A question for conservatives on restoring the middle class.

The problem isn't people wanting to get ahead and do as well for themselves as possible.

The problem is the playing field isn't level, and people that already "got theirs" actively work to keep it from becoming level.

The best thing for the advancement of society would be a level playing field where everyone is working their hardest to better themselves and has equal opportunities to do so.

It's not greedy to want to do as well for yourself as possible (with in some limits of course), it's greed to only care about doing so and not care about harming others in the process, and not caring that a huge swath of the population has almost no chance to follow in your footsteps simply because of where they were born etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem isn't people wanting to get ahead and do as well for themselves as possible.

The problem is the playing field isn't level, and people that already "got theirs" actively work to keep it from becoming level.

The best thing for the advancement of society would be a level playing field where everyone is working their hardest to better themselves and has equal opportunities to do so.

It's not greedy to want to do as well for yourself as possible (with in some limits of course), it's greed to only care about doing so and not care about harming others in the process, and not caring that a huge swath of the population has almost no chance to follow in your footsteps simply because of where they were born etc.[/QUOTE]
Right. Another problem is the cognitive dissonance when people talk about generational wealth aka inheritance and how it plays a huge role in pricing people out of the, to use your term, playing field.
 
I've really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to contribute, but couldn't really find anything more to add. I'm in the same place Javery is ($200k+ annual pre tax income) and yet and I certainly don't feel rich in any way apart from this weird external sort of realization that I'm fucking fabulously wealthy.

Anyway, this page really spoke to how I personally feel about being rich and not at the same time. It's a great read if you've got 5 minutes.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html
 
A decent read, but nothing really new. I think most of us here know it's really the top .01% that have most of the money and power and that there's a huge gap between them and the bottom half of the top 1%. Hell, that's a lot of what this thread is about--how absurdly overpaid those executives etc. who are in the top half of the top 1% are.

And it's still hard to take seriously the complaints/stresses listed for the bottom half of the top 1% listed in the article. Things like having to take a step back in lifestyle after retiring, watch retirement accounts decrease overtime, and worry about leaving a big inheritance are pretty petty things to wine about when so many people have to worry about things like keeping the power on and keeping food on the table.
 
I agree with your point. It's just weird to me because we're living it right now. We went from under $50k total household income for the last 4 years to a huge jump. I thought my train of thought would change significantly and it really hasn't at all. It's the never ending quest for security, just from a different vantage point.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I agree with your point. It's just weird to me because we're living it right now. We went from under $50k total household income for the last 4 years to a huge jump. I thought my train of thought would change significantly and it really hasn't at all. It's the never ending quest for security, just from a different vantage point.[/QUOTE]

Well, the key to security is to not live like you make $200k+ even though you do.

Live way under your new means and you can save a lot more toward retirement, pay down any debts quickly etc.

Too many people see a big income increase and go and up their lifestyle to where they still can't save a whole lot more than they did before.

The key is to find the right balance. Up your lifestyle some to take some advantage of your hard work and having more money, but don't go crazy with it and still focus on living well below your means and saving up.

A big problem in our society is it's very consumeristic and people are never happy with what they have. A person makes $50k an wants more so they can have a bigger house and nicer car and take nicer vacations etc, they move on in their careers and make $200k and move and get all those things and then they want all the nicer stuff their even wealthier colleagues have and so on.

Not saying that's your problem speedracer, just a general rant!
 
[quote name='speedracer']I've really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to contribute, but couldn't really find anything more to add. I'm in the same place Javery is ($200k+ annual pre tax income) and yet and I certainly don't feel rich in any way apart from this weird external sort of realization that I'm fucking fabulously wealthy.

Anyway, this page really spoke to how I personally feel about being rich and not at the same time. It's a great read if you've got 5 minutes.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html[/QUOTE]
There's a term for bourgeoise fuckers like you(class envy herpa derpa...heh;)): High Earning Not Rich Yet or HENRY.

That was an interesting article. I don't disagree with it despite how conspiritorial and whiney it may sound to 99% of people. Now, what the article is saying is the same argument I use against those that complain about welfare queens: that they might have filet and lobster for a week and starve for the rest of the month or they might have a BMW or a Lincoln, but they're also more than 6 years old or how they don't live in nice houses. I don't disagree that the 99-99.5% percentile doesn't have access to what the 99.5+ percentile have, but the huge caveat is that persistence is already hugely skewed at the 99th percentile, rather than mere subsistance of whichever percentile the average household income is.

Not that this is directed at you of course because my entire point in this thread is that you don't have to buy into the bullshit narrative that comes from "thriving" within a capitalist system and understanding that the accumulation has a very high cost, which you haven't, judging from your posts.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
It's not greedy to want to do as well for yourself as possible (with in some limits of course), it's greed to only care about doing so and not care about harming others in the process, and not caring that a huge swath of the population has almost no chance to follow in your footsteps simply because of where they were born etc.[/QUOTE]

That part pretty much summarizes my entire opinion on the matter.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I've really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to contribute, but couldn't really find anything more to add. I'm in the same place Javery is ($200k+ annual pre tax income) and yet and I certainly don't feel rich in any way apart from this weird external sort of realization that I'm fucking fabulously wealthy.

Anyway, this page really spoke to how I personally feel about being rich and not at the same time. It's a great read if you've got 5 minutes.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html[/QUOTE]

In my view, the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it.
Click to expand...

That's the key. Historically, people have suffered worse then the average bluecollar American worker does today. However like an addict the worker class clings to the Horatio Alger mythology and all of it's various incantations in politics and pop culture because, hey, it's better then facing reality. Things have to hit rock bottom before people start to wake up and unfortunately by that point I fear it won't be pretty. While the political and financial elite may take us to the brink, they're smart enough to realize that when cutting up the cake it's best to leave a few crumbs for the mice.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's the key. Historically, people have suffered worse then the average bluecollar American worker does today. However like an addict the worker class clings to the Horatio Alger mythology and all of it's various incantations in politics and pop culture because, hey, it's better then facing reality. Things have to hit rock bottom before people start to wake up and unfortunately by that point I fear it won't be pretty. While the political and financial elite may take us to the brink, they're smart enough to realize that when cutting up the cake it's best to leave a few crumbs for the mice.[/QUOTE]


While I agree with what you're saying generally, I don't think many people really aspire to be rich. I think most people know that realistically it's probably not going to happen for them.

Most people I know just strive for a comfortable living. Being able to afford a decent house in a decent neighborhood, own a decent car, have no worries in paying for utilities (including luxuries like internet and cable/satellite) or taking a family vacation every summer etc.

I've always thought the American dream was more that--the notion that you can work hard and at least achieve a nice, middle-class lifestyle.

Of course, for many even reaching that level of success is difficult do to all the obstacles they were born into, so the American Dream--even at this level--is a farce for many.

But I've not known many people who actively believed they could achieve more than that and truly had a goal of being a millionaire etc. Most just want job security and enough money for a nice middle-class lifestyle and a decent retirement.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']While I agree with what you're saying generally, I don't think many people really aspire to be rich. I think most people know that realistically it's probably not going to happen for them.

Most people I know just strive for a comfortable living. Being able to afford a decent house in a decent neighborhood, own a decent car, have no worries in paying for utilities (including luxuries like internet and cable/satellite) or taking a family vacation every summer etc.

I've always thought the American dream was more that--the notion that you can work hard and at least achieve a nice, middle-class lifestyle.

Of course, for many even reaching that level of success is difficult do to all the obstacles they were born into, so the American Dream--even at this level--is a farce for many.

But I've not known many people who actively believed they could achieve more than that and truly had a goal of being a millionaire etc. Most just want job security and enough money for a nice middle-class lifestyle and a decent retirement.[/QUOTE]
The American Dream has meant different things since it's inception. It's roots go back to the original marketing ploys of British capitalists to come over here, start over with plenty of land and willing natives to work that land. There were variants of that, but that's the basic idea. And if one remembers their elementary school US history, indentured servitude was another way to "gain status" by working off debts. As living standards changed and modernized, so did the idea of the American Dream. At one point, it might've meant becoming solidly middle-class with two cars, a house in the suburbs, and a white picket fence, but now it means making it BIG. BIG meaning Bill Gates Arnold Schwarzenegger BIG. The only thing that they all have in common is the huge streak of bootstrapping that was always a lie perpetuated by the power elite because that power was always inherited to begin with.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I've really enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to contribute, but couldn't really find anything more to add. I'm in the same place Javery is ($200k+ annual pre tax income) and yet and I certainly don't feel rich in any way apart from this weird external sort of realization that I'm fucking fabulously wealthy.

Anyway, this page really spoke to how I personally feel about being rich and not at the same time. It's a great read if you've got 5 minutes.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the club! This seems strangely reminiscent to where I really entered the vs thread. Though *technically* I'm not in the club any more, I know what you're feeling. Try not to take it too personally when you get pelted with the "you're rich, dont complain" lines.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, the key to security is to not live like you make $200k+ even though you do.

Live way under your new means and you can save a lot more toward retirement, pay down any debts quickly etc.

Too many people see a big income increase and go and up their lifestyle to where they still can't save a whole lot more than they did before.

The key is to find the right balance. Up your lifestyle some to take some advantage of your hard work and having more money, but don't go crazy with it and still focus on living well below your means and saving up.[/QUOTE]

Having savings and all is nice, but you'll still never quite feel rich (at least I didnt/wont) until you have "fuck you!" money. You still will always know that your lifestyle could collapse, even catastrophically, if "something bad" happens. To me that's the difference between "comfortable" and "rich", but I see many make no such distinction.

[quote name='dmaul1114']While I agree with what you're saying generally, I don't think many people really aspire to be rich. I think most people know that realistically it's probably not going to happen for them.

Most people I know just strive for a comfortable living. Being able to afford a decent house in a decent neighborhood, own a decent car, have no worries in paying for utilities (including luxuries like internet and cable/satellite) or taking a family vacation every summer etc.[/QUOTE]

I'd generally agree with this. It seems some on the boards though think that even this is 'extravagant'.

I've always thought the American dream was more that--the notion that you can work hard and at least achieve a nice, middle-class lifestyle.

Of course, for many even reaching that level of success is difficult do to all the obstacles they were born into, so the American Dream--even at this level--is a farce for many.
Click to expand...
This is what I refuse to believe, though. There is no doubt that some have more obstacles to overcome than others, but I've been of the belief that far too many people 'give up' in the face of these obstacles rather than take advantage of the help that is available to them. Today, in this economy it's much harder, but I saw this 'giving up' even during the high times of the late 90's. People who had access to the tools to "move up", didnt go after them because doing so would be 'uncomfortable'. I'd rather focus on those that are at the end of their rope.

But I've not known many people who actively believed they could achieve more than that and truly had a goal of being a millionaire etc. Most just want job security and enough money for a nice middle-class lifestyle and a decent retirement.
Click to expand...

I never thought much about being a millionaire, but now, I know I *will* be one. Of course, being a millionaire is not what it used to be so it's more of a hollow achievement now.:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']At one point, it might've meant becoming solidly middle-class with two cars, a house in the suburbs, and a white picket fence, but now it means making it BIG. BIG meaning Bill Gates Arnold Schwarzenegger BIG. [/QUOTE]

I was more just disagreeing with that change.

I think the vast majority of people know they aren't going to be the next Bill Gates, and having that kind of success mostly involves luck, and/or being born into it, rather than hard work.

Like I said, most everyone I know just wants the solid middle class lifestyle. If they luck out and get more than that, great. But most just have a goal of not having debt beyond mortgage and sometimes a car payment, and having a decent life without having to worry about pinching pennies to make ends meet.

But of course, there's self selection bias there as most of my social circles are fellow academics/researchers and young professionals rather than doctors, lawyers etc. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was more just disagreeing with that change.

I think the vast majority of people know they aren't going to be the next Bill Gates, and having that kind of success mostly involves luck, and/or being born into it, rather than hard work.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...have you been paying attention to this thread and others when they talk about Bill Gates or other wealthy fucks? I mean seriously, most people, in general, think that Bill Gates was so smart that he dropped out of HARVARD and built M$ by writing lines of code ALL BY HIMSELF...in a garage.

I'd even wager to say that most people on this board are pretty drunk on the the meritocracy myth koolaid. The ones that don't have the money like knoell and bob have been suckered hook, line, and sinker on one hand, and on the other, you have guys like javery and hostyl1 saying in this thread, that they did it, then anyone can do it. You have a hint of it and even I do, but we also aren't heavily invested in it, or at least, it doesn't seem to me that you are. If anything, I think we more or less just disagree on the work to luck ratio.

Like I said, most everyone I know just wants the solid middle class lifestyle. If they luck out and get more than that, great. But most just have a goal of not having debt beyond mortgage and sometimes a car payment, and having a decent life without having to worry about pinching pennies to make ends meet.

But of course, there's self selection bias there as most of my social circles are fellow academics/researchers and young professionals rather than doctors, lawyers etc. :D
Click to expand...
Haha...yeah...I'd say there's a smidgen of selection bias. I'd say that people in certain industries tend to be touched more by my definition of the American Dream than other. In my circle, they tend to be more in software development, engineering, and finance. They're pretty much having HENRY "issues."
 
I don't know what planet you guys come from when you say 100-200k is "not rich". I'd be able to retire early on something like 75k... I'm just happy to be employed when so many are out of work.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't know what planet you guys come from when you say 100-200k is "not rich". I'd be able to retire early on something like 75k... I'm just happy to be employed when so many are out of work.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but when you factor in an expensive house, nanny, landscaper, 2 late model cars, disney vacations, maxing out your 401, putting away $1k a month per kid for college, investments, and private school, you're really doing no better off than someone making $30k cause it could all come crashing down at.any.moment.

1442814-trollface_super.jpg
 
[quote name='speedracer']I agree with your point. It's just weird to me because we're living it right now. We went from under $50k total household income for the last 4 years to a huge jump. I thought my train of thought would change significantly and it really hasn't at all. It's the never ending quest for security, just from a different vantage point.[/QUOTE]

You worry too much. Enjoy life before you die.

[quote name='dmaul1114']While I agree with what you're saying generally, I don't think many people really aspire to be rich. I think most people know that realistically it's probably not going to happen for them.

Most people I know just strive for a comfortable living. Being able to afford a decent house in a decent neighborhood, own a decent car, have no worries in paying for utilities (including luxuries like internet and cable/satellite) or taking a family vacation every summer etc.

I've always thought the American dream was more that--the notion that you can work hard and at least achieve a nice, middle-class lifestyle.

Of course, for many even reaching that level of success is difficult do to all the obstacles they were born into, so the American Dream--even at this level--is a farce for many.

But I've not known many people who actively believed they could achieve more than that and truly had a goal of being a millionaire etc. Most just want job security and enough money for a nice middle-class lifestyle and a decent retirement.[/QUOTE]

Good point, arguing stuff on the internet will warp your mind.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I'd even wager to say that most people on this board are pretty drunk on the the meritocracy myth koolaid. The ones that don't have the money like knoell and bob have been suckered hook, line, and sinker on one hand, and on the other, you have guys like javery and hostyl1 saying in this thread, that they did it, then anyone can do it. [/QUOTE]

Well, a couple things to that.

I think Knoell and Bob and their ilk are more saying that they think people like Bill Gates etc. earned their worth and shouldn't be "punished" for being rich through higher taxes on high income brackets and that kind of thing.

I don't think they have delusions that anyone can achieve that kind of success. Bob seems pretty content with his Wal-mart career for instance, so I don't think he has any secret hopes of working hard and striking it rich. They just think it takes hard work and luck to hit it big and those who do shouldn't be "punished."

For the other, I do think some go a little too far in thinking anyone can achieve what they have. It's very hard for some kid growing up in a crappy area with crappy (or non-existent) parents who don't give a crap to go on to success.

Outside of that, as long as one is lucky enough to have a supportive family that keeps them in school and gets them through high school with say a 3.0 gpa or above, at that point pretty much anyone can succeed as you should have no problems getting into college (though you may need loans) and at that point it's all on you to make the most of your life. At that point your an adult and have an opportunity and it's up to you to take advantage of it.

Yeah, some still have to deal with discrimination etc. and that sucks. But once you're in college it's on you to do well, get a degree in a major that will help you with what you want to do in your career etc. Pretty much everyone who gets a degree in a useful field with a decent GPA is probably going to go on to at least have a solid, lower middle class life at worst.

But there are of course huge generational barriers out of children's control that make it hard for many to ever get to that point. And you're absolutely right that far too many who've succeeded ignore that.

I grew up in a very poor, rural area. If I hadn't had supportive parents who always stayed on me to do well in school etc. I'd no doubt be like many of the kids I grew up with who had bad home environments who at worst have ended up on drugs and in and out of jail, and at best work in low paying, back breaking factory jobs, or as coal miners etc.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't know what planet you guys come from when you say 100-200k is "not rich". I'd be able to retire early on something like 75k... I'm just happy to be employed when so many are out of work.[/QUOTE]

Where do you live? Retire early on 75K? That's laughable. (even assuming you *dont* have a family).
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'd even wager to say that most people on this board are pretty drunk on the the meritocracy myth koolaid. The ones that don't have the money like knoell and bob have been suckered hook, line, and sinker on one hand, and on the other, you have guys like javery and hostyl1 saying in this thread, that they did it, then anyone can do it. You have a hint of it and even I do, but we also aren't heavily invested in it, or at least, it doesn't seem to me that you are. If anything, I think we more or less just disagree on the work to luck ratio.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone can do it... although I definitely lean that way. I was fortunate that my parents provided enough guidance for me to realize how important a good education was so I studied hard, paid my own way through law school and got a good job that I bust my ass every day in order to keep. However, my dad grew up in nowhere WVA without much in the way of money. He put himself through a local college and then moved to Pittsburgh as soon as he graduated and ended up doing pretty well for himself. I really can't say the same about anyone else on his side of the family.

There is luck involved in becoming successful - there's no denying that. I mean, I was lucky that my BC final in law school didn't ask anything about the gun-jumping rules because that stuff is confusing so I ended up with an A in the class. "I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it" and "luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity" - or something. ;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'd even wager to say that most people on this board are pretty drunk on the the meritocracy myth koolaid. The ones that don't have the money like knoell and bob have been suckered hook, line, and sinker on one hand, and on the other, you have guys like javery and hostyl1 saying in this thread, that they did it, then anyone can do it. You have a hint of it and even I do, but we also aren't heavily invested in it, or at least, it doesn't seem to me that you are. If anything, I think we more or less just disagree on the work to luck ratio.[/quote]
Seeing what the mountaintop looks like now, I agree with this 100%. My wife is the big money maker in our house. I'm just a lowly city government worker. Her law school experience was incredible in the way it fully explained how the system works.

Javery et al are right to say it's a meritocracy, but it's not the whole story. To become a Big Law lawyer (and I assume it's the same in other extremely high pay areas), you have to have a range of talents that makes the meritocracy sort of a moot point. To get where she is, my wife had to be an amazing student (she's the best by orders of magnitude I've ever seen), she had to just happen to be a fabulous writer (journalism undergrad and an English teaching mother), she had to just happen to be a fabulous speaker that could shine under pressure (she was the press officer for an Israeli consulate during a war), and she had to just happen to intern at Big Law firms that didn't get hammered by the recession and were able to offer her a job.

Or you could just be a legacy at Yale.

I know people, amazingly talented people, that were missing just one of those things and can't find work as lawyers. The best advocate (speaking wise) I've ever met is an Afghan war veteran tending bar in Austin because he's a terrible writer. The best researcher I've ever met is a legislative aide in Austin making $20k a year because she interned at a firm that got crushed by the recession and didn't make her an offer.

The day my wife started law school, I said goodbye to her. I did every dish, every load of laundry, every everything so that we could 100% invest in her grad work for the next 2 years. She literally studied 14 hours a day on the weekend. Every weekend. We left her father's 60th birthday after 20 mins because it was cutting into her study time. I'll never forget that... Without my full and unwavering support she probably doesn't go wire to wire #1 in her class, probably doesn't make law review, probably doesn't win an award for best law review article, probably doesn't get noticed by law firms, and we're just like countless others with crushing near six figure school debt accruing at 6.8% while we're praying our paychecks cover the rent.

Even in the meritocracy, it's a lottery within a lottery within a lottery.

If anything, it's reinforced my belief in soft socialism. Not making it shouldn't mean an economic death sentence of hand-to-mouth existence forever. People should be able to jump for the brass ring without fearing a life of indentured servitude to their student loan and the knowledge their kids will never have sufficient health insurance. The result has us where dohdough is pointing at. A country full of people willing to slit anyone's throat for an illusion of security that will never be enough.

Berzirk is right too though. You shouldn't be punished for succeeding. We just need to find the balance and in my mind, that's basic security for everyone. Food, shelter, health care. I think if we did that, the need to burn the world down to increase margins by a half percent wouldn't look like such a good idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Berzirk is right too though. You shouldn't be punished for succeeding. We just need to find the balance and in my mind, that's basic security for everyone. Food, shelter, health care. I think if we did that, the need to burn the world down to increase margins by a half percent wouldn't look like such a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Punished for succeeding. LOL that's rich.

People are going to bitch about taxes regardless. Please tell me - is your wife going to work less hard and make less money when the Bush W. tax cuts go into effect?
 
[quote name='camoor']Please tell me - is your wife going to work less hard and make less money when the Bush W. tax cuts go into effect?[/QUOTE]

Actually camoor, this is *kinda* what some people want at least in the terms of corporate execs. They want at a certain level, for taxes to be so 'oppressive' (for lack of a better term) that there is less incentive for them to want to earn income. The thought is, that instead of the money going into one person's pocket who has enough, that money would be re-invested into the business which would help create jobs/ be used to pay rank and file members more. And if some reason, the person will take any extra income they can get, at least the government could use the taxes for social services.

I'm actually not opposed to that. Some could say it's a "punishment" but there is a choice.
 
Yep. That's exactly what we all mean by saying we need some way to reign in executive pay--be it higher taxes on very high incomes, caps on executive pay (tied to the company's profit or whatever) etc.

Provide some disincentive for taking huge salaries so that more money gets re-invested into the company, and if not and they still take it at least it's raising a lot of tax dollars to pay down the debt, expand social services etc.

And to be clear, I'm talking about people making multi-millions a year. Not the lawyers and doctors etc. making $250k or whatever. Any tax increases in those brackets would be smaller. The main problem is the top half of the top 1% we were discussing above. There needs to be some disincentive there to say take a $5 million bonus on top of your $3 million salary etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Punished for succeeding. LOL that's rich.

People are going to bitch about taxes regardless. Please tell me - is your wife going to work less hard and make less money when the Bush W. tax cuts go into effect?[/QUOTE]
Of course not. I guess I take a wider view. It was not long ago that the top tax rate was 70%. I think that's positively insane. My wife and I both fully support the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and I personally consider it a mark against Obama that he not only didn't let it expire already, but that $300 bil of the stimulus money was in tax cuts.

But I think there is a line and I think it's the responsibility of libs like myself to make the case that we can use tax money effectively and efficiently. We all want reform but to our detriment and to the credit of conservatives that point it out, our "liberal" politicians are incredibly inept at both making that case and leading the charge to make it happen. You and I saying X and Y will do amazing things doesn't matter if the people we elect throw another hundred bil here and there and pretend that that's all we really needed.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Of course not. I guess I take a wider view. It was not long ago that the top tax rate was 70%. I think that's positively insane. My wife and I both fully support the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and I personally consider it a mark against Obama that he not only didn't let it expire already, but that $300 bil of the stimulus money was in tax cuts.

But I think there is a line and I think it's the responsibility of libs like myself to make the case that we can use tax money effectively and efficiently. We all want reform but to our detriment and to the credit of conservatives that point it out, our "liberal" politicians are incredibly inept at both making that case and leading the charge to make it happen. You and I saying X and Y will do amazing things doesn't matter if the people we elect throw another hundred bil here and there and pretend that that's all we really needed.[/QUOTE]

Eh, you're raising larger questions now.

Basically I think all these rich people bitching about tax hikes is bluster. Noone likes to takehome less money but at the end of the day none of the executive class is going to stop working as hard because the govt takes a little more of a percentage off the top. They may move more of their biz overseas but that's just speeding up what's more-or-less an inevitability.

While liberals may be inept at making their policy ideas a reality, I wouldn't be so quick to give conservatives credit. The enactment of conservative ideology over the past few years hasn't exactly resulted in rainbows and kittens.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Actually camoor, this is *kinda* what some people want at least in the terms of corporate execs. They want at a certain level, for taxes to be so 'oppressive' (for lack of a better term) that there is less incentive for them to want to earn income. The thought is, that instead of the money going into one person's pocket who has enough, that money would be re-invested into the business which would help create jobs/ be used to pay rank and file members more. And if some reason, the person will take any extra income they can get, at least the government could use the taxes for social services.

I'm actually not opposed to that. Some could say it's a "punishment" but there is a choice.[/QUOTE]

I believe his wife was in the 250K-300K bracket but I get your point and I agree. I have a 99% certainty that none of these execs are going to stop working as hard with a salary cap in place because they know it's still a sweet deal, besides even if they did quit there's no shortage of replacement execs with a comparable competency at that salary range (just look at the successful CEOS of Japan or Europe...)

It's not pure captitalism, but didn't we all learn that pure capitalism is not the best system when we played Monopoly as children? Always shocking when you run into people who still haven't learned the lesson all these years later.
 
[quote name='camoor']Eh, you're raising larger questions now.

Basically I think all these rich people bitching about tax hikes is bluster. Noone likes to takehome less money but at the end of the day none of the executive class is going to stop working as hard because the govt takes a little more of a percentage off the top. They may move more of their biz overseas but that's just speeding up what's more-or-less an inevitability.
QUOTE]

But I do think a side-effect is that they become more aggressive in finding every tax loophole, and find more ways to stick it to Uncle Sam. They could potentially attempt to increase their wages even more to offset the losses in taxes, which doesn't help their subordinates in the least. Another side-effect (assuming they are even mildly charitable) will be less in donations to needy organizations as they may justify the new amounts they lose in taxes to make up for that. Charities have been hit hard with how bad the economy has been the last few years. I'd rather have even an inefficient charity get my donation over the government, because at least I know what the charity stands for.
 
[quote name='camoor']Eh, you're raising larger questions now.

Basically I think all these rich people bitching about tax hikes is bluster. Noone likes to takehome less money but at the end of the day none of the executive class is going to stop working as hard because the govt takes a little more of a percentage off the top. They may move more of their biz overseas but that's just speeding up what's more-or-less an inevitability.

While liberals may be inept at making their policy ideas a reality, I wouldn't be so quick to give conservatives credit. The enactment of conservative ideology over the past few years hasn't exactly resulted in rainbows and kittens.[/QUOTE]

But I do think a side-effect is that they become more aggressive in finding every tax loophole, and find more ways to stick it to Uncle Sam. They could potentially attempt to increase their wages even more to offset the losses in taxes, which doesn't help their subordinates in the least. Another side-effect (assuming they are even mildly charitable) will be less in donations to needy organizations as they may justify the new amounts they lose in taxes to make up for that. Charities have been hit hard with how bad the economy has been the last few years. I'd rather have even an inefficient charity get my donation over the government, because at least I know what the charity stands for.
 
Just a couple key things that people are missing:

speedracer: I'd argue that it's actually a lottery within a lottery within a lottery ad naseum as hard work and competence isn't necessarily what gets you ahead. It's all about networks that you're allowed to enter. Now I'm not saying that work isn't required, but that working harder than everyone else with high quality is not the key to success.

hostyl1: There are better words than "oppressive." The problem is that you can't narrow it down to a sound bite because it requires a certain level of thinking that's absent when it comes to class warfare from the power elite. Framing it as continuing the system that allows others to also attain that status for the betterment of US society isn't quite as catchy, but this is emblematic of another fallacy that one reaches that echelon strictly on their own merits rather than a accumulated effects of luck and privilege(considering that a vast majority of people on top are old rich white guys born into rich families).

camoor: Focusing on income wage caps or having a much more aggressively progressive tax brackets for the executive class won't do anything as long as we focus on earned wage income as most income is derived through stock options in which dividends are taxed at a much lower rate. This is what Warren Buffet talks about when he says he pays half the tax rate as his secretary. And yes, it's completely fucked. Though I agree that it's a direction we need to start to take.

Also, in regards to your Monopoly example, people at the top tend to think they deserve to be there, so whatever is done to get there is justified. Just World fallacy at its finest.
 
how can you not have seen good will hunting? It's regularly hailed as one of the top ten if not top five movies of the 90's... That's just astonishing.
 
[quote name='nasum']how can you not have seen good will hunting? It's regularly hailed as one of the top ten if not top five movies of the 90's... That's just astonishing.[/QUOTE]
Cause I'm from Boston and all the commercials with "HOW'D YOU LIKE DEM APPLES!11!!" were really annoying...that and I find Ben Affleck extremely drab...not to mention hearing what people think are Boston accents really annoy the shit out of me too.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
speedracer: I'd argue that it's actually a lottery within a lottery within a lottery ad naseum as hard work and competence isn't necessarily what gets you ahead. It's all about networks that you're allowed to enter. Now I'm not saying that work isn't required, but that working harder than everyone else with high quality is not the key to success.[/QUOTE]

All true. A crucial part of hard work is putting in the extra effort to network. And you're right that some people are excluded from some networks because of their race or class--and that's a problem. As is the fact that many are born into networks.

But still, most people can get a decent career if they do well in school, get into a good college and focus a lot on networking. Be it through internships while in undergrad, or working closely with professors and presenting at conferences while in grad school or med school or law school etc.

Discrimination etc. is no doubt a problem and we still need affirmative action policies to get minorities into good colleges and grad schools, into internships etc. for sure. But really I think the biggest barrier for those born into the lower class (and especially lower class minorities) is getting through high school with a good GPA which gets them into a good college. If they make it through all the obstacles to that point, they have a good chance of making it to at least a solid middle class lifestyle.

But a big problem many have (and not just lower class kids but everyone) is they just go to college and get a degree but don't do any extra work to find networking opportunities as who you know after graduating is just as important as your degree for sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']But I do think a side-effect is that they become more aggressive in finding every tax loophole, and find more ways to stick it to Uncle Sam. They could potentially attempt to increase their wages even more to offset the losses in taxes, which doesn't help their subordinates in the least. Another side-effect (assuming they are even mildly charitable) will be less in donations to needy organizations as they may justify the new amounts they lose in taxes to make up for that. Charities have been hit hard with how bad the economy has been the last few years. I'd rather have even an inefficient charity get my donation over the government, because at least I know what the charity stands for.[/QUOTE]

Meh, sounds like your rationalizing now.

Corporations and individuals are going to find every tax loophole regardless, their job is making more profit and no profit is easier to make then slipping through a tax loophole. If they want to get more aggressive then the government can just work harder to close the loopholes.

As for charity, lookup how much the Walton family gives to charity (and what so-called charities the support) and then get back to me. Most of the rich couldn't care less about the poor - for all I bag on Bill Gates he is a wonderfully charitable man but he is also the exception to the rule. The only reason that politicians occasionally care is because there are a few poor and middle class people that vote.

We can argue about whether government or non-profits are more efficient, but both can be funded with taxpayer dollars. So that's really not much of an arguement either.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']All true. A crucial part of hard work is putting in the extra effort to network. And you're right that some people are excluded from some networks because of their race or class--and that's a problem. As is the fact that many are born into networks.

But still, most people can get a decent career if they do well in school, get into a good college and focus a lot on networking. Be it through internships while in undergrad, or working closely with professors and presenting at conferences while in grad school or med school or law school etc.

Discrimination etc. is no doubt a problem and we still need affirmative action policies to get minorities into good colleges and grad schools, into internships etc. for sure.

But a big problem many have is they just go get a degree but don't do any extra work to find networking opportunities as who you know after graduating is just as important as your degree for sure.[/QUOTE]
I don't completely disagree. The caveat to that is I can't seem to shake the theory that the purpose of using "work" as a metric with the goal of accumulating massive amounts of capital isn't so much the act of working hard and being competant in your occupation, but rather to work just hard enough, measured by race and class privilege, to gain the ability to access traditionally closed-off networks that allow said accumulation. So using that lens, the prerequisite of even having a degree as a gauge of basic competancy, is almost useless(a bit of an exaggeration of course, but I'm sure you know some dumbasses that are college graduates) compared to the ability to network. So in other words, cultural capital is more of a determining factor than scholastic capital rather than them being equal.

Now I know this is a pretty simple framework(lens/theory whatevs) with only a couple tenets(if just one tbh), so bear with me on this cause I'm not an academic, but I play one on the interwebz.:lol:

edit: I know this isn't anything new, but I'm just can't source it or name the theory because it's not something that I tend to focus my learning on.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Cause I'm from Boston and all the commercials with "HOW'D YOU LIKE DEM APPLES!11!!" were really annoying...that and I find Ben Affleck extremely drab...not to mention hearing what people think are Boston accents really annoy the shit out of me too. [/QUOTE]

Then you would be annoyed with the movie. It is annoying. Trust me.

Watching that movie and thinking "wow that's what it's like to be smart" is like watching a rap music video and thinking "wow that's what it's like to be rich"
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Where do you live? Retire early on 75K? That's laughable. (even assuming you *dont* have a family).[/QUOTE]

Greater Boston area right now. It would take me about 40-45 years to retire with what I make. At 75,000 it would only take me 15-20.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Greater Boston area right now. It would take me about 40-45 years to retire with what I make. At 75,000 it would only take me 15-20.[/QUOTE]

I am wicked curious to know what you do with your money to stretch it that far - especially near Boston - it is expensive there.
 
[quote name='Javery']I am wicked curious to know what you do with your money to stretch it that far - especially near Boston - it is expensive there.[/QUOTE]
Boston has a pretty decent public transportation system as well as access to cheap goods with varying levels of rent that still allows someone to be within 30 minutes of Boston Proper.
 
[quote name='Javery']I am wicked curious to know what you do with your money to stretch it that far - especially near Boston - it is expensive there.[/QUOTE]

In what I would consider a high rent building (1 bed=$1500) 2 people can live for less than $25,000 per year including food and utilities if they use public transit.

I want to know where all the $100,000+ people are spending their money, although I think DohDough covered it.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']In what I would consider a high rent building (1 bed=$1500) 2 people can live for less than $25,000 per year including food and utilities if they use public transit.

I want to know where all the $100,000+ people are spending their money, although I think DohDough covered it.[/QUOTE]

No way. I'll assume you mean $25,000 post taxes so that would leave you $580 per MONTH for the rest of the year. Unless you go without TV, internet, insurance, etc. and eat Ramen Noodles and cans of soup all day every day it is highly unlikely 2 people can live on that. I'm about as cheap as they come in every facet of my life and there is no way I could pull that off.

As for your second point, I can't speak for anyone else but I don't spend it on anything but my house and my kids.
 
[quote name='Javery']No way. I'll assume you mean $25,000 post taxes so that would leave you $580 per MONTH for the rest of the year. Unless you go without TV, internet, insurance, etc. and eat Ramen Noodles and cans of soup all day every day it is highly unlikely 2 people can live on that. I'm about as cheap as they come in every facet of my life and there is no way I could pull that off.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure he means how much it costs, not how much they make.

As for your second point, I can't speak for anyone else but I don't spend it on anything but my house and my kids.
Click to expand...
That answer is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
 
[quote name='Javery']No way. I'll assume you mean $25,000 post taxes so that would leave you $580 per MONTH for the rest of the year. Unless you go without TV, internet, insurance, etc. and eat Ramen Noodles and cans of soup all day every day it is highly unlikely 2 people can live on that. I'm about as cheap as they come in every facet of my life and there is no way I could pull that off.

As for your second point, I can't speak for anyone else but I don't spend it on anything but my house and my kids.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about the cost of living.

I was including food, utilities and cable/internet. I can break it down if you would like:

1450 - rent
100 - gas, electricity and cable/internet
300 - 400 - food and fast food, i buy produce at Whole Foods so we don't eat junk
40-100 - public transit passes (we don't always need 2)
30 - laundry
10 - Netflix

I'm sure we go over budget here and there but it's easy to cut snacks out when the grocery bills get too high. I eat ice cream almost every day.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I want to know where all the $100,000+ people are spending their money, although I think DohDough covered it.[/QUOTE]
During the "first six months", 81% of our post tax income went to student loans, which paid them off. The next four months went towards two new cars which came to a grand total of $38,500 out the door (so obviously we aren't blinging the Bimmers). We sold our two cars that had a grand total of 27 years of life between them. Now we're saving for a down payment on a house.

That's what I meant when I said it was weird that we're "rich". We obviously are, yet tonight in laws are coming over and we're making fajitas and playing Super Mario Bros Wii cause we have budgeted zero dollars for eating out.

We just canceled netflix two days ago. :D
 
[quote name='dohdough']That answer is a little disingenuous, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

I guess but I was referring to the money I spend above what everyone else would likely consider "normal expenses" like food, gas, car maintenance, cell phone, insurance, cable, internet, heat, electric, etc. I probably spend more on my house and more in taxes ($12,000 per year for 0.14 acres!) and the rest goes towards my kids - clothes, activities, college funds [this is a biggie], etc. Anything left over goes towards the emergency fund (I'm a bit on the ultra-conservative/paranoid side when it comes to having enough for a catastrophe like losing my job or some unforeseen medical condition, etc.). I certainly don't live like I have a ton of money (even though I might).
 
Keep squealing about people who make 200+k instead of directing your anger at the looting class, guys.

It's no wonder our masters run roughshod over the country; we're too consumed with demonizing families and our fellow peons instead of directing our anger at the banking/MIC elite.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
We just canceled netflix two days ago. :D[/QUOTE]

We only have broadcast cable, I'm sure if you dropped the cable boxes you could have Netflix and Chipotle.

Abscess you're right about the infighting. I think we could all have what we wanted if we took care of the power elite.
 
[quote name='speedracer']During the "first six months", 81% of our post tax income went to student loans, which paid them off. The next four months went towards two new cars which came to a grand total of $38,500 out the door (so obviously we aren't blinging the Bimmers). We sold our two cars that had a grand total of 27 years of life between them. Now we're saving for a down payment on a house.

That's what I meant when I said it was weird that we're "rich". We obviously are, yet tonight in laws are coming over and we're making fajitas and playing Super Mario Bros Wii cause we have budgeted zero dollars for eating out.

We just canceled netflix two days ago. :D[/QUOTE]

Damn - that sounds familiar. After school ended we did the same exact thing. We still lived in a crappy one bedroom apartment for about a year and paid everything off - student loans, cars, etc. We drive our cars until they fall apart. We also budget zero dollars for eating out - we cook at home every night, we cut coupons, etc. Being responsible is lame - sometimes I wish I had the balls to just do something incredibly stupid and incredibly fun. Maybe when the kids are grown.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Keep squealing about people who make 200+k instead of directing your anger at the looting class, guys.

It's no wonder our masters run roughshod over the country; we're too consumed with demonizing families and our fellow peons instead of directing our anger at the banking/MIC elite.[/QUOTE]

Who is doing that?

Just because I don't want to hear bitching from the 200K+ crowd, it doesn't mean I don't understand who the real robber barons are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top