income inequality.

Clad posted...

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html

While that's a good point, they still largely benefit from circumstances beyond their immediate control. See here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-22/how-did-the-worlds-rich-get-that-way-luck
---

Antifar posted...

I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge that this discussion of greed is happening at a time when these folks are in charge of the U.S. government

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar/
Jared Kushner failed to get a $500,000,000 bailout from Qatar shortly before U.S. policy became harsher towards the country
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/republican-lawmakers-buy-health-insurance-stocks-as-repeal-effort-moves-forward/
GOPers are buying up health insurance stocks while they work to repeal Obamacare
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6
EPA Chief met with Dow Chemical before rolling back ban on pesticides
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/rooftop-solar-panels-tax-credits-utility-companies-lobbying.html
Utility companies lobbying to slow growth of rooftop solar panels

Every politician in big government, including Hillary and Bernie Sanders, is the same.

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Question: Why am I greedy to want to keep the money I earned?

because you want to deprive others of their livelihood? How do you think food stamps get paid for?

Maybe some people should stop relying on food stamps and get a job. The welfare system and food stamps is the modern shackles of the plantation by the Democrat machine. Democrats keep people poor so they can keep voting in more Democrats to keep them poor.

What about people who literally cannot work because of a disability. Should we just put them out to slaughter? And you act as if no one ever gets on their feet and gets off welfare/foodstamps.
---

Clad posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

it's just rich people got lucky. Lucky to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be born into the right family, etc.

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html

We've also seen people get poorer and wealth become even more consolidated to a small percentage of the population. We can't just ignore the bad because there is good.
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-22/how-did-the-worlds-rich-get-that-way-luck

When so many people are somehow lucky, you should stop and think about whether or not luck plays as big a role as you're suggesting. The only reason you want to over-emphasize luck is because you want to justify taking away their earnings and their livelihood. That's why socialists and communists like to over-exaggerate the role luck has. Anyone saying that luck has a large or even a pivotal role in a successful person's success is pushing an agenda rather than reality.

Clad posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

it's just rich people got lucky. Lucky to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be born into the right family, etc.

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html

GAME OVER!!!!!!!!
---

Clad posted...

Antifar posted...

I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge that this discussion of greed is happening at a time when these folks are in charge of the U.S. government

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar/
Jared Kushner failed to get a $500,000,000 bailout from Qatar shortly before U.S. policy became harsher towards the country
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/republican-lawmakers-buy-health-insurance-stocks-as-repeal-effort-moves-forward/
GOPers are buying up health insurance stocks while they work to repeal Obamacare
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6
EPA Chief met with Dow Chemical before rolling back ban on pesticides
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/rooftop-solar-panels-tax-credits-utility-companies-lobbying.html
Utility companies lobbying to slow growth of rooftop solar panels

Every politician in big government, including Hillary and Bernie Sanders, is the same.

So you're okay with greed as long as it is your government cronies who are guilty of it. Since you had nothing to add to that beyond "but the dems do it too!"
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Clad posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

it's just rich people got lucky. Lucky to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be born into the right family, etc.

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/most-millionaires-self-made--study-says-14565.html

We've also seen people get poorer and wealth become even more consolidated to a small percentage of the population. We can't just ignore the bad because there is good.

New wealth is created all the time. It's why the global economy has only grown rather than shrunk over the course of human history.

There isn't a fixed amount of wealth, therefore it's stupid to complain about how much of a current percentage is held by X percentage of the people. It's also stupid to pretend that there's some moral issue with X percent of the population holding Y percent of the current economy's wealth.

Clad posted...

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

Sixty-seven percent of high-net-worth Americans are self-made millionaires, according to the survey. Only 8 percent inherited their wealth. One third of the millionaires surveyed were women and half of them made their own fortunes.

self-made is a bit of a misnomer here. while typically not inheriting their wealth, most of our so-called 'self-made' millionaires were born in upper middle class families who were able to enable their hobby/interest/business idea from an early age, allowing them the freedom to master it. all of them worked hard, but they were able to work hard at something with no initial payoff that paid off more down the line. most people can't do that.

http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/made_from_scratch.php

the data is also far more skewed for billionaires, as shown in this link.

most millionaires worked hard because their family gave them the chance to do so, a chance most people did not get. i recognize that i fall into that subset myself.

most billionaires built on something that was already there.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Clad posted...

Antifar posted...

I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge that this discussion of greed is happening at a time when these folks are in charge of the U.S. government

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/jared-kushner-tried-and-failed-to-get-a-half-billion-dollar-bailout-from-qatar/
Jared Kushner failed to get a $500,000,000 bailout from Qatar shortly before U.S. policy became harsher towards the country
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/republican-lawmakers-buy-health-insurance-stocks-as-repeal-effort-moves-forward/
GOPers are buying up health insurance stocks while they work to repeal Obamacare
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitt-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-dow-chemical-exec-before-rolling-back-a-ban-on-pesticides-2017-6
EPA Chief met with Dow Chemical before rolling back ban on pesticides
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/rooftop-solar-panels-tax-credits-utility-companies-lobbying.html
Utility companies lobbying to slow growth of rooftop solar panels

Every politician in big government, including Hillary and Bernie Sanders, is the same.

So you're okay with greed as long as it is your government cronies who are guilty of it. Since you had nothing to add to that beyond "but the dems do it too!"

The point, my illiterate friend, was that all politicians are the same. They're all corrupt and greedy. That's why they're career politicians. It's axiomatic that a big government invites, encourages, and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

Hinakuluiau posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

maybe you should think about how to become a CEO one day.

As Darkman pointed out, that level of mobility doesn't exist
In fact, he posted a couple years back about how poor people and rich people both have hard workers, smart workers, etc. it's just rich people got lucky. Lucky to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be born into the right family, etc.

The point here is that there is income inequality in the country and in the world. That's a fact.
How we choose to fix this is where we differ. I'm on the side that says redistribution of wealth to social services to create a larger safety net will allow people to have a greater chance at climbing the ladder of wealth. You seem to be on the side of cutting those same services to give people a reason to try and climb it.
And as pointed out, we have quite a few dumb lazy rich people and poor people as well. It's not about what do individuals deserve, but what can we as a community do to make it better for everyone.

More SJW bullshit.

I met CEOs who came from very little. My friend is a CEO. He started his own company, by saving enough from his software engineering job. Any startup founder can claim to be a CEO. He may not make a lot of money, but he/she is still a CEO. I can claim to be the CEO of my own business, but there is no point.

The point is that there are opportunities everywhere. Do you think that I'm lucky to make a lot of money? Do you think I'm lucky to be born in the right family? I mean, our family lived in a basement for years and my father cleaned dishes for a living. How lucky of me, right?

If you think like a loser, you'll become a loser in life. The world is full of opportunity. The only people won't get those opportunities are the people who think the world is against them.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Clad posted...

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

Sixty-seven percent of high-net-worth Americans are self-made millionaires, according to the survey. Only 8 percent inherited their wealth. One third of the millionaires surveyed were women and half of them made their own fortunes.

self-made is a bit of a misnomer here. while typically not inheriting their wealth, most of our so-called 'self-made' millionaires were born in upper middle class families who were able to enable their hobby/interest/business idea from an early age, allowing them the freedom to master it. all of them worked hard, but they were able to work hard at something with no initial payoff that paid off more down the line. most people can't do that.

http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/made_from_scratch.php

Yep, sad they can't acknowledge reality the way it is. None of those people would be where they are now if they were born in extreme poverty.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

This assumes they've earned that money.

A lot of them get cut checks just because.

"Hey, I got a 20 million dollar inheritance. I'm gonna invest 5 million dollars in some company over here. Hey look now those guys are doing all the work and I just get free money."

How did Trump earn his father's inheritance?
---

Clad posted...

The point, my illiterate friend, was that all politicians are the same. They're all corrupt and greedy. That's why they're career politicians. It's axiomatic that a big government invites, encourages, and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

So instead of standing up to them, you'd rather they create more self-serving policy at your expense?
---

Clad posted...

There isn't a fixed amount of wealth, therefore it's stupid to complain about how much of a current percentage is held by X percentage of the people. It's also stupid to pretend that there's some moral issue with X percent of the population holding Y percent of the current economy's wealth.

Even on your terms, it's acknowledged that this level of inequality is bad for growth
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/why-income-inequality-is-bad-for-growth/
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32826643

Putting increasing wealth in the hands of people who have more money than they know what to do with at the expense of reliable consumers at the bottom is an economic problem, even if you don't agree that it is a moral one.
---

Clad posted...

When so many people are somehow lucky

But there isn't that many people. In that article he posted it's saying that there's like top 10% controls 70% of the wealth
10% = 750 million people | That's really not that many people
According to this, there are ~11 million millionaires in the USA - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/24/a-record-number-of-americans-are-now-millionaires-new-study-shows.html
In a nation of ~320 million, that's about 3% of Americans

Really not that many people who are "somehow lucky"

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

maybe you should think about how to become a CEO one day.

As Darkman pointed out, that level of mobility doesn't exist
In fact, he posted a couple years back about how poor people and rich people both have hard workers, smart workers, etc. it's just rich people got lucky. Lucky to be in the right place at the right time, lucky to be born into the right family, etc.

The point here is that there is income inequality in the country and in the world. That's a fact.
How we choose to fix this is where we differ. I'm on the side that says redistribution of wealth to social services to create a larger safety net will allow people to have a greater chance at climbing the ladder of wealth. You seem to be on the side of cutting those same services to give people a reason to try and climb it.
And as pointed out, we have quite a few dumb lazy rich people and poor people as well. It's not about what do individuals deserve, but what can we as a community do to make it better for everyone.

More SJW bullshit.

I met CEOs who came from very little. My friend is a CEO. He started his own company, by saving enough from his software engineering job. Any startup founder can claim to be a CEO. He may not make a lot of money, but he/she is still a CEO. I can claim to be the CEO of my own business, but there is no point.

The point is that there are opportunities everywhere. Do you think that I'm lucky to make a lot of money? Do you think I'm lucky to be born in the right family? I mean, our family lived in a basement for years and my father cleaned dishes for a living. How lucky of me, right?

If you think like a loser, you'll become a loser in life. The world is full of opportunity. The only people won't get those opportunities are the people who think the world is against them.

Darkman124 posted...

Everyone can get become richer if they stop thinking so negativity about the world.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115000062

Across studies, overestimates of class mobility were large and particularly likely among younger participants

today we learned that greatevilempire is probably a teenager

---

Darkman124 posted...

Clad posted...

most new millionaires from the last few decades were self made. IE no inheritance, no loans from parents, etc.

Sixty-seven percent of high-net-worth Americans are self-made millionaires, according to the survey. Only 8 percent inherited their wealth. One third of the millionaires surveyed were women and half of them made their own fortunes.

self-made is a bit of a misnomer here. while typically not inheriting their wealth, most of our so-called 'self-made' millionaires were born in upper middle class families who were able to enable their hobby/interest/business idea from an early age, allowing them the freedom to master it. all of them worked hard, but they were able to work hard at something with no initial payoff that paid off more down the line. most people can't do that.

http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/made_from_scratch.php

the data is also far more skewed for billionaires, as shown in this link

that's a dishonest blog piece you just shared, bro. it literally complains about "just 35% of the Forbes 400 were poor or middle class"

uh, are you fucking kidding? 35% is huge. it shows that a large section of the wealthiest and most powerful people came from modest and very modest backgrounds.

and note that the link I shared applies to more than just billionaires - most millionaires over the last few decades were self made, IE they didn't get lucky with handouts or inheritances or familial loans or anything like that. they started from scratch.

you can try to spin it however you want, but at the end of the day just admit you've got an agenda that you're prioritizing over a truly unbiased understanding of what it means to be self made. sharing that link makes me think you're just posturing on this one.

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Clad posted...

The point, my illiterate friend, was that all politicians are the same. They're all corrupt and greedy. That's why they're career politicians. It's axiomatic that a big government invites, encourages, and breeds corruption and inefficiency.

So instead of standing up to them, you'd rather they create more self-serving policy at your expense?

How are you going to stand up to them, my illiterate friend? The only way is to starve the government by advocating for less taxation. Which you lot aren't willing to do.

Mal_Fet posted...

Go ahead, accuse this holocaust survivor or revisionist history. I fuckin dare you.

I love a good dare. I am positive you would be equally sympathetic to a Holocaust survivor if they compared the nationalism and xenophobia of the Nazis to modern Republicans. You're using a Holocaust survivor as a political tool.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Doug McMillon is the CEO of Wal-Mart. He makes $20 million per year, and employs 2.1 million people. If we take away all the money Doug makes and redistribute it to all his employees, Wal-Mart employees will get an extra $10 per year.

Congratulations, you stole all of Doug's money and helped nobody. Thanks, socialism!

If instead he made $1-2 million a year, quite and amazing sum, maybe he wouldn't be the CEO and someone else would who actually invested in making a better store rather than making $$ via running small businesses out of town and providing cheap chinese products.

And maybe care about the employees as well:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/01/22/judge-rules-walmart-unlawfully-fired-workers-on-strike/79160730/

See, that excess money the CEO gets doesn't even necessarily have to go into the employees pay, you could raise them $1, and invest in the stores and the business itself. You could hire other execs to figure out better ways to market and make the employees like working there which also increases how the stores are perceived.

But alas modern day business is we will pay you CRAZY sums if you can take from the employees and the customers and the American economy in general. Why? Because the shareholders and the CEO are greedy.

Btw the big thing today is becoming making money without even offering a product or service even:

http://capeandislands.org/post/ibm-when-corporations-took-care-their-employees

In more recent years, critics contend IBM has moved into the financial engineering business, generating profits with financial strategies such as buying back its stock. IBM declined a request to interview the current CEO, Ginni Rometty.

Like, it is a thing for a company to hire a new CEO or person in high lead position, they layoff tons of employees, they cut corners to save cost on making product, and for a few years the company looks like it is booming. That CEO collects their GIGANTIC paycheck and then leaves.
Then the company basically dies because they fired key people and have been selling shit products.
This is how many get rich.
It is basically draining the life and soul out of an organization. It is the equivalent to when a child is told to clean their room by their mommy, they hide all their toys in the dresser and their mommy thinks they did a good job.
One day she opens the drawer and realized the kid actually didn't clean shit.
---

I wish I could be as delusional as greatevilempire. :o When your kids get screwed over in life, you'll change your tune.
---

Clad posted...

that's a dishonest blog piece you just shared, bro. it literally complains about "just 35% of the Forbes 400 were poor or middle class"

uh, are you f***ing kidding? 35% is huge. it shows that a large section of the wealthiest and most powerful people came from modest and very modest backgrounds.

and note that the link I shared applies to more than just billionaires - most millionaires over the last few decades were self made, IE they didn't get lucky with handouts or inheritances or familial loans or anything like that. they started from scratch.

you can try to spin it however you want, but at the end of the day just admit you've got an agenda that you're prioritizing over a truly unbiased understanding of what it means to be self made. sharing that link makes me think you're just posturing on this one.

the columbia journalism review is a bit more than a blog

i've also posted studies in this topic that highlight the actual amount of social mobility that exists in our society and my opinions are driven by those. you have deliberately ignored them
---

Antifar posted...

Clad posted...

There isn't a fixed amount of wealth, therefore it's stupid to complain about how much of a current percentage is held by X percentage of the people. It's also stupid to pretend that there's some moral issue with X percent of the population holding Y percent of the current economy's wealth.

Even on your terms, it's acknowledged that this level of inequality is bad for growth
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/why-income-inequality-is-bad-for-growth/
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32826643

Putting increasing wealth in the hands of people who have more money than they know what to do with at the expense of reliable consumers at the bottom is an economic problem, even if you don't agree that it is a moral one.

it's up to the people on the bottom to decide to become producers rather than just consumers. in america, people have the capacity to become wealthy if they choose to take the right steps. there are exceptions, but it's certainly possible and achievable in a reasonable time frame.

blaming the wealthy for being good at what they do and for saving and investing is counter productive to having a society and a country that will function

Clad posted...

it's up to the people on the bottom to decide to become producers rather than just consumers.

the idea that people should just 'become producers' is really disingenuous and you should know better

Clad posted...

blaming the wealthy for being good at what they do and for saving and investing is counter productive to having a society and a country that will function

mostly people like antifar and me blame our government for accepting their political campaign contributions in exchange for policy that favors them and hurts social mobility and prefer things like the 'democracy vouchers' seattle is rolling out which might blunt that effect.

the idea that starve the beast policies would undercut corporatism--rather than the policies that do help the poor--is laughable
---

Clad posted...

How are you going to stand up to them, my illiterate friend? The only way is to starve the government by advocating for less taxation. Which you lot aren't willing to do.

Advocate for tax reform. Close tax loopholes. Tax people proportionally to their income. Everyone prospers. :u Of course it isn't that simple, but it is sure a lot more productive that giving the rich tax cuts. All that does is starve the lower and middle class.
---

Darkman124 posted...

today we learned that greatevilempire is probably a teenager

If it makes you sleep better at night, you poor little thing.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If it makes you sleep better at night, you poor little thing.

statistical data doesn't lie
---

Clad posted...

in america, people have the capacity to become wealthy if they choose to take the right steps. there are exceptions, but it's certainly possible and achievable in a reasonable time frame.

This capacity is less so than in other countries
http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/social-mobility-hasnt-fallen-what-it-means-and-doesnt-mean

ow for the bad news: the Horatio Alger myth is still a myth. Relative to many other advanced countries, the United States remains a highly stratified society, and most poor kids still have few prospects of making big strides. I’ve already mentioned the finding that the odds of a child moving from the bottom fifth of the income distribution to the top fifth are less than one in ten, and have been that way for decades. For children who are born in the second fifth of the income distribution, those who might be categorized as working class or lower-middle class, the probability of moving up to the top quintile has fallen significantly. For someone born in 1971, it was 17.7 per cent; for someone born in 1986, it was 13.8 per cent.

It has been known for some time that social mobility in the United States is lower than in most European countries, and that it trails some of them, such as the Scandinavian nations, by a great deal. The new study doesn’t challenge this finding, nor does it contradict the fact that other indicators of future economic success for young people—such as test scores, levels of parental involvement, and the extent of social connectedness—have exhibited a growing socioeconomic gap, leading Robert Putman and others to predict a sharp fall in social mobility. Indeed, the paper notes, “An important question for future research is why such a plunge in mobility has not occurred.”

It varies significantly even within the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?pagewanted=all
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I wish I could be as delusional as greatevilempire. :o When your kids get screwed over in life, you'll change your tune.

You're so messed up. You are probably headed for hell.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Clad posted...

How are you going to stand up to them, my illiterate friend? The only way is to starve the government by advocating for less taxation. Which you lot aren't willing to do.

Advocate for tax reform. Close tax loopholes. Tax people proportionally to their income. Everyone prospers. :u Of course it isn't that simple, but it is sure a lot more productive that giving the rich tax cuts. All that does is starve the lower and middle class.

Will respond to everyone else later cuz I gotta run

But note that when 2017 is over I'll have paid around $30,000 into the pot. Maybe more if my side business goes well. That seems much more than proportional to my income, to be honest.

Legal tax "loopholes", like loss harvesting, are what help the little guy and the little business grow and retain more of their earnings. Without retaining enough earnings, you turn into France which is seeing brain drain and capital drain as the rich and successful flee the high taxes. Is that what you want?

Clad posted...

Antifar posted...

Clad posted...

There isn't a fixed amount of wealth, therefore it's stupid to complain about how much of a current percentage is held by X percentage of the people. It's also stupid to pretend that there's some moral issue with X percent of the population holding Y percent of the current economy's wealth.

Even on your terms, it's acknowledged that this level of inequality is bad for growth
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/why-income-inequality-is-bad-for-growth/
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32826643

Putting increasing wealth in the hands of people who have more money than they know what to do with at the expense of reliable consumers at the bottom is an economic problem, even if you don't agree that it is a moral one.

it's up to the people on the bottom to decide to become producers rather than just consumers. in america, people have the capacity to become wealthy if they choose to take the right steps. there are exceptions, but it's certainly possible and achievable in a reasonable time frame.

blaming the wealthy for being good at what they do and for saving and investing is counter productive to having a society and a country that will function

This assumes everyone has access to those steps and knows how to walk them, and instead chooses to live paycheck to paycheck, or worse.

At best, we need temporary government intervention to make sure everyone is fully aware of how to become self-made. And that still doesn't answer the question of what we do with those who fail. Everyone cannot be successful by the very nature of life.
---

Clad posted...

Legal tax "loopholes", like loss harvesting, are what help the little guy and the little business grow and retain more of their earnings. Without retaining enough earnings, you turn into France which is seeing brain drain and capital drain as the rich and successful flee the high taxes. Is that what you want?

what i want is for loss harvesting to be a tool available to you and not to general electric

with most other forms of welfare we use a scaling system such that people see less and less of it as their income rises

same ought to be true with our corporate welfare. i support its existence to blunt the effect of huge companies growing stronger, rather than weaker, with size--but the current system lacks gradation and is mostly used by players who don't need it
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I wish I could be as delusional as greatevilempire. :o When your kids get screwed over in life, you'll change your tune.

You're so messed up. You are probably headed for hell.

I hope your kids do well, don't get me wrong. Since "luck" isn't a factor, every single bad thing that happens in their life is their own fault. Be sure to tell them that like you've told all of us here. :u Dad of the year award is coming your way.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I wish I could be as delusional as greatevilempire. :o When your kids get screwed over in life, you'll change your tune.

You're so messed up. You are probably headed for hell.

I hope your kids do well, don't get me wrong. Since "luck" isn't a factor, every single bad thing that happens in their life is their own fault. Be sure to tell them that like you've told all of us here. :u Dad of the year award is coming your way.

Fuck off. That fact that you're taking about this shows how immoral you as a person. What you don't realize is that you're cursing your own future children. You just hope you don't give birth to any children, cause you're seriously fucked in the head.
---

ban money
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

f*** off. That fact that you're taking about this shows how immoral you as a person. What you don't realize is that you're cursing your own future children. You just hope you don't give birth to any children, cause you're seriously f***ed in the head.

What are you so upset about? I'm just applying your own logic from this topic to your kin. Gives you some perspective, doesn't it? Maybe try to have some empathy for those you aren't directly related to you next.

What if something happened to you and they wound up in foster care? Do you know how those programs are funded? Socialist policies and taxation. :u

You've just got no perspective on anything that isn't right under your nose.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

What are you so upset about? I'm just applying your own logic from this topic to your kin. Gives you some perspective, doesn't it? Maybe try to have some empathy for those you aren't directly related to you next.

What if something happened to you and they wound up in foster care? Do you know how those programs are funded? Socialist policies and taxation. :u

You've just got no perspective on anything that isn't right under your nose.

You can't win an debate, so you start going low. It's OK, because I don't expect a lot from you. You're the one truly lacking empathy because you're willing to stoop so low.

I can say a lot of things to you, but I won't. I won't stoop to a loser's level.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

What are you so upset about? I'm just applying your own logic from this topic to your kin. Gives you some perspective, doesn't it? Maybe try to have some empathy for those you aren't directly related to you next.

What if something happened to you and they wound up in foster care? Do you know how those programs are funded? Socialist policies and taxation. :u

You've just got no perspective on anything that isn't right under your nose.

You can't win an debate, so you start going low. It's OK, because I don't expect a lot from you. You're the one truly lacking empathy because you're willing to stoop so low.

I can say a lot of things to you, but I won't. I won't stoop to a loser's level.

She still a funny poster.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

You can't win an debate, so you start going low. It's OK, because I don't expect a lot from you. You're the one truly lacking empathy because you're willing to stoop so low.I can say a lot of things to you, but I won't. I won't stoop to a loser's level.

Your reaction is enough. If you won't apply what you're preaching to your kids, you must not have much faith in it.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Your reaction is enough. If you won't apply what you're preaching to your kids, you must not have much faith in it.

Like I said. I hope you don't have children because you are fucked in the head. They'll be losers for life giving how messed up their mother is.
---

Ophelia, why should everyone prosper? Why? Can you tell me why?
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

that's why... we need to stay in the middle. :o At least till automation makes our current jobs meaningless.

---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I won't stoop to a loser's level.

Technically, she's stooping to your level if anything. So...
---

BLAKUboy posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I won't stoop to a loser's level.

Technically, she's stooping to your level if anything. So...

Are you hoping to get laid?
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Your reaction is enough. If you won't apply what you're preaching to your kids, you must not have much faith in it.

Like I said. I hope you don't have children because you are fucked in the head. They'll be losers for life giving how messed up their mother is.

She's not wrong. Your unwillingness to discuss how your preferred policies might affect your own family demonstrates your own immorality on the subject.
---

Great job hitting 150 posts, everyone. Let's keep chugging along now.
---