War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[BluesLegend]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

 

[occupied]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

 

[BluesLegend]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

 

[Boss]

It's a monumentally dumb idea.

It's only "Class Warfare" when working people fight back.

Oh but YOU represent the "working people" don't you, Joe? Isn't that what you're doing? Fighting back for the working people? You see, the problem is, you are fighting the wrong enemy. You've picked the enemy you'll never defeat in a war you can't win.

Now actual working people are starting to become pissed with you Joe. This quagmire of a war you can't win is starting to take it's toll on morale. The hippies are marching on your mall. Every day, more flag-draped coffins arrive in the form of corporations closing their doors, moving out of our system, world financial institutions downgrading our credit ratings, and more and more casualties among the civilians in food stamp lines and going on the welfare rolls. You're LBJ!

 

[occupied]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

 

[Darkwind]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

Which is why is it absolute chimera to believe and promote policies that attempt to provide an equal outcome in life. The most anyone can do is provide the climate in which the opportunity to succeed is available to everyone. That some people don't make it is no cause to punish those who have.

This nonsense about how the rich have stacked the deck in their favor reeks of desperation by those who want more than just the opportunity.

What is deliciously ironic is that those who are attempting to extort more for themselves from the rich are using the exact same tactics they whine about.

The rich only care about themselves we hear from the middle class all the time. Yet, the middle class NEVER speak of policy that benefits anyone but themselves.

Talk about cognitive dissidence.

 

[BluesLegend]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

And companies with thousands of employees lose money, your premise is breaking down. This seems like just another version of the left trying to justify that they are somehow entitled to other peoples wealth.

 

[occupied]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

Which is why is it absolute chimera to believe and promote policies that attempt to provide an equal outcome in life. The most anyone can do is provide the climate in which the opportunity to succeed is available to everyone. That some people don't make it is no cause to punish those who have.

This nonsense about how the rich have stacked the deck in their favor reeks of desperation by those who want more than just the opportunity.

What is deliciously ironic is that those who are attempting to extort more for themselves from the rich are using the exact same tactics they whine about.

The rich only care about themselves we hear from the middle class all the time. Yet, the middle class NEVER speak of policy that benefits anyone but themselves.

Talk about cognitive dissidence.

What does any of that have to do with my comment? It is a fact that it is practically impossible to extract large sums from the economy without employees or investing in the labor of others. As to what you are saying, anyone can do what it takes within the bare limits of the law to get more income, it's what the rich do and it has already been asked why the double standard? If the middle class can find ways to better their share of the economy then it is the very spirit of capitalism to do so.

 

[Boss]

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

There is never any limit on how much wealth can be generated by any given individual under any circumstance. This is a myth and fallacy. First it was stated that wealth was finite, and now it's admitted it is not finite, so it suddenly has to become limited and not infinite. Wealth is infinite.

Hiring and investing are tools used by a free market capitalist in a free enterprise system. We're allowed to use these tools as free people, it's our inalienable right to do so. Through this system, we've generated more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.

Recently, a guy by the name of Peyton Manning expended all of 160 calories of energy and generated $96 million in wealth in less than 30 seconds as he took a sip of bottled water and signed a contract to play football for the Denver Broncos.

 

[occupied]

All wealth after the first million is generated through the effort of others.

There is no 'free market.'

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

And companies with thousands of employees lose money, your premise is breaking down. This seems like just another version of the left trying to justify that they are somehow entitled to other peoples wealth.

No it's the All-American concept that people should be paid a decent wage for their labors. The conservative concept that rising working class wages is a terrible thing is relatively new.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

Again... This is the kind of propaganda you believe when you think wealth is finite.

Propaganda? If decrying the sorry state of wealth distribution is propaganda then what is your cheerleading for a flawed system that clearly leaves so many in want? Look at the reality of things, sure there is wealth being generated but not by wage earners. We do not have a perfect system, it is not a class war to examine the flaws and attempt to address them.

Yes, propaganda. There's no problem with wealth distribution. There is a problem with people who think wealth is finite. As you admit here, wealth is genertated. Therefore, not finite. And yes, the so-called "middle class" actually generate more wealth than any other group just through their sheer numbers. The poor tend to not generate as much wealth, but that's generally why they are poor. Now maybe they are just not motivated, maybe they are downright lazy, or maybe they've been convinced wealth is finite and it's not their fault, and nothing can be done for them because they are just poor.

Our system is not flawed in any way. Again, our system has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. If not, give me an example of one that tops it? Good luck with that!

Our system has all but stopped creating middle-class wealth, the part that allows poor people through hard work and dedication to level up is not currently working as it should. Something about the great recession short-circuited it. It's far too easy to blame poor people for being lazy than to look at the structural flaws that keep people where they are in spite of any amount of diligence. The high cost of a quality education is one such barrier along with the millstone of debt that accompanies it. Flat wages are another problem, if a rising tide raises all boats than wages would have been keeping pace with the cost of living but they have not. The trouble is that you are looking too much at the people who started the race to the top at the finish line instead of the bottom.

What the middle class has lost is the ability to build generational wealth and move up the economic ladder over time. It now takes two salaries to break even. If you are lucky and healthy, you can retire somewhat comfortably
But the days where you could expect to be more successful than your parents are gone

Sorry but they haven't lost that ability.

In fact any family in the span of 2 generations can amass a lot of money for a measly monthly contribution of 200 bucks each.

I've done this for you sheep before but here we go again

2 people (husband and wife) at age 25 start a family trust putting 400 a month away in a portfolio structured to return about 8% long term average.

in 40 years it will be worth 1.4 million

Now lets sat they have a kid at age 30 and at age 25 if he wants to participate in the family trust he also has to put in 200 a month. When he gets married his wife will put in 200 a month when their kids reach 25 they will put in 200 a month etc

By the time the first couple grandchildren are 25 there will be millions of dollars in the family trust.

You see the real truth here is not that it can't be done but that no one is willing to do it.

God forbid they drive a more modest vehicle get a cheap cell phone and give up buying 300 dollar Coach pocketbooks and all kinds of electronic gadgets so as to secure their financial future

 

[occupied]

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

There is never any limit on how much wealth can be generated by any given individual under any circumstance. This is a myth and fallacy. First it was stated that wealth was finite, and now it's admitted it is not finite, so it suddenly has to become limited and not infinite. Wealth is infinite.

Hiring and investing are tools used by a free market capitalist in a free enterprise system. We're allowed to use these tools as free people, it's our inalienable right to do so. Through this system, we've generated more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.

Recently, a guy by the name of Peyton Manning expended all of 160 calories of energy and generated $96 million in wealth in less than 30 seconds as he took a sip of bottled water and signed a contract to play football for the Denver Broncos.

[/QUOTE]

No one gets rich through their own efforts alone, you did nothing to disprove this statement. There is nothing wrong with hiring and investing but for such a person to feel that no one contributed to their wealth is narcissism.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Looks to me like the class war is over, the rich won.

Again... This is the kind of propaganda you believe when you think wealth is finite.

Propaganda? If decrying the sorry state of wealth distribution is propaganda then what is your cheerleading for a flawed system that clearly leaves so many in want? Look at the reality of things, sure there is wealth being generated but not by wage earners. We do not have a perfect system, it is not a class war to examine the flaws and attempt to address them.

Yes, propaganda. There's no problem with wealth distribution. There is a problem with people who think wealth is finite. As you admit here, wealth is genertated. Therefore, not finite. And yes, the so-called "middle class" actually generate more wealth than any other group just through their sheer numbers. The poor tend to not generate as much wealth, but that's generally why they are poor. Now maybe they are just not motivated, maybe they are downright lazy, or maybe they've been convinced wealth is finite and it's not their fault, and nothing can be done for them because they are just poor.

Our system is not flawed in any way. Again, our system has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. If not, give me an example of one that tops it? Good luck with that!

If wealth is infinite, why do you people like you complain so much about wealth redistribution?

If wealth is in infinite supply, why would you care who gets how much? Why would care that a government program gives the poor some of that wealth if it is coming from an infinite source?

I guess the part about taking someone else's money by by force so as to give it to someone else doesn't strike you as wrong.

Tell me if you were robbed at gunpoint and the criminal then handed all the money he stole from you to a homeless guy would you be OK with it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

There is never any limit on how much wealth can be generated by any given individual under any circumstance. This is a myth and fallacy. First it was stated that wealth was finite, and now it's admitted it is not finite, so it suddenly has to become limited and not infinite. Wealth is infinite.

Hiring and investing are tools used by a free market capitalist in a free enterprise system. We're allowed to use these tools as free people, it's our inalienable right to do so. Through this system, we've generated more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.

Recently, a guy by the name of Peyton Manning expended all of 160 calories of energy and generated $96 million in wealth in less than 30 seconds as he took a sip of bottled water and signed a contract to play football for the Denver Broncos.

No one gets rich through their own efforts alone, you did nothing to disprove this statement. There is nothing wrong with hiring and investing but for such a person to feel that no one contributed to their wealth is narcissism.[/QUOTE][/quote]
If I work and earn the money I saved who else should get the credit for saving?

Hint: No one.

 

[BluesLegend]

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

Which is why is it absolute chimera to believe and promote policies that attempt to provide an equal outcome in life. The most anyone can do is provide the climate in which the opportunity to succeed is available to everyone. That some people don't make it is no cause to punish those who have.

This nonsense about how the rich have stacked the deck in their favor reeks of desperation by those who want more than just the opportunity.

What is deliciously ironic is that those who are attempting to extort more for themselves from the rich are using the exact same tactics they whine about.

The rich only care about themselves we hear from the middle class all the time. Yet, the middle class NEVER speak of policy that benefits anyone but themselves.

Talk about cognitive dissidence.

What does any of that have to do with my comment? It is a fact that it is practically impossible to extract large sums from the economy without employees or investing in the labor of others. As to what you are saying, anyone can do what it takes within the bare limits of the law to get more income, it's what the rich do and it has already been asked why the double standard? If the middle class can find ways to better their share of the economy then it is the very spirit of capitalism to do so.

It is not a fact you are just parroting liberal class envy talking points. In those cases where companies hire employees those employees are paid for their efforts, the business owner or stock holders owe them nothing more and they are free to leave and start their own business if they don't like the terms of employment. Let them take the financial risk, let them make the personal sacrifices required to start and grow a business, let them endure the stress. Or they can take it easy why someone else does all that and collect a paycheck.

 

[BluesLegend]

No its not where did you get that number it sounds like you made it up.

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

J. K. Rowling has a net worth of $1 billion dollars.

There are exceptions of course but everyone cannot be acclaimed artists or athletes and even then other peole have to print books or work at sports stadiums to make it possible.

And companies with thousands of employees lose money, your premise is breaking down. This seems like just another version of the left trying to justify that they are somehow entitled to other peoples wealth.

No it's the All-American concept that people should be paid a decent wage for their labors. The conservative concept that rising working class wages is a terrible thing is relatively new.

They are paid what they are worth in a given market. When the left stops importing millions of illegal workers driving down wages and sucking up jobs the market would adjust and wages would rise.

 

[occupied]

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

There is never any limit on how much wealth can be generated by any given individual under any circumstance. This is a myth and fallacy. First it was stated that wealth was finite, and now it's admitted it is not finite, so it suddenly has to become limited and not infinite. Wealth is infinite.

Hiring and investing are tools used by a free market capitalist in a free enterprise system. We're allowed to use these tools as free people, it's our inalienable right to do so. Through this system, we've generated more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.

Recently, a guy by the name of Peyton Manning expended all of 160 calories of energy and generated $96 million in wealth in less than 30 seconds as he took a sip of bottled water and signed a contract to play football for the Denver Broncos.

No one gets rich through their own efforts alone, you did nothing to disprove this statement. There is nothing wrong with hiring and investing but for such a person to feel that no one contributed to their wealth is narcissism.

If I work and earn the money I saved who else should get the credit for saving?

Hint: No one.[/QUOTE]
I must soon go to work and produce some wealth for myself but I am not so stupid as to think that I could do it without the others in my company, the self-made man is a myth. Products must be marketed, books have to be kept, garbage must be hauled away etc.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Perhaps he did but the concept is sound, there is a limit of how much wealth can be generated individually before you have to start hiring or investing, a million sounds high.

There is never any limit on how much wealth can be generated by any given individual under any circumstance. This is a myth and fallacy. First it was stated that wealth was finite, and now it's admitted it is not finite, so it suddenly has to become limited and not infinite. Wealth is infinite.

Hiring and investing are tools used by a free market capitalist in a free enterprise system. We're allowed to use these tools as free people, it's our inalienable right to do so. Through this system, we've generated more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever devised by man.

Recently, a guy by the name of Peyton Manning expended all of 160 calories of energy and generated $96 million in wealth in less than 30 seconds as he took a sip of bottled water and signed a contract to play football for the Denver Broncos.

No one gets rich through their own efforts alone, you did nothing to disprove this statement. There is nothing wrong with hiring and investing but for such a person to feel that no one contributed to their wealth is narcissism.

If I work and earn the money I saved who else should get the credit for saving?

Hint: No one.

I must soon go to work and produce some wealth for myself but I am not so stupid as to think that I could do it without the others in my company, the self-made man is a myth. Products must be marketed, books have to be kept, garbage must be hauled away etc.[/QUOTE]

What you are failing to see is that all those people also get compensated for their labor they are not doing it for free so you can earn a dollar.

So they really didn't help you. They were helping themselves

 

[Boss]

No it's the All-American concept that people should be paid a decent wage for their labors. The conservative concept that rising working class wages is a terrible thing is relatively new.

As I told you when you brought up Krugman, the capitalist likes having a baseline for labor. It actually helps them to avoid the pitfalls of competition in a free market system. If the minimum wage is $7.50, that's the baseline established. Jobs are priced in accordance with that baseline, and hiring becomes a matter of interviewing candidates. Unless you bring something special to the table, the prices are non-negotiable, the baseline is set. Now they don't like raising the baseline because this raises all other cost of labor, which increases price to consumers or means fewer jobs.

 

[Boss]

No one gets rich through their own efforts alone, you did nothing to disprove this statement. There is nothing wrong with hiring and investing but for such a person to feel that no one contributed to their wealth is narcissism.

People do it everyday. I just gave you an example... Peyton Manning... $96 million in generated wealth in less than 30 seconds, all by himself. Oh sure, there had to be a capitalist who was willing to fork over the $96 million, but that wouldn't be an issue in a non-capitalist system, would it?