Just like the song says, the rich get richer:





There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get children
In the meantime, in between time
Ain't we got fun?

There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get laid off
In the meantime, in between time
Ain't we got fun?

They've cut my wages
But my income tax will be so much smaller
When I'm laid off, I'll be paid off
Ain't we got fun?

1921

I wonder, if it were possible, what a similar graphic titled, "distribution of talent" would look like.

Ill be the first to say: BLAME THE REPUBLICANS

Brought to you by a non partisan advocate for the destruction of republicans hopes and dreams

Good luck with that.
Republicans don't rely on hope and have already fulfilled their dreams.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Good luck with that. Republicans don't rely on hope and have already fulfilled their dreams.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- THAT MADE ME GIGGLE

bump....this is worth a bump

quote And this chart suggests most Americans have little idea of just how unequal income distribution is. And that they'd like things to be divvied up a lot more equitably:

"divvied up more equitably."

In other words, "they" don't want the opportunity to earn more and own more wealth - they want to be given what others have earned.

Those coveting OPM say this is a clear sign that the wealthy are being unfair and greedy and making their fortunes off the backs of the poor.

The possibility never occurs to them that it could also be due to fewer people willing to work for what they earn, preferring to get some OPM instead. Fewer entrepreneurs out there means they're going to end up owning more of the wealth. No, of course, it couldn't be that. The poor work hard, so they are "entitled" to OPM.

What does wealth distribution prove? It's a snapshot of who owns the wealth, but what "should" it be and why?

The problem north Ameirca-wide is that VERY few of the wealthy have "earned" the wealth. The vast majority of them have either inherited it, or stolen it by making up silly rules, schemes and procedures and selling (or forcing) people into paying for their scams.

Might be just me, but I dont call selling scams or pipe dreams, or theft at the point of a legalized gun, to be "earning" anything.

It's just you.

quote Who is the Average Millionaire? The book of the week was The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko. Both authors are Ph.D.s and stumbled across some fascinating research which they based this book around. The two surveyed and interviewed thousands of millionaires to figure out what the living habits of the average millionaire really are. Some Shocking Statistics about these Millionaires: -The average taxable income for them is $131,000 -They live on less than 7 percent of their wealth -Many of their occupations could be classified as dull-normal such as: welding contractor, auctioneer, mobile-home owner, paving contractor, coin and stamp dealer -They invest on average nearly 20% of their household income -Most of them are homeowners (97 percent) and their average home value is $320,000 -80% of millionaires today are first generation millionaires That last statistic was shocking to me. There is a huge misconception in society about the wealthy. The media portrays the wealthy as a legacy of the rich, one generation just passes it on to the next and the idea of getting there is represented as just a pipe-dream. The fact that 80% of the millionaires surveyed were first generation millionaires should really open someone's eyes to the possibility of being a millionaire an accessible dream. The other thing the media skews about the wealthy is the living habits. They show millionaires spending money like it's going out of style. They have great big mansions, fancy cars, and more toys than any adult really needs. Real millionaires don't spend like this. The media loves to cover the abnormal... that is why they cover crime, lottery winners, celebrities and so on and so forth. This book does a great job of laying out what a T.V. show about the average millionaire would look like. Just think of it... a man with a slightly above average career, diligently focuses on his finance and investing habits, living below his means, and double checking his budgets before he spends even a $500 on a new television. Not the most interesting T.V. show, however, that is what that average millionaire does. No matter how much money you make there is one golden rule to accumulating wealth... ready for it?... Live below you means! If you have $5000 coming in each month after taxes then do your best to live on $4000 and then invest the rest. This is the only sure fire "get rich quick scheme"... and it really works. Throughout this blog I give tips on what may make a good investment and why, but you will surely fail investing and accumulating wealth if you do not have the first step completed... live below you means. The average millionaire spends over twice as much time budgeting and analyzing their own spending habits than the average non-millionaire. So focus on not only what money is coming in, but also pay just as close attention, if not more, on the money going out. Being frugal pays big... A lot of these millionaires are just your average blue-collar entrepreneurial Americans and the way they made it to financial freedom is through frugality. They spend much less on their cars than non-millionaires... in fact the average millionaire buys 3 year old cars. At that point they have a lot of the first 30k miles bugs worked out and they still ride like a new car, but at 75% off the original price. There is no reason to finance out your life... Getting over your head in debt just amounts to unneeded stress and a bunch of "in-the-moment" toys. You can only keep up with the Jones' so long before you realize you are 50 years old with no retirement and just lots of cars, toys, and a big house with no equity. I don't mean to be too brash, but I want everyone to understand the importance of living below/within your means. The alternative is living well off with equity in several properties, a couple reliable cars, travel the world retire early, have the ability to teach financial discipline to your children and live without a lot of unneeded stress! The book is very interesting and is well written especially taking in account it was written around research. Sometimes research-based books have the tendency to be boring. The Millionaire Next Door has it all right... great data and great case studies to reinforce the main points. Pick it up... I'm sure you'll discover a few helpful tidbits to increase your net-worth and put you on the track to being a millionaire. If you have any questions on the book don't hesitate to ask. I would be more than happy to help anyone that wants it. http://www.theguidetogetric...age-millionaire.html

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: The problem north Ameirca-wide is that VERY few of the wealthy have "earned" the wealth. The vast majority of them have either inherited it, or stolen it by making up silly rules, schemes and procedures and selling (or forcing) people into paying for their scams. Might be just me, but I dont call selling scams or pipe dreams, or theft at the point of a legalized gun, to be "earning" anything.

So buying a book of the month, or watching a show is forced?

Microsoft is forced?

Apple is forced?

Want scams and pipe dreams? Look at Socialized healthcare, and Government ran industry.

Look to people that work to be a public servant, and then hold the people hostage through Union laws, and propaganda. Scams are everywhere, and the only ones forced on us are through the Government.

Brad

If present trends continue, a few people will own all the wealth in North America. This is already the case in Mexico and it has happened in the U.S. before. Many of the taxes that have recently been reduced or removed were put in place to prevent the amassing of wealth by a few family dynasties.

Even some super rich people understand that the present trends do not bode well for future political stability.

quote Originally posted by spark1: If present trends continue, a few people will own all the wealth in North America. This is already the case in Mexico and it has happened in the U.S. before. Many of the taxes that have recently been reduced or removed were put in place to prevent the amassing of wealth by a few family dynasties. Even some super rich people understand that the present trends do not bode well for future political stability.

Well then, I say we just force everyone to make the same amount of money, perhaps put a cap on how much a person could make. Or we could make it where there is no money, and the Government just gives the people what they need. That system has worked well in the past.

Brad

quote Originally posted by spark1: If present trends continue, a few people will own all the wealth in North America. This is already the case in Mexico and it has happened in the U.S. before. Many of the taxes that have recently been reduced or removed were put in place to prevent the amassing of wealth by a few family dynasties. Even some super rich people understand that the present trends do not bode well for future political stability.

I wish people would stop the class warfare.

If it’s so evil to be rich why do so many strive to be rich and why do so many pretend to be rich by living above their means?

And why do so many people who say they don’t want to be rich not want anyone else to be rich?

quote Originally posted by spark1: If present trends continue, a few people will own all the wealth in North America. This is already the case in Mexico and it has happened in the U.S. before. Many of the taxes that have recently been reduced or removed were put in place to prevent the amassing of wealth by a few family dynasties. Even some super rich people understand that the present trends do not bode well for future political stability.

When did it happen in America before, and how did it change?
I'd be interested in the historical context where you found that taxes designed to prevent certain families from getting any wealthier.

So, are you ok with the idea of government saying it doesn't want YOU or HIM or whoever to not own anything else, so they increase your taxes solely to prevent you from buying anything else?

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Scams are everywhere, and the only ones forced on us are through the Government. Brad

Hip hip.

Just a very simple question here. WHAT is it about a person who owns enough to sustain himself, family, and future family members, that drives them to go on amassing ridiculously disproportional amounts of wealth? Greed? To a lesser extent. I believe it is an addiction, no more, no less. A more powerful addiction than any you could shake a stick at.
I have heard comments to the effect that 'their success in making money is something they can no longer control: like a runaway train, it just keeps rollin' along'. I can well believe that to be the case, an example being Bill Gates.
Before anybody leaps in and says 'their billions help to create work and jobs for the people', that is proving to be absolute rubbish, because there are NO NEW JOBS coming onto the employment market. So...what else does their 'invested' wealth do, to improve the Country and Nation where they (occasionally) reside? Their 'investments' don't do ANYTHING other than take currency out of general circulation, and do NOT pay taxes on their 'investments', because they don't USE that money. And neither do the Companies that most of their money is invested in...because they are rich enough not to NEED investment. But that success guarantees a better return on their 'investments', than if they were to actually INVEST, not SPECULATE, their money in fledgling Companies and Inventors and small concerns, who would probably bring back the wealth to our Countries by actually producing something totally NEW, IF they were funded. Another blatant reason as to why such small entities are 'constrained' by lack of investment, is because their product could possibly cripple the BIG and POWERFUL commercial entities already at the 'Top of their Game'..and so, as THEY often control the majority of money AVAILABLE for true investment, they kill them off, or at least prevent them from growing in stature, and therefore potential threat.
This is a personal opinion, and well-founded from my own personal experiences throughout my 50 odd years living amongst these Commercial manipulations.
I look forward to legitimate arguments against my opinions, and I am always open to change my opinion. Rhetorical comments are pointless, and a waste of time reading . real, thought-out views and comments are well worth us ALL reading, I am sure we will all agree I quote nothing or nobody, because these are MY views, and MINE alone.
Nick

quote Originally posted by Formula88: When did it happen in America before, and how did it change? I'd be interested in the historical context where you found that taxes designed to prevent certain families from getting any wealthier. So, are you ok with the idea of government saying it doesn't want YOU or HIM or whoever to not own anything else, so they increase your taxes solely to prevent you from buying anything else?

The idea preventing American plutocracy is not new. History has a way of repeating:

quote The Modern Estate Tax The years immediately following the repeal of the inheritance tax were witness to an unprecedented number of mergers in the manufacturing sector of the economy, fueled by the development of a new form of corporate ownership, the holding company. This resulted in the concentration of wealth in a relatively small number of powerful companies and in the hands of the businessmen who headed them. Along with such wealth came great political power, fueling fears over the rise of an American plutocracy and sparking the growth of the progressive movement. Progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt, advocated both an inheritance tax and a graduated income tax as tools to address inequalities in wealth.This thinking eventually led to the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and the enactment of the Federal income tax. It was not until the advent of another war, World War I, that Congress would enact the Federal estate tax

You can read the whole article here but it's safe to say that tax policy has a significant effect upon the accumulation and concentration of wealth. Whether that's good ar bad has been argued for a long time.

So you're talking about inheritance tax, not income tax? Ok.
You still haven't told me when "it happened in the U.S. before."

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Just a very simple question here. WHAT is it about a person who owns enough to sustain himself, family, and future family members, that drives them to go on amassing ridiculously disproportional amounts of wealth? Greed? To a lesser extent. I believe it is an addiction, no more, no less. A more powerful addiction than any you could shake a stick at. I have heard comments to the effect that 'their success in making money is something they can no longer control: like a runaway train, it just keeps rollin' along'. I can well believe that to be the case, an example being Bill Gates. Before anybody leaps in and says 'their billions help to create work and jobs for the people', that is proving to be absolute rubbish, because there are NO NEW JOBS coming onto the employment market. So...what else does their 'invested' wealth do, to improve the Country and Nation where they (occasionally) reside? Their 'investments' don't do ANYTHING other than take currency out of general circulation, and do NOT pay taxes on their 'investments', because they don't USE that money. And neither do the Companies that most of their money is invested in...because they are rich enough not to NEED investment. But that success guarantees a better return on their 'investments', than if they were to actually INVEST, not SPECULATE, their money in fledgling Companies and Inventors and small concerns, who would probably bring back the wealth to our Countries by actually producing something totally NEW, IF they were funded. Another blatant reason as to why such small entities are 'constrained' by lack of investment, is because their product could possibly cripple the BIG and POWERFUL commercial entities already at the 'Top of their Game'..and so, as THEY often control the majority of money AVAILABLE for true investment, they kill them off, or at least prevent them from growing in stature, and therefore potential threat. This is a personal opinion, and well-founded from my own personal experiences throughout my 50 odd years living amongst these Commercial manipulations. I look forward to legitimate arguments against my opinions, and I am always open to change my opinion. Rhetorical comments are pointless, and a waste of time reading . real, thought-out views and comments are well worth us ALL reading, I am sure we will all agree I quote nothing or nobody, because these are MY views, and MINE alone. Nick

Having too much money is like having too much fun

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Just a very simple question here. WHAT is it about a person who owns enough to sustain himself, family, and future family members, that drives them to go on amassing ridiculously disproportional amounts of wealth?

Who decides what is "enough" and what gives anyone the right to determine that for someone else?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Greed? To a lesser extent. I believe it is an addiction, no more, no less.

Couldn't be that they enjoy what they're doing, and it just happens to make them a lot of money? Why is greed the only thing you can see?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: I have heard comments to the effect that 'their success in making money is something they can no longer control: like a runaway train, it just keeps rollin' along'. I can well believe that to be the case, an example being Bill Gates. Before anybody leaps in and says 'their billions help to create work and jobs for the people', that is proving to be absolute rubbish, because there are NO NEW JOBS coming onto the employment market.

Even if no "new" jobs are created, you don't consider the multitude of people who currently are employed because of Bill Gates? If Microsoft suddenly went away, a lot of people would be out of work, but you don't consider that.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: So...what else does their 'invested' wealth do, to improve the Country and Nation where they (occasionally) reside? Their 'investments' don't do ANYTHING other than take currency out of general circulation, and do NOT pay taxes on their 'investments', because they don't USE that money.

Have you ever invested money? I don't know how it is in Spain, but in the U.S. you pay Capital Gains tax on any money your investments make. How do they do it in your part of the world?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: And neither do the Companies that most of their money is invested in...because they are rich enough not to NEED investment.

Where do you think companies get money? Before they can make money by doing business, they have to have start up capital. Someone, either an individual or group of people, or stock holders "invest" in the company in the hopes it will grow and make them money.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: snip. This is a personal opinion. snip. Nick

I agree with a lot of this, but how do we solve a problem like that?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So you're talking about inheritance tax, not income tax? Ok. You still haven't told me when "it happened in the U.S. before."

According to the cited IRS document, it happened between 1902 and 1916. From the first paragraph of the cited document:

quote For the past 90 years and at key points throughout American history, the Federal Government has relied on estate and inheritance taxes as sources of funding. Proponents have frequently advocated that these taxes are effective tools for preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relatively few powerful families, while opponents believe that transfer taxes discourage capital accumulation, curbing national economic growth. This tension, along with fiscal and other considerations, has led to periodic revisions of Federal estate tax laws, affecting both the size of the decedent population subject to the tax and the revenue collected.

That says it's intent was to prevent it from happening, not that happened already.
Proponents say illegal aliens are good for the economy. That's far from a historic example proving that viewpoint.

When you understand the nature of wealth, then you understand what to do about percieved wealth inequity.

In a free market system, wealth is aquired by providing a service or product to other people. Other than charity, people do not give their money away without expecting something in return for it.

There are only three causes for the rich becoming richer:

1. They provided more services or products
2. They rewrote the rules of the game to benefit
3. A combination of 1 & 2

If the middle class and poor want to make more money, then maybe they should provide better services or products. The country is short millions of college educated professions. We are so short of them that corporations are bringing in professionals from overseas to fill positions. Ironically we have an excess of lawyers right now. Go figure. Our education system fails to produce enough college graduates to fill the need. As high paying jobs go to foreigners, the average income goes down for the domestic labor force.

The other side of the coin is that the more power that our government has, the greater its control over the country and the greater the danger that one piece of legislation could make or break an entire industry. Why do you think there are so many lobbists and so much money in politics. The money goes where the power is. The way to fix this is to take the power out of government which is easier said then done. Washington does not easily give up power and the direction of government is to always grow and seize more power. As it grows, the gap between the rich and poor will also grow.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: When you understand the nature of wealth, then you understand what to do about percieved wealth inequity. In a free market system, wealth is aquired by providing a service or product to other people. Other than charity, people do not give their money away without expecting something in return for it. There are only three causes for the rich becoming richer: 1. They provided more services or products 2. They rewrote the rules of the game to benefit 3. A combination of 1 & 2 If the middle class and poor want to make more money, then maybe they should provide better services or products. The country is short millions of college educated professions. We are so short of them that corporations are bringing in professionals from overseas to fill positions. Ironically we have an excess of lawyers right now. Go figure. Our education system fails to produce enough college graduates to fill the need. As high paying jobs go to foreigners, the average income goes down for the domestic labor force. The other side of the coin is that the more power that our government has, the greater its control over the country and the greater the danger that one piece of legislation could make or break an entire industry. Why do you think there are so many lobbists and so much money in politics. The money goes where the power is. The way to fix this is to take the power out of government which is easier said then done. Washington does not easily give up power and the direction of government is to always grow and seize more power. As it grows, the gap between the rich and poor will also grow.

Yes, the solution must be to confiscate more of the rich's money then.
[/sarcasm]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That says it's intent was to prevent it from happening, not that happened already. Proponents say illegal aliens are good for the economy. That's far from a historic example proving that viewpoint.

The first quote said: "This resulted in the concentration of wealth in a relatively small number of powerful companies and in the hands of the businessmen who headed them. Along with such wealth came great political power, fueling fears over the rise of an American plutocracy and sparking the growth of the progressive movement. Progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt, advocated both an inheritance tax and a graduated income tax as tools to address in equalities in wealth."

This seemed to me that the situation existed at the time or at least many people thought it did which is politically the same.

quote Originally posted by spark1: The first quote said: "This resulted in the concentration of wealth in a relatively small number of powerful companies and in the hands of the businessmen who headed them. Along with such wealth came great political power, fueling fears over the rise of an American plutocracy and sparking the growth of the progressive movement. Progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt, advocated both an inheritance tax and a graduated income tax as tools to address in equalities in wealth." This seemed to me that the situation existed at the time or at least many people thought it did which is politically the same.

Ok. I don't particularly agree, but I see where you got the info from. Fair enough. The Estate Tax was to fix this problem.

In 1916, there was a $50,000 exemption and tax ranging from 1% to 10% beyond that.
That's right at $1 Million in today's money. Current exemption is $2 Million, but the tax rate is from 18% - 45%.

So other than the greater initial deduction, we're taxing estates at a much greater level than progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt, advocated. And yet the income inequity is greater than ever. Doesn't look like the idea worked very well, unless you take the standard government reaction that the answer must be to tax people more.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Ok. I don't particularly agree, but I see where you got the info from. Fair enough. The Estate Tax was to fix this problem. In 1916, there was a $50,000 exemption and tax ranging from 1% to 10% beyond that. That's right at $1 Million in today's money. Current exemption is $2 Million, but the tax rate is from 18% - 45%. So other than the greater initial deduction, we're taxing estates at a much greater level than progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt, advocated. And yet the income inequity is greater than ever. Doesn't look like the idea worked very well, unless you take the standard government reaction that the answer must be to tax people more.

Your right, there must be factors other than taxes at work. The growth of hedge funds is one and there are likely many others.

Which brings us back to the initial topic.
Why is this "inequity" bad?
What is considered an "equitable distribution of wealth?"

Should wealth be taken from the wealthy and given to the less wealthy for the sole purpose of evening out this chart?

As the gap between the rich and poor grow, doesn't that by definition grow the middle class? And if not and we decide to protect the middle class, where do we draw the line on what middle class, poor, and wealthy "should" be?

Have you ever turned down a raise?
Have you ever said, "No, I make enough already. Don't give me any more money."
Why should you expect someone else to?

Even as the "rich get richer" we still have a poor class that is wealthy by most standards in the rest of the world. Would it be preferable to reduce everyone to the poverty level? That would be an "equitable distribution of wealth" but I doubt many would find it desirable.

I never worry about anyone that inherits money. Why? Because wealth quickly leaves a fools hands. If a person who inherits money does not manage it well, they will spend it quickly and it will be in other people's hands.

This rule applies across the board. That is why welfare does not make anyone rich. If someone is so bad at making and managing their money that they end up on welfare for an extended amount of time, then they won't be able to hold on to just about any amount of money. That is why most lottery winners spend all of their winnings quickly and are often in worse shape 5 years later than they were before they won. The main difference being that they no longer have their old friends and family members because the money tore their lives apart. Why? Because they don't have the skill and discipline to manage that money.

The same thing happens to people who inherit large sums of money. They will lose it just as quickly as those lottery winners if they don't manage it.

Coming from a not wealthy family, I would have to say if I did win any real sum in the lottery, much of it would be donated to charity. Especially Shriner's Children's Hospitals, who saved my brother's life. This guy would not feel foolish losing that money fast if it helps sick kids. I only need so much to live.

The disparity is a bit disturbing when you see the trend, but there is one cure for what irks you... work harder, invest smarter, and make your life more comfortable. I tend to not worry about the rich, just the mortgage.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: The disparity is a bit disturbing when you see the trend, but there is one cure for what irks you... work harder, invest smarter, and make your life more comfortable. I tend to not worry about the rich, just the mortgage.

Perfectly put! If someone is poor, what good does it do pissing & moaning about those that are rich?

I hate hearing some "entitled" person say; "Why doesn't Bill Gates give me $1000, he could spare it!"

There is no possible system in which that would benefit society. If you give enough money to the bottom 10% of the economic scale to move them into the middle class status, there is still going to be a bottom 10%! With the redistribution, I would imagine inflation would rise. And then the next bottom 10% will b!tch and moan that they didn't get any of the redistribution and that they are now living in poverty because their income doesn't increase, but inflation has.

just my .02

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:

Just a very simple question here. WHAT is it about a person who owns enough to sustain himself, family, and future family members, that drives them to go on amassing ridiculously disproportional amounts of wealth?




Who decides what is "enough" and what gives anyone the right to determine that for someone else?

This is your stock rhetorical response, and as such doesn't really warrant a response because the average person on this Planet can answer that easily But I will say this: Common sense will tell us when somebody has enough, or MORE than enough.

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:
Greed? To a lesser extent. I believe it is an addiction, no more, no less.




Couldn't be that they enjoy what they're doing, and it just happens to make them a lot of money? Why is greed the only thing you can see?

Because greed requires people to have or take more than they need. Just take a look at the people who wait in line for food etc when there has been a disaster. Greed and selfishness is the order of the day
Hey, you know what? I enjoy immensely what I do, and only require a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
And equally, as you ask 'why is greed the only thing you see', why did you not reply to the other part of my statement, in that it can be an addiction, rather than greed? I KNOW an addiction when I see one

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:

I have heard comments to the effect that 'their success in making money is something they can no longer control: like a runaway train, it just keeps rollin' along'. I can well believe that to be the case, an example being Bill Gates.
Before anybody leaps in and says 'their billions help to create work and jobs for the people', that is proving to be absolute rubbish, because there are NO NEW JOBS coming onto the employment market.




Even if no "new" jobs are created, you don't consider the multitude of people who currently are employed because of Bill Gates? If Microsoft suddenly went away, a lot of people would be out of work, but you don't consider that.
Come on!! The stock reply to 'They have too much money' is always 'they create jobs with their wealth'. Once the jobs have been created, they are static. True, they maintain those jobs, but they are not creating new jobs, and yet they go on amassing wealth. THAT is where your argument falls on its face.

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:
So...what else does their 'invested' wealth do, to improve the Country and Nation where they (occasionally) reside? Their 'investments' don't do ANYTHING other than take currency out of general circulation, and do NOT pay taxes on their 'investments', because they don't USE that money.



Have you ever invested money? I don't know how it is in Spain, but in the U.S. you pay Capital Gains tax on any money your investments make. How do they do it in your part of the world?
Yes. My trust funds are currently invested in stocks and shares. They are taxed upon interest taken and PAID OUT. The Capital sum is not. However, if those interest payments weren't withdrawn, and re-invested, they would not be taxed.
And just to emphasise my point...if I could take out those capital sums, I would use them to pay off my mortgage, and to improve and modify my home. The value added to the home by doing so would increase the value OF the home to a far greater extent than the interest returned on the invested amount, and I would pay tax on the withdrawal of the capital, I would pay tax on the amounts I spent, and I would pay tax should I sell said property. So you see, by putting the money to WORK, instead of just accrueing interest, I would be increasing the value of the money, AND paying tax on it, AND buying materials, which otherwise would not have been bought and paid for.QED

quote
Originally posted by fierofetish:
And neither do the Companies that most of their money is invested in...because they are rich enough not to NEED investment.




Where do you think companies get money? Before they can make money by doing business, they have to have start up capital. Someone, either an individual or group of people, or stock holders "invest" in the company in the hopes it will grow and make them money.
Another rhetorical question . Companies raise capital by making and supplying GOODS. They USED to start in a small way, and prudent owners would re-invest the PROFIT they made, hence increasing the value of the Business, WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY ANY OF THAT PROFIT TO ANYBODY ELSE. There...that is the crux of the whole success in business. Avoid borrowing, because you will then keep 100% of the profit to use to increase the WORTH of your business. It is slower, I agree, but it is SOUND increase in Capital, and without debt to loans or shareholders, it will be stronger. And that capital increase will enable the company to make more products, and PROVIDE WORK FOR PEOPLE.
Why do people invest in successful Companies, such as Shell and Microsoft? Because the Companies don't have enough capital to flourish and grow? No. Simply put, they get a better return on their investment. Because the Company doesn't NEED any more capital, the only thing investing in said companies does is to earn more return on the investment. Where does that return come from? It doen't come out of thin air...it is garnered from the people who work and create and produce the company's product, AND from people who buy that product. It really is that simple. Money made by money is NOT real valuable money. It is not EARNED in the conventional sense of the word.It is more often than not ELECTRONIC money, and has no real value at all...only the interest it pays is REAL money...and that real money is produced by MAKING a physical product from raw materials. Thereby making them more expensive to make AND sell.
And THAT, my friend, is called INFLATION..the prevalent ailment which corrupts and destroys everything
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-01-2011).]

Probably the stock market caused the inequity.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish:This is your stock rhetorical response, and as such doesn't really warrant a response because the average person on this Planet can answer that easily But I will say this: Common sense will tell us when somebody has enough, or MORE than enough.

What a complete and utter copout. You're essentially saying you get to decide, because you're reasonable and if someone disagrees it's because they're not reasonable.
So, what's "enough?" $20k a year? $50k? $100k? You don't consider different lifestyles or cost of living, either.

It's not a rhetorical question. If you're deciding when someone has "enough" then you're making a judgement of them based on that. You're judging their character, their morals, and their entire way of life and using your own values as the yardstick by which they're measured. That's not rhetorical, either.

Based on nothing more than their net worth, you've decided they are greedy or somehow addicted.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Because greed requires people to have or take more than they need. Just take a look at the people who wait in line for food etc when there has been a disaster. Greed and selfishness is the order of the day Hey, you know what? I enjoy immensely what I do, and only require a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And equally, as you ask 'why is greed the only thing you see', why did you not reply to the other part of my statement, in that it can be an addiction, rather than greed? I KNOW an addiction when I see one

And I know class envy when I see it.
How would you respond if by chance a big record mogul heard one of your performances and offered you a huge record deal worth millions?

You keep saying my questions are rhetorical so you can avoid answering. They are not rhetorical questions and anyone with a basic understanding of economics could answer them. It's plainly obvious to any reasonable person that you're going to view anyone with more than you as evil, greedy, and addicted to money. That's the lens you view the world through, but it's not reality. Well, it may be YOUR reality judging from what you've told us of your family and money issues, but it's not that way for everyone. Money can certaily bring out the worst in people. Lack of money can do the same. So can envy and lust for money.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 03-01-2011).]

You immediately get personal, and that is why I don't bother giving you more than one answer. You have not validated one SINGLE comment, nor effectively replied to one single question...and the World continues to be none the wiser from your reply. You have been posting the same myopic view since as long as I can remember, and it gets a bit boring now.You continue to bang your empty drum, which I believe you don't know how to play.But you saw somebody else banging it, and you decided to bang the same drum, but without the ability to understand WHY you are banging it, other than 'it sounded good when they did it...'
You have no idea whatsoever of the true definition of class If you DID, you'd refrain from personal derision and rhetorical answers every time you 'reply' to somebody who gives a reasonable and balanced personal opinion of WHY our World is in such a fiscal mess.
I would say thanks for replying...but there is no value or worth in getting personal, so...carry on shouting to a deaf World, and the multiple other deaf people who think THEY can bang the drum too Or go see an optician and get all-round vision, instead of peering down your myopic telescope .
There...I've sunk to your level now . If you would discuss the subject, instead of avoiding it with your banal rhetoric, we might ALL learn something here. Even YOU Maybe....we live in hope
For a good example of sensible discussion from somebody who probably holds a lot of your beliefs, check out some of 82TA/at work's posts.He doesn't always see eye to eye with me, but he never sinks to personal gibes or attacks in his replies hence it is a pleasure to discuss subjects pertaining to this and other subjects.
Just out of curiousity..how old are you? And what is your profession? You know almost all there is to know about me...you are just a user-name on a public car Forum to me. Enlighten me, if you will. I really am curious to see why you are so aggressively defensive on this type of subject.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Now, if you want to judge somebody's class by their lack of fincial wealth, go ahead. If you chose to judge somebody on their morals, aspirations and ways of achieving them , you are once again sadly misguided in your judgement of ME I chose to follow a way of life which , just like YOU, my Father looked down upon. But, I enjoyed it, without harming or dispossessing anybody else of anything THEY were rightly deserving of. Now, from my lowly and despicable lifetime's career, I am happily married for 20 years to the best woman a Man could ever wish for. I have a beautiful little house which Ellie and I have built with love, care, sweat and labour, on very menial income. I have two beautiful dogs whom we love, and they love us. We take NOTHING more than we deserve, and frequently accept a lot less. We pay our bills and taxes, we do everything that is expected of a normal, respectful couple, and we are happy. I have NO aspirations to take anybody else's wealth, property or possessions. I would not endeavour to part ANYBODY from their wealth, however begotten, because it is not my place or right to do so. However, I reserve the right to point out to others when they are being greedy, and leave it up to them to address, or not, that situation.

It would seem you take offense to my judgment of you. Yet, you have no problem making judgments of others.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: We take NOTHING more than we deserve

This is an interesting point of view. You blast the wealthy because they have so much more than they "need" but you take what you feel you "deserve." Very interesting.
You have no problem taking more than you "need" but you do have problem with others doing it. Those who scream the loudest about how unfair the wealthy are always seem to have one set of rules for the rich and another for themselves.

You should live your life the way you see fit free from judgment by me or anyone else on this earth. I submit that even the wealthy deserve the same from you.

Now I will thank you for responding civilly, and I appreciate that.
When I said 'we only take as much as we deserve', I didn't phrase that too well. I should have said 'as much as we merit'. And that is judged by those who pay us, up to a point. More often than not, it is less, and that is because the 'rewarders' for work well , and conscientiously, done, hold the power to give less. And inevitably do. THAT is partly how they become rich.
Please believe me, I do not have an envious or covetous bone in my body. And if I should have considered it desirable to be richer than I am, I certainly have the qualifications to BE so. I just see too much pleasure to be had by means other than money, and have never been inflamed by wanting much more than I have. And those means which would allow me to accumulate more than I need were not appealing to me. I don't enjoy trampling over other people in order to get what I might crave, which is seldom. I have dreams, but hey, sometimes they are better left as dreams. Ruthlessness is not a part of my psyche, and I don't miss having it.
I don't watch, enviously, somebody driving by in a beautiful car, or living in a beautiful house. I look in wonder, and appreciate them. It never crosses my mind to think ' I deserve one of those too...', or 'he doesn't deserve that...', because I am not in a position to judge that.
And events that have happened in the last few days prove something to ME. If it weren't for somebody being successful, and working hard in their life, they would not have been in the position to help me, and I wouldn't be sitting here typing on my favourite Forum
Nick
Edit to add:
"This is an interesting point of view. You blast the wealthy because they have so much more than they "need" but you take what you feel you "deserve." Very interesting. "...
I really have little option other than to ACCEPT what I deserve, because it is beyond my control to take more .People will RARELY pay that which is merited, if they can avoid it. For example: A guy from the builders who is working on the site of the burnt neighbour's house, has just delivered the burnt beams I have been using for firewood. He was told to do so by his Boss, because I keep an eye on the property incase somebody goes and steals materials. That guy was doing his job, and is paid for so doing. I couldn't let him do something for ME without some form of reward...because he DESERVED it. It was only a couple of euros...but you should have seen the gratitude for the recognition of what he was doing for me. THAT was worth more to me than the few euros I gave him. THAT is what gives me inordinate pleasure, and we BOTH are very happy . I can't really afford it, but it was worth it.
And finally,please don't leave out of quotes of my words the most important part of that quote, to 'enhance' your point, because that is not right. I will give you an example of how you have manipulated what I have said to suit your argument
MY comment:

"proud not to take anything I don't think I need or deserve, just because I can", and your representation of that comment:

"This is an interesting point of view. You blast the wealthy because they have so much more than they "need" but you take what you feel you "deserve."
See?

Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 03-02-2011).]