Darren New wrote:
> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>> I say again, I am _not_ complaining that they're wealthy.  I'm 
>> _observing_ that they're wealthy not only because they're good at what 
>> they do (getting wealth, among other things), but because they had the 
>> immense good fortune to be born in a location where it was possible 
>> for them to exercise that ability.
> 
> I meant in the over-all screed.
> 

Oh, Lord love a duck.  Please allow me to reiterate.  Wealth is a 
privilege, not a right.  Privileges have to be paid for.  Wealth in the 
US (or pick the industrialized nation of your choice) is always in part 
a result of the wealth-getter's access to the opportunities available in 
the US (or pick the industrialized nation of your choice), therefore 
that's who gets paid for that privilege, in the form of higher tax 
rates.  It's reasonable.  It's not reasonable to reward people for 
making lots of money, because they've already been rewarded, with lots 
of money.

That's my point, my whole point, and nothing but my point.  I have 
absolutely no objection to people getting rich.  I have lots and lots of 
objection to governments effectively handing out big stacks of cash to 
rich people as a reward for being rich.  It's just creepy, and it 
doesn't get the road repaired.

> 
> Did you actually look at where the numbers come from?
> 

No, because there's no way of knowing.  The table contains what appears 
to be a summary of tax information, unsupported by any raw data or any 
indication of how the figures were calculated.  It's on a web page 
produced by a political action organization.  But I didn't see any 
references to anyone being probed by aliens, so maybe it's reliable.

> 
>> Ah.  Define "waste."
> 
> Spending it without getting a fraction of the value?
> You could pay $100K for a used honda civic and waste your money.
> You could pay $100K for a new lotos lambergini and not waste your money.
> You could pay $100K to a good teacher on the condition he stop teaching, 
> and create negative value.
> You could pay $100K for an Indy formula-1 race car and invest your money.
> 

How is $100K for a Lamberghini not waste, if a $50 used Honda Civic will 
get you where you're going, and with better gas mileage?  Where's the 
line?  And how in heaven's name is that Indy car different from a very 
expensive lottery ticket?

> 
>>> Clearly, if you had more than half the money in the world, you 
>>> couldn't spend it all. Other than that...
> 
>> Amelia the Wonder Dog and I are the last two people in the world.  I 
>> have $10.  She has $5 and the last bottle of Guinness in the world.  I 
>> say, "Please sell me that bottle of Guinness."  She says, "I will, for 
>> $10."  You can imagine the rest.
> 
> Then she has more wealth than you, because she has $5 plus $10 worth of 
> beer, and you only have $10. If it's down to two people, you can't value 
> "money" abstractly any more. Fiat currency doesn't work when there's 
> only two people.
> 

Oopsie, you switched from "money" to "wealth" as if they were the same 
thing, and then turned around and said that they're different.  Naughty.

>> There's a speed difference between "spending" and "investing"?
> 
> Uh, sure. Wait. I don't know. What's a "speed difference"?
> 

Got it right here...."I read that at one point, assuming Bill Gates 
worked 14 hours a day, it wasn't worth the four seconds it would take 
for him to bend over and pick up a $500 bill he dropped. I'd say that's 
'faster than you can spend it.'  Not faster than you can invest it, of 
course."

Why is investing faster than merely spending?

>>
>> I think that's called "evolution at work."
> 
> It's called "not understanding the fuckage that is the USA tax system."
> 

There's that.  And also not understanding the whole "buy low, sell high" 
thing.

>> It strikes me that the ability to fly, both in the world and between 
>> realities (if you count Death's Place as an alternate reality), could 
>> easily be enough to make your poop sparkle, at least as a side effect, 
> 
> ... "And other sentences not often heard" ...
> 

LOL!

>> but that's just a speculation.  And sure, Mort had to muck out the 
>> stable, but did he follow Binky around with a pooper-scooper while he 
>> (Binky, that is) was on duty?  I think not.
> 
> I will concede that perhaps Binky's poop was sparkly enough to attract 
> ravens as well as sparrows.
> 

And let us not forget the blue jays.  And of course the techies, geeks, 
and nerds.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message