 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sherry Shaw" <ten### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:4802e18d@news.povray.org...
> Oh, Lord love a duck. Please allow me to reiterate. Wealth is a
> privilege, not a right.
On a side note. I ran across this today
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/11/who%e2%80%99s-to-blame-for-midd
le-class-woes/
Now, I know very little about the economic situation in the US, other that
what I read, so I may be waaaay off base but...
Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
else completely without blame?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> that's who gets paid for that privilege, in the form of higher tax
> rates.
I wouldn't say it's a privilege, as the wealth-creator is already giving
much back to the country in terms of creating wealth. That's why they
get money. Everyone giving them money thinks they should have it.
Except the government. They get money because they shoot you if you
don't give it to them.
> 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.
Well, sure. I am not sure why you're arguing that rich people should
pay more taxes, since they do.
> 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.
Sure. But as the IRS documents showed, the government doesn't seem to be
handing out big stacks of cash as a reward for being rich.
> It's on a web page produced by a political action organization.
It's on a web page produced by "political action organization"??
It's on a web page produced by THE F'ING CONGRESS OF THE USA!
Of *course* it's a political action organization! It's what we elect
them for, to take political action!
I ask you again: where do you think you'd get better numbers on tax
rates than a congressional investigation requesting the IRS summarize
those numbers?
If you count the IRS as a "political action organization", what
organization would you trust to give you the numbers you're asking about?
If you think the congress and the IRS are lying, then you'll have to
come up with something more than "I don't believe it" to be credible. I,
personally, believe the IRS is a credible source of information about
how much taxes were collected from whom.
> How is $100K for a Lamberghini not waste,
Because you can't get a Lamberghini for $50, even used.
> And how in heaven's name is that Indy car different from a very
> expensive lottery ticket?
It's not. They're both investments. Different costs, and different
qualities, but both investments.
>> 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.
I switched from "money" to "wealth" when you knocked it down to only two
people, removing any need for money and any possibility of competition.
I think you're confusing "money" with "currency."
This leads me to believe you don't know how wealth actually works, or
how money actually works, or both.
> Why is investing faster than merely spending?
Oh. Because I don't expect to get back and use up the result of
investing as quickly as I get back and use up the result of spending.
See, when you "spend", you trade some money for some stuff, and then
you're done. I "spend" money on rent, because once I write the check, I
have a month's worth of shelter in my pocket.
When I invest, it takes much longer to recoup my money, and maybe I'll
never get value from it. I spend money to buy a house that I plan to
rent out to others. But it takes me years and years of collecting rent
to get the value of my investment back.
Investments are when you give other people money in order to enable them
to create value, then taking part of the value they create in return for
having created the opportunity. Since there are many more people out
there than just me who are capable of creating value given the
opportunity, I can invest much more in other people than I can spend on
myself.
I can buy rental houses for lots of renters, whereas I couldn't live in
more than just a couple myself.
>> 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.
No, they bought low and unfortunately sold lower because the tax laws
encouraged that. Of course, they were taxed *as if* they sold high.
I see you've never run into the AMT before.
Spending $5000 to buy and selling for $2000 isn't a disaster. Owing
$100,000 in taxes on that transaction because folks like you think that
being able to keep your own money is somehow a privilege? That is the
problem. Folks who don't know that there's a difference between wealth
and money. Of course, the government prefers money the treasury can
forge, so you are required to pay your taxes in FRNs. If the folks I was
talking about were able to pay their taxes in stock certificates, it
also wouldn't have been a problem.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Impossibly low. I've been acquainted with too many people who make that
> kind of money. $364,657 is common-as-dirt doctor/lawyer income, not
> filthy rich.
Huh. I think you're mistaken, but OK.
So go and find more reputable numbers than the IRS. When the IRS says
"99%th percentile is $364K", and Sherry Shaw says "my gut feelin' is
a-tellin' me that's too low, and besides, my gout says it's a gonna
rain", I'll take the IRS's word for it.
Are you accounting for the money the doctors and lawyers are paying out
to run their businesses, like malpractice insurance and all?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:49:59 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
<initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
>else completely without blame?
Governments are an easy target and it is healthier than blaming
minority groups.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> It's on a web page produced by a political action organization.
> It's on a web page produced by "political action organization"??
> It's on a web page produced by THE F'ING CONGRESS OF THE USA!
Apologies. Being undercaffinated, it didn't occur to me you might not
know how the USA's tax system works.
This is a report from the people who *write* the tax laws, saying "this
is what the people who *collect* the taxes told us they're collecting,
which we should consider when we ammend next year's tax laws."
It's not a political action committee. It's the actual elected officials
in charge of deciding on how much tax to collect from whom, saying
"here's how it works out right now."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Impossibly low. I've been acquainted with too many people who make that
> kind of money. $364,657 is common-as-dirt doctor/lawyer income, not
> filthy rich.
By the way, I think thinking fully 1% of the population should be
"filthy rich" is a bad idea. I also think that this is typical selection
bias.
How many patients do you think that doctor sees? Let's be generous, and
say four a day, for 200 days a year. That's 800 patients, presumedly few
who are themselves doctors.
How many health insurance adjusters are there for each doctor?
Walk into the big grocery store nearby. Look around. How many people
shopping there do you think are making $400K a year?
Watch a movie. Look at the credits. How many people in the 5 minute
scroll of names do you think are making as much money as the names in
the first 30 seconds of the scroll?
It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the
poor people who you pass every day.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
> else completely without blame?
Generally, it takes a government with the ability to print its own money
and to take away yours against your will to *really* screw up an
economy. Otherwise, you just get particular sectors having trouble.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4803ab8e$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is
everyone
> > else completely without blame?
>
> Generally, it takes a government with the ability to print its own money
> and to take away yours against your will to *really* screw up an
> economy.
Like Zimbabwe...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:49:59 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
> <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
>> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
>> else completely without blame?
>
> Governments are an easy target and it is healthier than blaming
> minority groups.
You mean that in western societies we have a silent majority of civil
servants?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...
> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the poor
> people who you pass every day.
That was a low call.
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New /
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
