Free Money

[Beyond]

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?

Link?

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

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

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

The natural law of opening up a business. Servitude is when you force people to work for free. Nobody is forced to work for anybody in this country......at least not legally. Nobody is entitled to company profits either unless it's provided as a benefit.

If you are selling a car, and I buy it for your asking price, and later you find out I used the car for Uber, are you entitled to part of the money I made with the car I bought from you? Of course not. The only deal between me and you is you selling me the car for the amount of money I agreed to give to you. It doesn't' matter if I used it for Uber, delivering pizzas, getting drunk and killing four people on the way home from the bar, or robbing a bank.

If you want part of the money you work for on the job, get a commission job like sales. Get a CDL where you get a percentage of the payload. Buy stocks in the company you work for. Or as in the example I just provided, work for Uber. You are not held down to one kind of work or pay. If you don't like hourly work, then get work that's not hourly paid.

 

[Beyond]

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

You've now added a working wife, that I didn't mention. How about address what I acutally said rather than rewrite the statement and responding to your statement rather than mine.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

You mean like say machinery,raw materials,the rent and all the other expenses that go with running a company?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

#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?

Link?

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

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

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

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

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

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

 

[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".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So then what do you mean?

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

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

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

 

[Cellblock2429]

Just another bunch of bullshit brought to you by an idiot.

She wants we tax payers to pay people for doing absolutely nothing?

Oh wait. We already do that. Its called welfare and medicade. We pay freeloaders every month to sit on their asses and do nothing.

Her bill won't make it through the senate and you can bet it won't make it through the house either.

Woman is a moron.

We pay farmers not to plant crops on some of their land...is this any different?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

/——/ End farm subsidies like paying them not to grow food. Imagine paying McDonalds not to sell asparagus.

 

[Beyond]

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?

Link?

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

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

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

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

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

Income from Abroad is Taxable | Internal Revenue Service

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

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

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

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

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So then what do you mean?

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

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

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

How can you say someone is privileged if they earned their money?
Everyone else started at the same place,if they didnt manage their money wisely thats their problem not mine.
The wife and I are around the top 4% not including stock values.
Nobody gave us anything,so why should we be obligated to give someone who made poor decisions our hard earned money?

 

[Beyond]

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

Yes across 100% of the population $53k is average, for the bottom 90% $36k is the average, which is what I stated..

 

[Beyond]

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

Acquiring money/wealth earned by another man's labour isn't "earning".

 

[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.

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

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

 

[Beyond]

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.

I'm lost as to what you're disagreeing with. How many none wealthy politicians are you aware of? How many lobbyists are paid by poor people to get laws in place to benefit them?

Laws are created by the wealthy, not the poor and hey serve the people who create them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

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

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

 

[Beyond]

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.

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

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

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

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say anything about your success?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Yes across 100% of the population $53k is average, for the bottom 90% $36k is the average, which is what I stated..

Why concentrate on the bottom? Why not the whole?

 

[Beyond]

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say anything about your success?

Read your post again.

 

[Beyond]

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

Yes across 100% of the population $53k is average, for the bottom 90% $36k is the average, which is what I stated..

Why concentrate on the bottom? Why not the whole?

Because I was commenting on the level of success achieved by our current system. I.e. the % distribution of wealth.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

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

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

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

Where did I say anything about your success?

Read your post again.

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