Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
what is a 1%er
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


camhead


Dec 15, 2011, 5:17 AM
Post #76 of 90 (1175 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [6pacfershur] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Ok, I think that up-topic there was some discussion of misleading graphs (or was that in another thread? all the soapbox kind of melts together after a while). Anyway, can anyone see what's wrong with this graph?



full story.

Seriously, Fox News, fuck off and die you cynical, dishonest, partisan fucks.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Dec 15, 2011, 5:59 AM
Post #77 of 90 (1171 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [camhead] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Seriously, Fox News, fuck off and die you cynical, dishonest, partisan fucks.

Shhh....

Fox news is hurting the repblicans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...merica-conservatives


scrapedape


Dec 15, 2011, 6:41 AM
Post #78 of 90 (1166 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [camhead] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Ok, I think that up-topic there was some discussion of misleading graphs (or was that in another thread? all the soapbox kind of melts together after a while). Anyway, can anyone see what's wrong with this graph?

[image]http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111212-unemployment.jpg[/image]

full story.

Seriously, Fox News, fuck off and die you cynical, dishonest, partisan fucks.

I've got two things so far.


Partner cracklover


Dec 15, 2011, 8:38 AM
Post #79 of 90 (1155 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [camhead] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Ok, I think that up-topic there was some discussion of misleading graphs (or was that in another thread? all the soapbox kind of melts together after a while). Anyway, can anyone see what's wrong with this graph?



full story.

Seriously, Fox News, fuck off and die you cynical, dishonest, partisan fucks.

Well, the obvious thing is the last point on the graph. It should be the lowest point, but is represented incorrectly. But of course that would tell a very different story.

Anyway, that's all I see. What else?

GO


lena_chita
Moderator

Dec 15, 2011, 11:03 AM
Post #80 of 90 (1147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5466

Re: [guangzhou] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
Yes, 5.13 is attainable for many, with enough determination.

But to put it in the context of this thread, don't talk about how many CLIMBERS can climb 5.13. Talk about how many PEOPLE-- general population-- can climb 5.13. And then make a claim that everyone could-- still reasonable?

That makes no sense to me. If someone never climbs, of course they can never climb 5.13. Same is also true of people who never take the risk to make big money, or people who make choices that don’t bring them into the big earning sectors. If you’re not willing to risk, nor willing to make some sacrifices, you can’t expect the rewards.

If everyone had the same opportunity to try climbing and work on it, it might be true, it would all come to innate ability ability and determination. But it isn't. If you don't have rocks near you, or a gym near you, or expendable income allowing you to drop $25-$60 in a whim to try climbing for a day, or parents who could take you to the gym, you will never try climbing, so even if you theoretically have the potential climbing ability of another Chris Sharma, that potential will never be realized.

And the same with "getting to the top 1%" in income.You are talking about people who never take big risks to make big money. Hah! how much of a "big risk" can you take with $100 to make any sort of a substantial return?

In this world, money makes more money.

Two kids of the same intelligence, athletic ability, race, etc., could have completely different odds of success AT BIRTH based on which womb they came from.And then the odds are compounded over years.



guangzhou wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
The worlds needs garbage collectors and janitors, grocery store clerks and secretaries, musicians and geologists, pizza delivery guys and miners, and on and on and on.

I couldn’t agree more with you. What the world doesn’t need is a janitor complaining about how much a doctor is making.

I haven't heard such complaints to be wide-spread.



guangzhou wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
And it makes sense that some occupations require more skills and should get paid proportionately more. And some occupations require people who can invest their money, take risks, make good decisions, and when they create more wealth that way it is a pay-off for the risks they did take and the investment of money and time and skills.

This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

What doesn’t make sense is that the people who are in those occupations should have to give up the money they earn for making good decision, taking risk, investing wisely, and applying their time and skills.

Well, everyone IS having to "give up money" in taxes.The question is how much is fair.

I think it is fair that I, earning more than an average salary, should pay more in taxes than someone who is making a minimal wage. Even after those taxes are taken out of my salary, I am still left with more than a minimal-wage earner is left with, after having his taxes taken out.
And similarly, people who earn more than me, should also pay more, and they will be left with more money that I have, too.


Instead, we have a widening gap between the top and the bottom.

You keep saying that those on top have "earned" their money, but they haven't "earned it" so much as they have been able to use the money they have in plenty to lobby the government for the policies that would leave them with yet more money.

This is very different than a nurse "earning" more money by choosing to work a night shift, for example, or an engineer choosing to work extra hours, or a secretary choosing to make some extra cash working for a tutoring agency in the evening.


guangzhou


Dec 16, 2011, 6:22 PM
Post #81 of 90 (1115 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [lena_chita] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
Yes, 5.13 is attainable for many, with enough determination.

But to put it in the context of this thread, don't talk about how many CLIMBERS can climb 5.13. Talk about how many PEOPLE-- general population-- can climb 5.13. And then make a claim that everyone could-- still reasonable?

That makes no sense to me. If someone never climbs, of course they can never climb 5.13. Same is also true of people who never take the risk to make big money, or people who make choices that don’t bring them into the big earning sectors. If you’re not willing to risk, nor willing to make some sacrifices, you can’t expect the rewards.

If everyone had the same opportunity to try climbing and work on it, it might be true, it would all come to innate ability a bility and determination. But it isn't. If you don't have rocks near you, or a gym near you, or expendable income allowing you to drop $25-$60 in a whim to try climbing for a day, or parents who could take you to the gym, you will never try climbing, so even if you theoretically have the potential climbing ability of another Chris Sharma, that potential will never be realized.

The difference is everyone has the same opportunity to basic education and higher education, and to working, and to starting a business in America. While I agree some have to work harder to get there, the services, programs, and system is in place.

In this case, I am speaking about Americans having the opportunity not the entire world. Separating America from the rest of the world is like separating climbers from the general population.

In reply to:
And the same with "getting to the top 1%" in income.You are talking about people who never take big risks to make big money. Hah! how much of a "big risk" can you take with $100 to make any sort of a substantial return?

I never said everyone can be in the top 1%, statistically that wouldn’t make sense anyway. What I said is that anyone who truly dedicates himself or herself in American can be financially successful.


In reply to:
In this world, money makes more money.

A huge myth, most likely started by rich Americans a few decades ago to keep other people from trying.
Plenty of businesses have been stated with next to nothing in people’s living room and garages. Money doesn’t even make money more money easy from what I see of rich people. Start small and row, find someone to invest in your idea, the options are around.








In reply to:
Two kids of the same intelligence, athletic ability, race, etc., could have completely different odds of success AT BIRTH based on which womb they came from.And then the odds are compounded over years.

Completely different paths to success.



guangzhou wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
The worlds needs garbage collectors and janitors, grocery store clerks and secretaries, musicians and geologists, pizza delivery guys and miners, and on and on and on.

I couldn’t agree more with you. What the world doesn’t need is a janitor complaining about how much a doctor is making.

In reply to:
I haven't heard such complaints to be wide-spread.

Read the post on this site. If a top 1% earner is making 350,000 USD a year, plenty of high-end great doctors will be penalized by paying extra taxes.

guangzhou wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
And it makes sense that some occupations require more skills and should get paid proportionately more. And some occupations require people who can invest their money, take risks, make good decisions, and when they create more wealth that way it is a pay-off for the risks they did take and the investment of money and time and skills.

This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

What doesn’t make sense is that the people who are in those occupations should have to give up the money they earn for making good decision, taking risk, investing wisely, and applying their time and skills.

Well, everyone IS having to "give up money" in taxes. The question is how much is fair.

I think it is fair that I, earning more than an average salary, should pay more in taxes than someone who is making a minimal wage. Even after those taxes are taken out of my salary, I am still left with more than a minimal-wage earner is left with, after having his taxes taken out.
And similarly, people who earn more than me, should also pay more, and they will be left with more money that I have, too.
Fair? I haven’t heard that as a reason sense the 6th grade. Fair to you is unfair to someone else.

They already pay more. 10% of a 100 is is 10. 10% of a 1000 is 1000. The top 1% pay almost half of of the income tax in the U.S.


In reply to:
Instead, we have a widening gap between the top and the bottom.

You keep saying that those on top have "earned" their money, but they haven't "earned it" so much as they have been able to use the money they have in plenty to lobby the government for the policies that would leave them with yet more money.

Our government is set up to be lobbied. Any lobbying done by the rich that is successful has result and changes that others can take advantage of too. Lobbying is also how they earn their money, a much more complicated process than the average 9-5 job.

If I earn large sums of money, I plan on leaving it to my children. Why is that wrong exactly?

In reply to:
This is very different than a nurse "earning" more money by choosing to work a night shift, for example, or an engineer choosing to work extra hours, or a secretary choosing to make some extra cash working for a tutoring agency in the evening.

The nurse isn’t being asked to pay a higher tax rate for working overtime. The percentage stays the same; the amount that leaves her paycheck increases.

Not only do the rich pay a higher percentages of the Nation’s income, they also give much more to Charity, one of their tax breaks. Philanthropy is alive and well in American society because of the top 1%.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Dec 16, 2011, 7:56 PM
Post #82 of 90 (1104 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [guangzhou] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
A huge myth, most likely started by rich Americans a few decades ago to keep other people from trying.
Plenty of businesses have been stated with next to nothing in people’s living room and garages. Money doesn’t even make money more money easy from what I see of rich people. Start small and row, find someone to invest in your idea, the options are around.

...

Not only do the rich pay a higher percentages of the Nation’s income, they also give much more to Charity, one of their tax breaks. Philanthropy is alive and well in American society because of the top 1%.

The problem when trying to construct an arguement based on deductive reasoning is that sometimes you can be right:

http://blogs.wsj.com/...-of-inherited-money/
In reply to:
According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

and wrong

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...s-most-generous.html



The problem is that a it only takes a few wrongs damage your credibility on economic matters.


guangzhou


Dec 16, 2011, 9:43 PM
Post #83 of 90 (1098 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

The rich don't donate to Charities per say, they tend to give in the form of Philanthropical view.

In many case, the rich give directly from their business versus from their personal pocket too. Nothing wring with that.

Some numbers of those greedy rich people never giving back are bellow. (See I can can google too)

$31 billion from Warren Buffett to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (initial value of the gift)[2]

$9 billion from Chuck Feeney to Atlantic Philanthropies

$2 billion from Azim Premji to the Azim Premji Foundation in 2010.[3]

$500 million from T. Boone Pickens to Oklahoma State University.[4]

$500 million from Walter Annenberg to public school reform in the United States[5]

$350 million ($7 billion in modern terms) from Andrew Carnegie in 1901 who distributed most of his wealth to good causes, including the building Carnegie Hall New York City.[6]

$424 million from managers of the Reader's Digest fortune to the Metropolitan Museum of Art[7]

$350 million from Michael Jackson who distributed most of his wealth to good causes, and who supported over 39 charity organizations. He was listed in the Guinness Book Of World Records for the "Most Charities Supported By a Pop Star".

$350 million from Yank Barry and his Global Village Champions in food, education and medical supplies to the needy around the World from 1990 to the present.

$225 million from Raymond and Ruth Perelman, parents of Ronald O. Perelman, to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 2011.

$200 million from Joan B. Kroc to National Public Radio in 2003[7]

$100 million from John D. Rockefeller to the Rockefeller Foundation, 1913-1914[8]

$100 million from Henry and Betty Rowan to Glassboro State College[9]


(This post was edited by guangzhou on Dec 16, 2011, 9:48 PM)


dan2see


Dec 16, 2011, 10:00 PM
Post #84 of 90 (1090 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [guangzhou] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
...
The difference is everyone has the same opportunity to basic education and higher education, and to working, and to starting a business in America. While I agree some have to work harder to get there, the services, programs, and system is in place.
...

GZ, you do too have a sense of humor!


guangzhou


Dec 17, 2011, 4:42 AM
Post #85 of 90 (1077 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [dan2see] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
...
The difference is everyone has the same opportunity to basic education and higher education, and to working, and to starting a business in America. While I agree some have to work harder to get there, the services, programs, and system is in place.
...

GZ, you do too have a sense of humor!

How so?


guangzhou


Dec 17, 2011, 4:48 AM
Post #86 of 90 (1075 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
A huge myth, most likely started by rich Americans a few decades ago to keep other people from trying.
Plenty of businesses have been stated with next to nothing in people’s living room and garages. Money doesn’t even make money more money easy from what I see of rich people. Start small and row, find someone to invest in your idea, the options are around.

...

Not only do the rich pay a higher percentages of the Nation’s income, they also give much more to Charity, one of their tax breaks. Philanthropy is alive and well in American society because of the top 1%.

The problem when trying to construct an arguement based on deductive reasoning is that sometimes you can be right:

http://blogs.wsj.com/...-of-inherited-money/
In reply to:
According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

and wrong

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...s-most-generous.html

[image]http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/05/19/16/264-20090514_CHARITY.small.prod_affiliate.91.jpg[/image]

The problem is that a it only takes a few wrongs damage your credibility on economic matters.

The poor are more charitable than the middle class, completely agree. here, we are talking about the top 1%

In reply to:
Giving by Class: The two groups in the United States that give the highest percentages of their income are the poor (those making less than $20,000 per year) and the rich (those making more than $100,000 per year). Middle-class Americans (those making between $40,000 and $100,000 per year) are the smallest percentage givers.11


scrapedape


Dec 17, 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #87 of 90 (1057 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [guangzhou] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

A related, and I think interesting, topic, but not necessarily worthy of its own thread:

In reply to:
Households both want and need to understand the incentives they face at the
margin for working and saving. Yet any American seeking to understand her total
effective net marginal tax on either choice faces a daunting challenge. First, she needs to
consider a host of taxes and transfers including federal personal income taxes, federal
corporate income taxes, federal payroll taxes, federal excise taxes, state personal income
taxes, state corporate income taxes, state sales taxes, state excise taxes, Social Security
benefits, welfare benefits (TAFDC), Supplemental Security Income benefits (SSI),
Medicaid benefits, Medicare benefit, food stamps, nutrition benefits (WIC), and energy
assistance benefits (LIHEAP). Second, she needs to understand in very fine detail how
each of these taxes and transfers is calculated. Third, she needs to understand the
interactions of the different tax and transfer programs. Fourth, she needs to consider the
fact that these taxes and transfers are paid and received over time. And fifth, she needs to
have a method for translating all of these interconnected time-dated tax payments and
benefit receipts into a simple and comprehensible statement of her marginal reward for
working and saving.

In reply to:
The paper provides four main takeaways. First, thanks to the incredible
complexity of the U.S. fiscal system, it’s essentially impossible for anyone to understand
her incentive to work, save, or contribute to retirement accounts absent highly advanced
4
computer technology and software. Second, the U.S. fiscal system provides most
households with very strong reasons to limit their labor supply and saving. Third, the
system offers very high-income young and middle aged households as well as most older
households tremendous opportunities to arbitrage the tax system by contributing to
retirement accounts. Fourth, the patterns by age and income of marginal net tax rates on
earnings, marginal net tax rates on saving, and tax-arbitrage opportunities can be
summarized with one word – bizarre.

Source. My only comment at this point is that "bizarre" has pretty strong normative connotations for an academic paper.

A concrete example:
In reply to:
A woman called me out of the blue last week and told me her self-sufficiency counselor had suggested she get in touch with me. She had moved from a $25,000 a year job to a $35,000 a year job, and suddenly she couldn't make ends meet any more. I told her I didn't know what I could do for her, but agreed to meet with her. She showed me all her pay stubs etc. She really did come out behind by several hundred dollars a month.


calvo


Dec 31, 2011, 10:21 PM
Post #88 of 90 (989 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 31, 2011
Posts: 25

Re: [guangzhou] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
In reply to:
They already are.

It's amazing to me that Middle Class American's are willing to blame the rich for being successful but penalizing them with higher taxes.

In reply to:
Interesting. Very interesting. "Blame", "successful", "penalize”. Lots of emotional hot button words, yet amazingly devoid of thought. I, frankly, expect better than that. Since I know you are free of the knee jerk Fox / Limbaugh influences I expected at least a reply that contained the briefest of economic arguments. Since you didn’t provide one, and since you, by default, dubbed me the Middle Class American (which I proudly am), allow me to provide at least an attempt at a meaningful response.

I too am a member of the American the middle class, near the bottom actually.

First of all, it is a shame that you are among those who are persuaded by propaganda. (Propaganda is often biased, with facts selectively presented (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.) To think that you are among those who so eagerly poison yourselves by being manipulated.

In reply to:
In reply to:
I will assume that you did not glance at the link I provided. Pity. While it is a starting point for policy recommendations, it is worth, at least in understanding why the “occupy” movement is more popular than the “tea party”. Simply put – since Reagan, the rich have gotten richer. Not just rich in an absolute sense, but in a percentage of overall wealth. Today, to be in the 1% means more than it did when Star Wars figures were a cool new toy. The facts are, as good as we can tell, pointing to a divergence. The rich are getting richer and no one else is. America is slouching towards a banana republic level of wealth distribution. While personal stories of success above ones initial station in life will, hopefully, continue, the cold hard mass of statistics says it will not for most. And that is the risk. The risk of no hope. This is a risk to me and the risk to my fellow Americans.

While the rich are getting richer, I don’t agree with the thesis that no-one else is. I do believe that Americans are getting less economically responsible.

Totally agree with you there the country as a whole is slowly improving in lifestyle. What do you mean by that second sentence? What I grasp, corporations such as banks are working to slowly become less regulated so that they can do what they want. Regulations are put in place to avoid certain expected outcomes. Through regulation, this countries economy has become a whole lot more stable since the great depression. And through the bail-out money, we did not suffer as bad a depression as it could have been (you can argue the ethics of such a bailout, but it is undeniable that things could have been way worse). On the other hand, if your concerned that Americans are becoming less economically responsible, which leads them to elect representatives who promise to carry out their less responsible misguided views on how policies work, then YES your right! The GOP is only allowed to do what they do because people are electing their representatives who promise less economicaly responsible promises.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Part of the Reagan ideal was that if we let the rich have just a little more money, they would, as the great “job creators” “trickle down” the money to the rest of us. At the time, I thought it was bull shit. But hey, sometimes you try things you don’t think will work because you need to try something different. Well, guess what. It didn’t work. Well, actually it did. It helped the rich. The rising tide did not lift everyone, in fact, the tide lifted only the yachts and everyone else was left behind.

Reagan didn’t invent the trickle down theory, but generally speaking, it’s more effective than taking from the people who are successful in business and giving it to those who have not done anything to earn expect being unsuccessful.

Without the incentive of making money, fewer people would go out and innovate, invent, and create.

The "trickle down effect" is a cool idea in theory but it is not practical. It relies on through the lowering of taxes, people have more disposable money. They either A) Spend it, which goes back into the economy through consumption. or B) They save it in a bank. It has been statistically shown that the more money people earn the more percentage of it they are going to save in the bank. That is good too! Banks take the money people put into their savings accounts and invest it! The Banks invest the saved money into projects which help the economy and create jobs ..etc. The problem is!! This latest fuck up, was through deregulation of banks, allowed them to make less economically responsible decisions on who they loaned out the money to. They messed up, and although they got bailed out, they are now more stingy about lending their money. They are not going to be taking any risks in the immediate future on investments... which is where the whole "trick down effect" would be doing its work for the economy.

So like, in a stable economy if you did want to do it, it is plausible that it could work. But it would never be able to turn around a hurt economy, and especially not one such as this latest one which has led to banks unwilling to loan their money out the way they would during a more stable period economically.

On the other hand, by raising taxes the government has more money to spend on programs which put people in work and lift us out of the depression. Ever heard of the CCC (civilian conservation corp)? It had almost 400,000 paid employees at its peak. It was created by Rosevelt during the Great Depression to put young men to work. Professionals were paid to teach young men skills which the government paid them to perform. A great amount of parks, trailers, and outdoor structures are still around from the CCC. Yes they really as practical as going to war and the government producing weapons used to thwart our enemies, but it did help. And are you aware that a war time economy is one that is efficient much beyond what can be maintained, and it is just that which allowed us to survive after the great depression (WW2).

There is a great deal of double dipping on issues on the GOP's part. Less government regulation in some areas which we might deem needy. But they are continuing to subsidize products such as sugar, oil, and corn. ALL of which are already very profitable, why do they want government involved in such a thing? I may be going on a limb, but I would say they are looking out for the people they really care about, those run, and own those production companies. Lol if you were just a greedy asshole trying to make money with your company I would understand you, but you don't benefit from these propaganda based policies goals.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Since that time, to assume that it is right and appropriate to put have a tax system says that the more you make, the more you have benefitted from our society, therefore, the more you should pay has been labeled “class warfare” or, to use some of the words you use “blame the rich”. But it isn’t, it is an honest expectation that those who most benefit from our society and the stability, freedom, and economic opportunities that it provides pay more. Not just more in a simple straight line, but more because, as part of our society, they need to pay more than someone else who can’t afford to pay as much. The money is needed for the collective whole of society and the people with a strong disproportion of the money are best able to give up more of it.

Those who have benefited the most have done so by going out and making things happen. The system is there for everyone, some choose to take risk and make money, others decide to go work for those who took risk by starting businesses and make less money, then complain that the people who own the company make more money than they do while doing nothing.

If we were truly individual in our exploits, we would have no need for any form of formal community.. and countries would not exist, it would simply be corporations and their employees living amongst each other. Human behavior is not quite as black and white, which is why we give the government the power it has to do its best as a Democratic Republic to care to the communities. The government is only there because we put it there, and Republicans never cease to remind us about that .. and that I have to agree with, it is important to remember that the government is our tool... not the other way around. However its purpose by nature is to act as a communal safety net to make sure that we are all investing ourselves, and are getting something from it by calling ourselves citizens of our country.

In reply to:
In reply to:
Oh, and I suspect you aren’t likely to keep exploring issues of wealth and divergence, because I’m guessing you are comfortable in your views and not up to the challenge. Slate is continuing its articles on the creation and the how and why of income disparity in the US. Here is their explanation on why http://www.slate.com/..._so_much_worse_.html

Please, feel free to read. I think the author if this article is mostly pimping a book, but to understand the true flaws one would need to get out of associating ones’ views with one’s class. And “class” is not just last century; it is a concept that is about two centuries gone.

The article supports that the best at their jobs are getting richer for sure. Why shouldn’t they? Those with the most experience and best skills should be getting paid more. If I were recruiting a new person to preform a task within my company and that person had a job doing the same thing for another company, I would entice him with a higher salary and better benefit package. The better you are at doing what you do, the more you should be paid for your skills.

Being the best at something, or better than your competitor is a good thing in my book. I hate that American is teaching people, kids especially, that participation is good enough. Individuals and sport team members now get certificates and medals of completion so they don’t feel bad for losing. This instills an attitude that just trying is good enough, you don’t have to be successful; you’ll get something no matter what.

As for wealth and divergence, I agree, rich people are getting richer. Of course, they have more skills at getting richer and focus their life on it. Me, I don’t care why this is happening or how to reverse the trend by making the rich poorer. Instead, I am working on getting richer myself.

Another words, I plan on making my life financially better by pulling myself up, instead of bringing others down to my level. Instead of complaining about the gap, work on closing it by raising your own financial gains. Stop collecting certificates of completion.

There is a movie on Netflix >> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819791/ <<< (the one percent).
In this movie it describes more than simply skills at making money (which is awesome, and no one should be "punished" for being a successful businessmen), but skills at hoarding ones money, and ensuring that the money stays within the family.


ALSO I hope the GOP continue to preach their madness for it keeps the intellectually capable on the same side :} . The only thing worse that these comical policies is not being able to discuss and debate over such issues. OH WAIT!!! The GOP is working to pass policy which will allow for a wider profiling of "terrorists" and which will allow "terrorists" to be restricted of civil rights! Even if they're citizens before they are labelled terrorists! Wow you must feel like you never will get pegged, cause if you did some day wouldn't you feel fucking stupid.

Happy New Years!!! 2012 If the world really does end in a year, it will because the Mayans predicted the GOP getting a chance to go ahead with their bullshit


Partner j_ung


Jan 3, 2012, 9:41 AM
Post #89 of 90 (940 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [guangzhou] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
The poor are more charitable than the middle class, completely agree. here, we are talking about the top 1%

Define "charitable."

In reply to:
Giving by Class: The two groups in the United States that give the highest percentages of their income are the poor (those making less than $20,000 per year) and the rich (those making more than $100,000 per year). Middle-class Americans (those making between $40,000 and $100,000 per year) are the smallest percentage givers.11

I certainly fall into that middle-class category. Hell, I give virtually zero dollars to charity each year. But monetary giving is not the whole story. I volunteer my time frequently as a member of the local climbing-org BOD. In 2011, I also donated my time to produce a video and a website for separate non-profit groups. If I assign a rough monetary value to all that time, equipment and gasoline, I come up with a figure somewhere around 6-7% of my gross income, which pretty much destroys every average in that graph posted upthread, regardless of income range.

Am I an outlier, or is volunteer time something that is woefully undervalued in those figures? I honestly don't know.


dan2see


Jan 3, 2012, 2:44 PM
Post #90 of 90 (919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [j_ung] what is a 1%er [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
...I certainly fall into that middle-class category. Hell, I give virtually zero dollars to charity each year. But monetary giving is not the whole story. I volunteer my time frequently as a member of the local climbing-org BOD. In 2011, I also donated my time to produce a video and a website for separate non-profit groups. If I assign a rough monetary value to all that time, equipment and gasoline, I come up with a figure somewhere around 6-7% of my gross income, which pretty much destroys every average in that graph posted upthread, regardless of income range.

Am I an outlier, or is volunteer time something that is woefully undervalued in those figures? I honestly don't know.

Everybody I know lists their volunteer duties on their resume. And I've heard hiring managers explain how these skills and experience can be valued just as much as paid work.

My wife and I have always volunteered regularly for something. Usually community work, but always for some group or organization that interests us. Our volunteer duties always returned good value to us.

I don't regard volunteering as "giving back". It's like the Paul McCartney's ending for "The End":
"... and in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make."

Today I volunteer for the Alpine Club in Calgary; I'm the Newletter Editor. Not a charity, but still it's community-based. Not a sacrifice, either: if I couldn't do this for the Alpine Club, I'd do it for some other outdoors-related group, like Alberta Wildlife.

Also, our choice of "giving" was never influenced by our affluence.

It's what I want to do.


(This post was edited by dan2see on Jan 3, 2012, 2:50 PM)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook