This will be a good decade for bicycling!

On Jan 5, 7:51*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Give me a million dollars, and I will use the interest income to allow
part time work, and in the end leave the principal to no-kill cat shelters.

Give me 1/10th that much and I'll quit working altogether...

On Jan 5, 8:41*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
Exploiting the labor of others? *Isn't that called creating jobs?
Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees (4) report
back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." *--
Jay Beattie.

Nobody hires people unless they plan to get more out of them than they
have to give them. If this relationship is one in which you "create"
jobs that pay and benefit those workers better than they could receive
elsewhere, then you are truly providing a service... while also being
served. Else you are not doing them any favors.

On Jan 6, 8:24*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
My other uncle has a similar story,
although he went out on his own and started a chain of stores called
Trader Joe's (actually it started as Pronto Markets and became Trader
Joe's). *In the meantime, my father made the choice to open his own
small business -- a drug store.

Could you talk to your uncle about opening a Trader Joe's in Ruidoso
NM? I hate having to go to Albuquerque...

On Jan 5, 7:24 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman °_°



wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.
You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!

Dan O wrote:
**** you.


Your wise gracious and considered reply validates Ron's
statements.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
[...]
Dan O wrote:
**** you.

Your wise gracious and considered reply validates Ron's statements.

I have learned from long and bitter experience that the only proper reply is
.... **** you too!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
[...]
Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career track,
do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions for doing
a mediocre job of upper management.

Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens) looking
from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying of envy.

Mr. Dolan confuses envy with moral disgust. I would not want to be rich
at the price of immorally exploiting others.

But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?

He had the choice of changing his name to John Doe and living a private
life. Most people in the world have very limited opportunities.

It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their wealth
and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that, they will
not be wealthy for very long.[...]

No, the rich make the rules to exploit others - has been so in almost
every society.

In the US in recent years, so much wealth has gone to the rich, they
have a glut of money - much more than is needed for capital investment.
So they play games on Wall Street [1], put the money in foreign tax
shelters, etc.

If you want to stimulate the economy, increase the share of the working
classes, since they will spend most of it and create the demand for
capital improvement. Tax cuts for the rich in the current environment do
little to nothing to stimulate the economy, since lack of capital for
investment is not a problem.

[1] The world's largest gambling operation.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
(even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh

Ron Ruff wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:51 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Give me a million dollars, and I will use the interest income to allow
part time work, and in the end leave the principal to no-kill cat shelters.

Give me 1/10th that much and I'll quit working altogether...

You must get an excellent rate of return on your investments!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

On Jan 6, 7:10*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
You must get an excellent rate of return on your investments!

I certainly do! About 20 years ago I decided to see how much I really
needed to spend to live well... $4k/yr was a piece of cake, and I'm
sure I'd do fine with less. There is always the option of moving to a
3rd world country, too...

On Jan 6, 5:11*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:

"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
and Medicare. *The elites made it. *They are rich and powerful.
They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
(even if they inherited the money or position). *If you didn't,
then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh

I've been looking for a statement like that because I've believed in
it for a long time. It's the filthy rich backed by ordinary elderly
people who run THIS country and by extension the whole world based on
the privileged position they hold. That's DEMOCRACY, or so they call
it. Now, do they care about the ordinary people not having the
benefits they enjoy in other civilized countries? i mean benefits like
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, SAFE ROADS, BIKE FACILITIES...

Obama is doing something about the first one, but he's struggling with
a waterdown compromise. Will we ever see safe roads and bike
facilities? Yeah sure...

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to
die in." -George McGovern

A REVOLUTION FOR THE YOUNG?
Sorry, guys, but this revolution is for the young --or at least for
the young at heart-- who care about the future, and about a quality of
life surrounding their needs.

Regrettably, they are not being enticed into politics. Important
issues like TRAFFIC SAFETY and BIKE FACILITIES are kept out of the
political discourse. Simply, cunning politicians lure the elderly, who
are easily duped with the politics of fear.* Remember the 2000
elections in Miami-Dade County. In other words: the Banana Republic
relies on the old and ignorant, while the Banana Revolution appeals to
the young and hopeful...

* fear of terrorism, communism, etc.

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
[...]
Here is more realistic scenario - go to a $50K/year prep school, get a
legacy admission to an Ivy League school, get the best internships from
friends of the family, go from graduation into a management career
track, do well because you know all the right people, get paid millions
for doing a mediocre job of upper management.

Mr. Sherman reminds me of the poor little boy (a la Charles Dickens)
looking from the cold outside into a warm room at the well off and dying
of envy.

Mr. Dolan confuses envy with moral disgust. I would not want to be rich at
the price of immorally exploiting others.

No one in this day and age has "moral disgust", but as far as I can see
almost everyone has lots and lots of envy. Is Wal-Mart exploiting anyone? I
say no since they employ unskilled labor. Most of those folks who work at
Wal-Mart are lucky to have a job at all.

But why? They are few in number and have their own crosses to bear. Does
anyone here envy the life of Jack Kennedy for instance?

He had the choice of changing his name to John Doe and living a private
life. Most people in the world have very limited opportunities.

But you would not want to have lived his life even so. Nor would I.

It is a full time job for the rich to hang onto their wealth since others
are always trying to take it away from them. They must invest their
wealth and put it to work in the society at large. If they don't do that,
they will not be wealthy for very long.[...]

No, the rich make the rules to exploit others - has been so in almost
every society.

The rich are constantly in danger of losing whatever wealth they have. I
would rather have the few rich making the rules than the great unwashed
proletariat making the rules.

In the US in recent years, so much wealth has gone to the rich, they have
a glut of money - much more than is needed for capital investment. So they
play games on Wall Street [1], put the money in foreign tax shelters, etc.

The thing that matters is that the rest of us have at least enough to live
on and a small surplus too so that we can have some leisure.

If you want to stimulate the economy, increase the share of the working
classes, since they will spend most of it and create the demand for
capital improvement. Tax cuts for the rich in the current environment do
little to nothing to stimulate the economy, since lack of capital for
investment is not a problem.

Well, that is what liberal Dems are suppose to be doing, looking after the
working class, but as always they do a poor **** job of everything they lay
their hand to.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota