2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[MMA_scientist]

But for the VAST majrity of people, they will achieve what they really set out to acheive.

I have said this before and I stand by it. I don't think we can all be Warren Buffett, but 90% of us can be well-off. Work 2 jobs, don't spend your money. You can accumulate a lot in a short amount of time. People are not willing to make even minimum sacrifices though (self included). We really don't have true "poor" people in this country IMO, aside from mentally handicapped people that have slipped through the cracks.

[sbjj]

I have said this before and I stand by it. I don't think we can all be Warren Buffett, but 90% of us can be well-off. Work 2 jobs, don't spend your money. You can accumulate a lot in a short amount of time. People are not willing to make even minimum sacrifices though (self included). We really don't have true "poor" people in this country IMO, aside from mentally handicapped people that have slipped through the cracks.

100% right. I saw an expose where a guy went and interviewd poor people standing in line for food. Damn near all of them had cable(more than 1 TV), a cell phone, and a VCR(at the time). These fuckers had more than I did while I was working 2 fuckin jobs and saving damn near every dollar I could.

These AHoles at Occupy Wall Street need to join the F'n service. Then get that free education and then get a decent paying job. It aint that fuckin hard.

[Svino]

So just out of curiosity, what's your argument for graduated taxation? Do you not wrestle with the ethical issues of fairness?

One way to put it is that the wealthy pay more because they have more to gain (financially) from the organized society that taxes pay for.

For another way to look at fairness, we could look at a simple example with investing or gambling (I think I might have said something like this before):

Let's suppose you have two people who have exactly the same skill, work ethic, and living expenses. Let's say that they can both manage a 20% annual return on investment, and live on $20,000 per year.

Now let's suppose Investor A started with a bankroll of $100,000, and Investor B started with $1,000,000.

Without taxes, Investor A will break even each year, and after (say) 10 years will still have $100,000, having made $0.

Without taxes, Investor B will net $180,000 the first year, and after 10 years will have about $5.6 million, and will make well over another million in the next year.

So it's all hugely dependent on where you started from, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't expect Investor B to pay more proportionally in taxes. As was once said of Bush, the 1% is full of people who were born on 3rd base and grew up thinking they hit a triple.

[MMA_scientist]

100% right. I saw an expose where a guy went and interviewd poor people standing in line for food. Damn near all of them had cable(more than 1 TV), a cell phone, and a VCR(at the time). These fuckers had more than I did while I was working 2 fuckin jobs and saving damn near every dollar I could.

These AHoles at Occupy Wall Street need to join the F'n service. Then get that free education and then get a decent paying job. It aint that fuckin hard.

I used to do bankruptcy work when I first got out of school... people's budgets are ridiculous. Basically, we have people that don't want to do what needs to be done because they are already comfortable enough just doing nothing. It is a sliding scale, because I do the same thing. I have a high income, but I don't have that much saved in proportion to it, just because I am not willing to make the sacrifices I would need to make to become rich. I could do, no problem, and probably within 5 years. But to do it, I would have to sacrifice things that are important to me, and I am not willing to. So, really, you have people that wealth is important to, and people that it is less important to. That is really all we have in the U.S. I wouldn't even say lazy, because some of those people are very hard working, but they are not willing to make certain lifestyle sacrifices.

[SPX]

I could not disagree more. There will always be the few that just have bad things happen to them. But for the VAST majrity of people, they will achieve what they really set out to acheive. I have NO college experience at all. Yet I worked my ass off and saved and have gotten to a point where I am really happy and content. And I had some horrible shit thrown at me at times.

But while my young friends were driving around in new cars and paying hundreds of dollars a month for tons of cable channels and fancy cell plans. I was driving a beat up used car and watching TV on a mini black and white TV. Fuckin 2, 4, 7, and 11.

Okay, so you've worked hard and gotten some shit, and now you're pretty content.

But maybe the bar is set lower for you than it is for me. Maybe I look at the most wealthy people in the world and I decide that I really want some of that shit, too. I want my multi-million dollar mansion on 20 acres of land in Colorado . . . I want my Lamborghini . . . I want my private jet . . .

But is working hard really going to get me to that level? At most jobs, if you're making $60,000 then you are doing REALLY well. If you're making $100,000 then you are doing EXTREMELY well. I mean, that's VERY rare. And usually to do better than that you have to be a VP or some shit like that.

You could always start your own business--which is really the only shot most people have for real riches--but the vast majority of businesses either fail or barely survive.

Bottom line is that if you want to get to that top 1% then you either need to be born into it or you need to start a business/invent something that really takes off. Or you could become one of the few actors who actually really "makes it."

So I stand by what I said earlier, it's a lot more about luck than hard work.

[sbjj]

You are assuming the guy with 1 million did nothing to earn that money. As if he just found it in his backyard. And you are also wrong because both would have to pay Cap gains taxes meaning the guy with 100K would be losing money thanks to the Gov.

[sbjj]

Okay, so you've worked hard and gotten some shit, and now you're pretty content.

But maybe the bar is set lower for you than it is for me. Maybe I look at the most wealthy people in the world and I decide that I really want some of that shit, too. I want my multi-million dollar mansion on 20 acres of land in Colorado . . . I want my Lamborghini . . . I want my private jet . . .

But is working hard really going to get me to that level? At most jobs, if you're making $60,000 then you are doing REALLY well. If you're making $100,000 then you are doing EXTREMELY well. I mean, that's VERY rare. And usually to do better than that you have to be a VP or some shit like that.

You could always start your own business--which is really the only shot most people have for real riches--but the vast majority of businesses either fail or barely survive.

Bottom line is that if you want to get to that top 1% then you either need to be born into it or you need to start a business/invent something that really takes off. Or you could become one of the few actors who actually really "makes it."

So I stand by what I said earlier, it's a lot more about luck than hard work.

Sorry man, you are just wrong. I am 100% sure that you are. I KNOW I could have been uber rich if I would have focused even harder and went to school. I also made some bad investments that were all MY fault. If I would have been even wiser with my money I would be a multi millionaire right now. the fact that you think people like Jobs and Gates made their forturnes because of luck is just plain scary.

[MMA_scientist]

So it's all hugely dependent on where you started from, and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't expect Investor B to pay more proportionally in taxes. As was once said of Bush, the 1% is full of people who were born on 3rd base and grew up thinking they hit a triple.

So you really just want to raise the estate tax, gift tax, and create a tax on trust funds. But then, that takes away my incentive to save and leave anything for my kids, it takes away my incentive to buy life insurance. Basically you want to create a society where all start in the same place and all end in the same place. I think that has been tried...

[sbjj]

Think about it SPX. If you really believe being rich is more luck than work. Than you must believe that being poor is more about being unlucky. So being poor has nothing to do with drugs, alcohol, no education, or poor life choices. The poor and homeless are just unlucky?

[SPX]

Sorry man, you are just wrong. I am 100% sure that you are. I KNOW I could have been uber rich if I would have focused even harder and went to school. I also made some bad investments that were all MY fault. If I would have been even wiser with my money I would be a multi millionaire right now. the fact that you think people like Jobs and Gates made their forturnes because of luck is just plain scary.

Jobs/Gates were brilliant and made some shit that really took off. But how many developers are out there right now trying to come up with that "killer app" while getting by working behind the counter at one of the few remaining Blockbusters? And how many of them are actually going to get where Bill Gates is?

[Svino]

And you are also wrong because both would have to pay Cap gains taxes meaning the guy with 100K would be losing money thanks to the Gov.

That's why I said "without taxes". Of course, I could have added in capital gains taxes and increased the ROI in the example to balance it out, but (like property taxes or anything else) it's a complication that would do nothing to enhance the illustrative properties of the simple example.

The million dollars could have been inherited. Or earned, or whatever. But the point is that wealth, when concentrated, can grow itself easily, generally without particular skill, hard work or effort. A system that implements nothing to check this natural positive-feedback mechanism of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is going to experience runaway wealth stratification, and all its accompanying social problems.

[sbjj]

Jobs/Gates were brilliant and made some shit that really took off. But how many developers are out there right now trying to come up with that "killer app" while getting by working behind the counter at one of the few remaining Blockbusters? And how many of them are actually going to get where Bill Gates is?

But that has nothing to do with luck. Those are dudes who THINK they have a good idea and do not. They should be realistic and find anothe avenue to wealth.

[Svino]

So you really just want to raise the estate tax, gift tax, and create a tax on trust funds. But then, that takes away my incentive to save and leave anything for my kids, it takes away my incentive to buy life insurance.

Well that's true to a degree, but we already do have those things and I bet you're saving anyway. A completely removed incentive would only come with complete wealth confiscation, and no one is proposing that.

Basically you want to create a society where all start in the same place and all end in the same place. I think that has been tried...

Nah, you're just taking what I said to it's illogical extreme.

[SPX]

Think about it SPX. If you really believe being rich is more luck than work. Than you must believe that being poor is more about being unlucky. So being poor has nothing to do with drugs, alcohol, no education, or poor life choices. The poor and homeless are just unlucky?

I think that most people can live a fairly comfortable lifestyle by working hard . . . but getting to that Mark Zuckerberg level takes something extra. Often it comes down to being at the right place at the right time. Or knowing the right people. Or coming up with the right idea at just the moment that society was really ready for it. All of these things are elements beyond your control.

Basically what I'm saying is that there are plenty of people in the world who took their shot and didn't make it . . . a lot more, in fact, than DID make it. Take writers, for instance. There are a fuckload of people out there who have worked extremely hard to craft the great American novel. But despite their hard work and persistence, very few actually ended up getting published, and almost none get to the Stephen King level.

[sbjj]

That's why I said "without taxes". Of course, I could have added in capital gains taxes and increased the ROI in the example to balance it out, but (like property taxes or anything else) it's a complication that would do nothing to enhance the illustrative properties of the simple example.

The million dollars could have been inherited. Or earned, or whatever. But the point is that wealth, when concentrated, can grow itself easily, generally without particular skill, hard work or effort. A system that implements nothing to check this natural positive-feedback mechanism of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is going to experience runaway wealth stratification, and all its accompanying social problems.

Come on man. plenty of people lose millions of dollars. Who are you to tell them how much of their money they can have? Plus, if they earned it, it has already been taxed once. Bottom line Svino, you believe you are entitled to other peoples money for some reason. Who knows why you believe that. But it is the defenition of greed. For all the talk of Greed, it is your own beliefs that are the exact definition of greed.