Free Money

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Employees do not create wealth. They create a paycheck. Only the employer can create wealth.

Lets say you wanted to get into the stock market. You hire a firm and get a broker. Your broker takes a percentage of what stocks you buy--not how much those stocks make. He or she does all the work. All you did was provide the money.

You hit the jackpot. Because of your research and hunches, you make a million dollars on that stock. Should your broker be entitled to 30% of your fortune? Of course not. Why? Because the broker made an agreement with you to earn X amount of money on the amount of stock you purchased, and that's it. You owe him nothing more. But wait! He did all the work! It doesn't matter.

Until employers start kidnapping people to work at their facilities, you don't have a point here. YOU freely agreed to do X job. You agreed to do that job for X amount of money and/or benefits. You did your part by providing the labor, and your employer did his part by paying you for that labor. You are not entitled to anything more unless you got a job that offered profit sharing as a benefit.

If you think employees should get paid based on the profit of the company, would it not be fair that you work for much less when the company is not doing so good? For instance, let's say you are a drill press operator. You make $20.00 per hour because your company is doing good. If the company loses their largest customer, would you be willing to do that same job for $3.00 an hour?

Ok, it that's too convoluted, let's take those points one at a time.

Why do you think companies employ people?

Do you think they do it out of charity or because they need those employees to make a profit?

They employ people to make a profit., just like you employ your stock broker to buy stocks that make you a profit.

Ok, so you acknowlede they're employed to make a profit. Is wealth not produced by profit?

No, they are hired to make the company a profit. Your cut is the wage you agreed to work for.

"Agree" is a relative term, when one is powerless to make the choice one prefers, one is coerced into "agreeing" with a situation one knows to be unfair. The way our system works, puts most meople in that powerless position No one wants an employer to take the majority of the wealth one makes, but the employer has the winning cards, so is able to force an unfair contract.

Also by your acknowlegement, the employee is the one who created the profit, therefor creates the wealth, the majority of which is creamed off by the employer. It's theft, pure and simple, a theft tht wouldn't happen if the employee were negotiating from a position of equality.

The employee creates wealth for the company. It's the companies wealth, not the workers. Nobody is cheating anybody.

If you go out in the woods and dig a hole, you could work as hard as you want, but you won't make any money. Now if somebody comes along and tells you to dig a hole where he has an account, you can earn money that way. But you are not creating the wealth, the guy that got you the job to dig the hole did.

If you believe that an employee should be paid based on the success of the company, you can get a percentage job. You can drive a truck over the road, you can work in the food industry for tips, you can be a salesman. You can find employment that has profit sharing as a benefit.

 

[Beyond]

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not the government's responsibility to pay people wages. It's the government's responsibility to make sure that business pays proper wages that support those who work for them. It's the government's responsibility to raise wages by raising the minimum wage.

It is? I don't recall seeing anything like that in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly spells out what governments role is in this country.

 

[Beyond]

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

This is the failed logic of the left: If one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no system to get anything out of. Every single American has the opportunity to invest. If you want to live your life working until you die or retire, have four kids, have the newest iPhone, the newest car, the biggest internet/ cable combination, four video game systems, unlimited data/ cell phone service for your entire family's smart phones, then of course you didn't even look at investing.

But while you were doing all that, other people were giving the best part of their lives to get an advanced education. Others invested their money in their own business. Most made investments in one of the several markets we have.

When you live life like the latter, you have to make a hell of a lot of sacrifices. You may have to give up vacations, work seven days a week, drive a very economic vehicle, don't turn your thermostat past 60 in the winter and under 70 in the summer, do with the minimum technology you need, don't get married or have children, live well below your means even if that house is way too small or not in the best of neighborhoods.

All investments come with risks; risks not seen by simply having a job. Yet if you do all those things and eventually live well, government should come along and take what you sacrificed for to give to those that didn't?

View attachment 264921

Interesting fact: Aproximately 5% of humans move from the economic sphere they are born into. That's true regarding moving into a higher or lower economic sphere.

The biggest indicator of one's eventual financial (or any other) position, is the position one is born into.

What we're taking about here is condeming people for being human, for being in the 95% majority.

There are people who don't earn enough to cover their basic needs. Would you suggest they give up eating for a few weeks in order to invest their grocery money and get a fraction % return on their investment each quarter? When people are in real debt, just covering the basics, they don't have money to invest. I'm referring only to working people, those who don't/can't work aren't even on the investment radar.

Okay, if you don't earn enough to cover basic needs, is that your fault or the fault of our society?

We live in a society where all are welcome to improve their plight. You can go to school, learn a trade, open your own business, whatever you want. And yes, people on disability would have a much harder time participating.

However most personal failures are because of the individual--not society.

I was making a pickup at a steel place a few months ago. The guy loading me was telling me how they were having a hard time getting people to work there. They start you out at around 17 bucks an hour, but as you learn more about the shop, you can quickly make it to about 20 bucks an hour.

He said HR held group job interviews. They start out with about 20 people who show up. Before the HR person starts the seminar on what they do, he told everybody right from the start that the company does drug screenings. If you can't pass the drug test, you would be wasting your time sticking around for the seminar. He said all but seven walked out.

Out of the seven, only two stayed to put in an application. One worked for about two weeks and quit, the other about a month and a half.

There's one of the problems with our current system, it blames the victims for their condition. As of about 2 years ago, 90% of the population were earning an average of $36k

When 90% of the population is struggling to get by, the problem is with the system not the people.

If you produced a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

Link? 90% of full time working population earns an average of $36k? I find that hard to believe.

See post 92 for the graphic at this link. It's 2 years out of date, but the changes won't be that much.

What Does It Take to Be in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

 

[Beyond]

Do you have any logic arguments to refute my claims or just insult?

Why are you so afraid about admiting the truth of the way our society functions? You seem determined to take everything I say as a personal attack on you, despite the fact I know/knew nothing of your circumstances.

I'm sure you knew nothing about my circumstance. That's why I explained it to you. And I never insulted you.

The way our society is supposed to function is based on a reward system. Those who accomplish more are rewarded more. However there is a Democrat system too. Reward failure and penalize success.

When you do things the conservative way, you create more givers than takers. With the Democrat way, more takers than givers.

Extrapolate the Democrat system to grade schools. For the kids that study hard and ace their tests, teachers give them a C+. For kids that don't study and barely pass their tests, the teachers give them an A. After a short while, what you'd end up with is more kids not trying than those that do.

The Democrat way simply doesn't work.

Given you're roughtly in the top 7% of earners, but do not consider yourself "privileged", would you say the current sytem works?

How do you put me at the top 7%? I wish. I'm just a middle-class working guy.

There is nothing wrong with the system provided Democrats don't get their hands on it. There is something wrong with the people.

It's a couple of years old, so 7% is an approximation.

You used the term "struggling." What is considered struggling?

Struggling = when one has to struggle to afford the basic needs. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm referring to those in full time work or genuinely seeking full time work. I'd guess that included most people on 36k

 

[Beyond]

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

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

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

I know it isn't free, that's my point. I don't understand why people say we shouldn't pay for it, nor why those who do best from the system shouldn't pay more than those it doesn't serve so well.

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.

 

[Beyond]

Ok, it that's too convoluted, let's take those points one at a time.

Why do you think companies employ people?

Do you think they do it out of charity or because they need those employees to make a profit?

They employ people to make a profit., just like you employ your stock broker to buy stocks that make you a profit.

Ok, so you acknowlede they're employed to make a profit. Is wealth not produced by profit?

No, they are hired to make the company a profit. Your cut is the wage you agreed to work for.

"Agree" is a relative term, when one is powerless to make the choice one prefers, one is coerced into "agreeing" with a situation one knows to be unfair. The way our system works, puts most meople in that powerless position No one wants an employer to take the majority of the wealth one makes, but the employer has the winning cards, so is able to force an unfair contract.

Also by your acknowlegement, the employee is the one who created the profit, therefor creates the wealth, the majority of which is creamed off by the employer. It's theft, pure and simple, a theft tht wouldn't happen if the employee were negotiating from a position of equality.

The employee creates wealth for the company. It's the companies wealth, not the workers. Nobody is cheating anybody.

If you go out in the woods and dig a hole, you could work as hard as you want, but you won't make any money. Now if somebody comes along and tells you to dig a hole where he has an account, you can earn money that way. But you are not creating the wealth, the guy that got you the job to dig the hole did.

If you believe that an employee should be paid based on the success of the company, you can get a percentage job. You can drive a truck over the road, you can work in the food industry for tips, you can be a salesman. You can find employment that has profit sharing as a benefit.

Why does the wealth created by a person belong to the company? That's slavery. What's even more amazing is that the "elite" has managed to pursuade you that that the fruits of your labour belongs to them, while simultaneously telling you if you work hard you can be rich.

Do you really not see how those two claims conflict with each other?

 

[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?

 

[Beyond]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's not the government's responsibility to pay people wages. It's the government's responsibility to make sure that business pays proper wages that support those who work for them. It's the government's responsibility to raise wages by raising the minimum wage.

It is? I don't recall seeing anything like that in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly spells out what governments role is in this country.

LOL, yeah, and reality smacks you in the face.

One example, where in COTUS is the power for the President to issue an Executive Order?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They employ people to make a profit., just like you employ your stock broker to buy stocks that make you a profit.

Ok, so you acknowlede they're employed to make a profit. Is wealth not produced by profit?

No, they are hired to make the company a profit. Your cut is the wage you agreed to work for.

"Agree" is a relative term, when one is powerless to make the choice one prefers, one is coerced into "agreeing" with a situation one knows to be unfair. The way our system works, puts most meople in that powerless position No one wants an employer to take the majority of the wealth one makes, but the employer has the winning cards, so is able to force an unfair contract.

Also by your acknowlegement, the employee is the one who created the profit, therefor creates the wealth, the majority of which is creamed off by the employer. It's theft, pure and simple, a theft tht wouldn't happen if the employee were negotiating from a position of equality.

The employee creates wealth for the company. It's the companies wealth, not the workers. Nobody is cheating anybody.

If you go out in the woods and dig a hole, you could work as hard as you want, but you won't make any money. Now if somebody comes along and tells you to dig a hole where he has an account, you can earn money that way. But you are not creating the wealth, the guy that got you the job to dig the hole did.

If you believe that an employee should be paid based on the success of the company, you can get a percentage job. You can drive a truck over the road, you can work in the food industry for tips, you can be a salesman. You can find employment that has profit sharing as a benefit.

Why does the wealth created by a person belong to the company? That's slavery. What's even more amazing is that the "elite" has managed to pursuade you that that the fruits of your labour belongs to them, while simultaneously telling you if you work hard you can be rich.

Do you really not see how those two claims conflict with each other?

Why does the wealth belong to the company? Simple. It's their company. They own it.

As an employee, you don't have to pay taxes on the building. You didn't have to buy the building either. You don't pay the insurance on the building, workman's compensation insurance, or the utilities either. You didn't hire the sales people to sell the product the company is producing. You don't pay the cleaning crew for the office. You don't pay the repair people to fix the equipment to make the products. You don't pay the transportation costs for incoming and outgoing product. You don't pay the lawn care people, the snow plow driver, or the people that take care of the parking lots.

All you do is the job you were hired to do. The profit belongs to the person or people who bought all these things, maintain all these things, found the customers to buy the products. Just because you did one small part in producing the product does not entitle you to ownership of those products. The ownership of those products belong to the company.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

I know it isn't free, that's my point. I don't understand why people say we shouldn't pay for it, nor why those who do best from the system shouldn't pay more than those it doesn't serve so well.

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?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sure you knew nothing about my circumstance. That's why I explained it to you. And I never insulted you.

The way our society is supposed to function is based on a reward system. Those who accomplish more are rewarded more. However there is a Democrat system too. Reward failure and penalize success.

When you do things the conservative way, you create more givers than takers. With the Democrat way, more takers than givers.

Extrapolate the Democrat system to grade schools. For the kids that study hard and ace their tests, teachers give them a C+. For kids that don't study and barely pass their tests, the teachers give them an A. After a short while, what you'd end up with is more kids not trying than those that do.

The Democrat way simply doesn't work.

Given you're roughtly in the top 7% of earners, but do not consider yourself "privileged", would you say the current sytem works?

How do you put me at the top 7%? I wish. I'm just a middle-class working guy.

There is nothing wrong with the system provided Democrats don't get their hands on it. There is something wrong with the people.

It's a couple of years old, so 7% is an approximation.

You used the term "struggling." What is considered struggling?

Struggling = when one has to struggle to afford the basic needs. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm referring to those in full time work or genuinely seeking full time work. I'd guess that included most people on 36k

I would hardly call that struggling. If you make 36K a year, and your wife makes 36K a year, that's a combined income of 72K a year. That's not struggling.

And remember how that 36K year is watered down. You are including all those high school and college kids that work part-time. You are including seniors who are just looking for something to do that work part-time. That brings those who are making much more down quite a bit.

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

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?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is the failed logic of the left: If one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no system to get anything out of. Every single American has the opportunity to invest. If you want to live your life working until you die or retire, have four kids, have the newest iPhone, the newest car, the biggest internet/ cable combination, four video game systems, unlimited data/ cell phone service for your entire family's smart phones, then of course you didn't even look at investing.

But while you were doing all that, other people were giving the best part of their lives to get an advanced education. Others invested their money in their own business. Most made investments in one of the several markets we have.

When you live life like the latter, you have to make a hell of a lot of sacrifices. You may have to give up vacations, work seven days a week, drive a very economic vehicle, don't turn your thermostat past 60 in the winter and under 70 in the summer, do with the minimum technology you need, don't get married or have children, live well below your means even if that house is way too small or not in the best of neighborhoods.

All investments come with risks; risks not seen by simply having a job. Yet if you do all those things and eventually live well, government should come along and take what you sacrificed for to give to those that didn't?

View attachment 264921

Interesting fact: Aproximately 5% of humans move from the economic sphere they are born into. That's true regarding moving into a higher or lower economic sphere.

The biggest indicator of one's eventual financial (or any other) position, is the position one is born into.

What we're taking about here is condeming people for being human, for being in the 95% majority.

There are people who don't earn enough to cover their basic needs. Would you suggest they give up eating for a few weeks in order to invest their grocery money and get a fraction % return on their investment each quarter? When people are in real debt, just covering the basics, they don't have money to invest. I'm referring only to working people, those who don't/can't work aren't even on the investment radar.

Okay, if you don't earn enough to cover basic needs, is that your fault or the fault of our society?

We live in a society where all are welcome to improve their plight. You can go to school, learn a trade, open your own business, whatever you want. And yes, people on disability would have a much harder time participating.

However most personal failures are because of the individual--not society.

I was making a pickup at a steel place a few months ago. The guy loading me was telling me how they were having a hard time getting people to work there. They start you out at around 17 bucks an hour, but as you learn more about the shop, you can quickly make it to about 20 bucks an hour.

He said HR held group job interviews. They start out with about 20 people who show up. Before the HR person starts the seminar on what they do, he told everybody right from the start that the company does drug screenings. If you can't pass the drug test, you would be wasting your time sticking around for the seminar. He said all but seven walked out.

Out of the seven, only two stayed to put in an application. One worked for about two weeks and quit, the other about a month and a half.

There's one of the problems with our current system, it blames the victims for their condition. As of about 2 years ago, 90% of the population were earning an average of $36k

When 90% of the population is struggling to get by, the problem is with the system not the people.

If you produced a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

Link? 90% of full time working population earns an average of $36k? I find that hard to believe.

See post 92 for the graphic at this link. It's 2 years out of date, but the changes won't be that much.

What Does It Take to Be in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

Avg is $53k per your chart

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

I know it isn't free, that's my point. I don't understand why people say we shouldn't pay for it, nor why those who do best from the system shouldn't pay more than those it doesn't serve so well.

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.

Not get. Earn. And I dont take any advantages. I live Within my means. I dont have kids I cannot afford for instance

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

Why are you asking me questions

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'll go with the politicians ripping us off but the rest is total bullshit.
We have a lot of bank stocks accrued over three decades.
They werent given they were earned and paid for,so you're going to deprive the Wife and I those decades of effort?
Screw you!!!
Oh and by the way.....I'm a high school dropout and the Wife doesn't have a college education.
Tired of you MFers claiming the stock market is beyond your reach. Thats total Bullshit!!!

1) I'm curious as to where I claimed the stock market is out of my reach.
2) My comment was about why "free money" is only regarded as ok when it goes to the wealthy.
3) "Earning" stocks by paying for them isn't the same as earning the money paid in dividends. Dividends only show up if the workers create a profit, so it's "free money" to shareholders.
4) I haven't commented on whether or not I regard owning stocks is good or bad, only on the fact only "poor" people are berated for acquiring "free money"

How much do you hate yourself that you conjured up so much hate against you in a post that I didnt put there?

When the wealthy get money, it's not government money, it's their own that they created.

If we were neighbors and I went into your house and stole 100 bucks a month when you walked your dog, and felt guilty later on, and decided to only steal 75 bucks a month, did I just give you 25 dollars a month?

There is no such thing as free money; only money somebody else made. When government takes less of the money you made, they aren't giving you a thing. They are just taking less of your property away.

The wealthy don't create all the money they earn, they tend to create only a tiny fraction of it, through having companies where "employees" create that wealth for them or buying shares in a company where the employees of that company create the wealth.

Companies don't employ people out of charity, they do so in order to have someone create wealth for them. When employers take the lions share of the wealth a person creates, that's theft. That the wealthy have created unjust laws to allow them to steal the wealth created by their employees, that's legalised theft.

"In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker’s salary."

CEOs make $15.6 million on average—here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours over the year

That's legalised theft.

How did the wealthy created unjust laws? Oh, wait it is the politicians in Congress that created the unjust laws and businesses that follow the laws are evil?

You realize that the Democratic Party has held the Senate 30 of the last 44 sessions and the held the House 46 out of the last 58 sessions. So it looks like the Democratic Congressmen have screwed America over.

"Legalized theft? LOL!!! That is plain funny, where did you get that phrase?

I'm not interested in whic party was in power when.

Do you believe all current laws are just?

Of course I don't but if you don't like the law, work to change it and don't vote for people that will pass such stupid laws, people like Democrats or Republicans, the people that make these laws.

 

[Beyond]

Ok, so you acknowlede they're employed to make a profit. Is wealth not produced by profit?

No, they are hired to make the company a profit. Your cut is the wage you agreed to work for.

"Agree" is a relative term, when one is powerless to make the choice one prefers, one is coerced into "agreeing" with a situation one knows to be unfair. The way our system works, puts most meople in that powerless position No one wants an employer to take the majority of the wealth one makes, but the employer has the winning cards, so is able to force an unfair contract.

Also by your acknowlegement, the employee is the one who created the profit, therefor creates the wealth, the majority of which is creamed off by the employer. It's theft, pure and simple, a theft tht wouldn't happen if the employee were negotiating from a position of equality.

The employee creates wealth for the company. It's the companies wealth, not the workers. Nobody is cheating anybody.

If you go out in the woods and dig a hole, you could work as hard as you want, but you won't make any money. Now if somebody comes along and tells you to dig a hole where he has an account, you can earn money that way. But you are not creating the wealth, the guy that got you the job to dig the hole did.

If you believe that an employee should be paid based on the success of the company, you can get a percentage job. You can drive a truck over the road, you can work in the food industry for tips, you can be a salesman. You can find employment that has profit sharing as a benefit.

Why does the wealth created by a person belong to the company? That's slavery. What's even more amazing is that the "elite" has managed to pursuade you that that the fruits of your labour belongs to them, while simultaneously telling you if you work hard you can be rich.

Do you really not see how those two claims conflict with each other?

Why does the wealth belong to the company? Simple. It's their company. They own it.

As an employee, you don't have to pay taxes on the building. You didn't have to buy the building either. You don't pay the insurance on the building, workman's compensation insurance, or the utilities either. You didn't hire the sales people to sell the product the company is producing. You don't pay the cleaning crew for the office. You don't pay the repair people to fix the equipment to make the products. You don't pay the transportation costs for incoming and outgoing product. You don't pay the lawn care people, the snow plow driver, or the people that take care of the parking lots.

All you do is the job you were hired to do. The profit belongs to the person or people who bought all these things, maintain all these things, found the customers to buy the products. Just because you did one small part in producing the product does not entitle you to ownership of those products. The ownership of those products belong to the company.

Owning a company doesn't mean owning the person or the fruits of that persons labour. That's called slavery. The work of the employees pay for everything it takes to run the company. That's the point of employing people, to ensure it's possible to pay all bills AND make a profit. What natural law says a owning a "company" means you own the fruits of another man's labour?