 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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?
There might be a selection bias here too. If I go to a grocery nearby I
most probably won't see any filthy rich person. They don't live here.
Then again I know some places where I wouldn't expect less than 90% rich
people (the other 10% being their servants).
But that might have been your point too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:41:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com>
wrote:
>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?
What part of the Netherlands do you live in, again? ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:37:51 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
<initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
>Like Zimbabwe...
Like Zimbabwe, indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:47:11 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>"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.
>
Fighting talk, where I come from. Worse than putting your empty beer
glass, upside down on the table.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> "Wealth" (2) is also called "privilege" because that's what it is--a
> privilege.
Actually, I'm going to dispute this. Your ability to hang on to the
money that others have voluntarily given you is not a privilege. It's a
fundamental fact.
This is what a war-lord is: someone with enough money to buy weapons and
defenses and to hire people to man them in order to keep you from taking
away what's left.
Midieval knights didn't get their armor by collecting taxes to pay for
it. They got their taxes by wearing armor to collect it.
In what conceivable sense is it a "privilege" to take at gunpoint
someone else's labor? I don't know about where you live, but here we
used to call that slavery.
I suspect that if Bill Gates took his $140 billion dollars to Kenya in
some form that wasn't just fiat currency, he would have no trouble at
all keeping it, given that he'd have twice the GDP of all of Kenya at
his disposal for buying fortresses, weapons, etc.
So no, having money that *you* earned isn't a privilege unless you think
"privilege" means "i've decided to not try to kill you for your money."
If you think it's a privilege not to be torn apart by the mob, yeah, I
can see where you might think being wealthy is a privilege.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "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.
Perhaps I phrased it wrong. It's that you're not conciously counting all
the people who aren't making $400K that you pass each day, because
they're not exceptional in your mind. (That's what "selection bias"
means, in some sense.)
--
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 wrote:
> St. wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Perhaps I phrased it wrong.
I.e., not that you're "ignoring them" as unworthy, but that you're
"ignoring them" when counting the percentage of people who make lots of
money. You obviously interact more with people who make lots of money -
that's how they make it.
Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K who don't have
millions and millions of dollars. (I know a fair number of people who
have millions and millions of dollars, tho.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Nota Bene. With the real figures the bottom 50% pay between 7% and 12%
> on their taxable income whereas the top 50% pay between 12% and 28%,
You're missing the AMT there, which goes 29% to 36% this year, I think.
Anyway, here's another question to ponder: How much of the government
services do people making >$200K consume?
I'd expect they're paying for public schools and sending their kids to
private schools.
I don't imagine the police are coming around to their house every week.
I don't imagine they take up *too* many hours of public defender's time.
They're not on welfare.
They're indeed paying half of *everyone*'s FICA taxes. If not 3/4'ths.
I wouldn't imagine they use up (say) ten times as much military
preparedness.
They can afford to hire their own bodyguards, so they don't need police
cruising the neighborhood.
So what *is* the excuse for taking more, other than "the rich people
don't get hurt enough to actually fight back with violence."
--
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 14:18:53 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K
And you work in IT?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:14:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
> yeah, I
>can see where you might think being wealthy is a privilege.
Come the revolution, comrade :)
That's how the B*st*rds grind us down by promises that we can join
them.
--
Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
:-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
