|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 6/21/2016 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. Oh, is our culture so different or special in that regard? Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery. Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, 1849 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 6/21/2016 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/21/2016 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. Oh, is our culture so different or special in that regard? Different or special? Depends what you're comparing it to, I suppose. Do we really need to look at the counts? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 6/21/2016 11:50 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/21/2016 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/21/2016 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. Oh, is our culture so different or special in that regard? Different or special? Depends what you're comparing it to, I suppose. Do we really need to look at the counts? If so, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tates_2010.png -- - Frank Krygowski |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:12:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Sorry about that. I can only argue that when I hear Usians talk about "immigrations" the word "illegal" is so commonly applied that I guess I over looked your use of an uncommon word. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. Ah, assumptions. No certainly not. What I am arguing is that it is possible to better oneself. And, I might say, apparently your ancestors believe the same thing. After all they didn't go back to where they came from, did they. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. Of course they do, but that statement is very misleading. After all, if 99% of the population has an income of, say $100,000 a year and one guy has an income of $101,000, then the "poor" outnumber the rich. "Poor" people in the U.S., from what I read, are people that only have one car per family and perhaps only a 36 inch TV. Poor people in other countries starve to death. -- cheers, John B. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:50:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 6/21/2016 11:50 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/21/2016 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. Oh, is our culture so different or special in that regard? Different or special? Depends what you're comparing it to, I suppose. Do we really need to look at the counts? If so, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tates_2010.png Yes, terrible, terrible. But other charts show that auto ownership in the U.S. is 809/1000 and that the average numbers of autos is 2.06/family and that ~20% of U.S. families have 3 or more autos. This is poverty? -- cheers, John B. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 06-22-2016 04:03, John B. wrote:
But other charts show that auto ownership in the U.S. is 809/1000 and that the average numbers of autos is 2.06/family and that ~20% of U.S. families have 3 or more autos. This is poverty? The official U.S. government definition of poverty is ten times the income of the World Bank definition. http://Wesley.Groleau.Site/2015/07/27/poverty/ -- Wes Groleau |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 6/21/2016 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:50:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 11:50 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 6/21/2016 9:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/21/2016 2:45 AM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 23:27:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2016 5:22 AM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:14:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: You had been arguing (or at least assuming) that those with the most money are those that have worked hardest. You've now switched to saying the extreme wealthiest didn't inherit all their wealth. Those are very disparate points. I was illustrating the point that contrary to popular propaganda ~90% of the top tier did not inherit their money. If one doesn't inherit money then how does one get it? Hmm. One could get it by taking Dad's inheritance, gambling it on either stocks or huge real estate developments, especially after incorporating several different companies to handle matters. If, say, a huge (huge!) real estate investment tanked, that corporation could go into bankruptcy, shielding the bulk of the individual's money and making it available for other huge (huge!) gambles. Do this often enough, while hiring enough guys who were really savvy, and some gambles should pay off. One should be able to "get it" - more money, that is. Our taxes and other laws help this strategy. Compare that to (say) a recent legal immigrant, coming here from a poor agricultural country. He won't have the starting capital - he might have inherited a shovel or a cobbler's hammer. He's much more likely to have to do WORK, of the sweat-pouring-down variety, and he's unlikely to benefit from tax breaks of the same magnitude as the guy who inherited a big starter fund. Why in the world would one worry about someone who illegally enters the country? After all he/she is, technically, a criminal. Did you somehow confuse the words "legal" and "illegal"? I said nothing about illegal immigrants. Your prejudices are showing. Your illustration is enlightening. But why are those fools pushing those wheelbarrows? Possibly because that is all that they know how to do. I worked with some of those people. Hard workers, and little education, and no imagination beyond Saturday night at the Pub. I'm a descendant of those guys. One was mechanically gifted enough to (for example) build his own lathe from scratch and could quote the Bible and other literature at length. Another spoke several languages and was one of the most literate guys in his neighborhood. Both those guys worked like hell in hellish conditions, lived in tiny abodes, and never had real opportunities to advance. Once was killed in a mill accident in circumstances that would be illegal today. Certainly. And I've got a friend who was raised on a hard scrabble farm in Saskatchewan, left home at 16, never having finished high school, and went to work, initially as a labourer for a guy that erected silos. Today he gets $1,200 a day as a drilling superintendent on offshore drilling rigs. He is semi retired now but tells me that he still gets e-mail from a number of companies asking whether he would like to come back to work. Were they fools? They left near-starvation conditions in Europe and bet the farm (literally) that they could do better for their families in America. It must have taken tremendous courage to abandon all and strike out for a new country. But what they found was hot, heavy and uncertain labor. And very likely a lot more money than they ever had "back home". You could read about this. For a fictionalized version try _Out Of This Furnace_ by Bell. I don't need to read about it. Your writings show that you most certainly do. You give examples of people who got rich despite difficult beginnings. If, as it seems, you're implying that everyone should be able to do that, you need to read that book. You have no idea what some people are up against. More than that, the fundamental point is that those who have tons more excess money should not begrudge a truly progressive tax structure. It's cruel and unthinking to justify regressive taxes on the assumption that poverty = laziness. And I never said that. I equated working hard (meaning "not easy; requiring great physical or mental effort to accomplish or comprehend or endure", with "getting ahead" as some call it. And for every example of someone slaving away carrying a hod I can serve up an example of someone why started out with nothing and ended up rich. Simple population figures prove you wrong, John. The poor in this country greatly outnumber the rich. Oh, is our culture so different or special in that regard? Different or special? Depends what you're comparing it to, I suppose. Do we really need to look at the counts? If so, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tates_2010.png Yes, terrible, terrible. But other charts show that auto ownership in the U.S. is 809/1000 and that the average numbers of autos is 2.06/family and that ~20% of U.S. families have 3 or more autos. This is poverty? As with all government 'statistics' it's skewed. ( c.f. actual unemployment hovering around 20% with official rates at 4.5%). 'Income' doesn't count relief which is roughly twice my annual income. And the denominator includes 'people' not 'workforce'. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...michael-tanner p.s. This is not news. It's just worse now; http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-027.html -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On 06-22-2016 19:00, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
Poor people in America must feed the car before their stomach. The bus is not an option. The bicycle is not an option. Walking is not an option. Bull. Plenty of people ride the bus. Those that are healthy enough and smart enough know that the bicycle is faster, but most ride the bus. -- Wes Groleau |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Revolution is in the Air
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:08:51 +0200, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote: On 06-22-2016 04:03, John B. wrote: But other charts show that auto ownership in the U.S. is 809/1000 and that the average numbers of autos is 2.06/family and that ~20% of U.S. families have 3 or more autos. This is poverty? The official U.S. government definition of poverty is ten times the income of the World Bank definition. http://Wesley.Groleau.Site/2015/07/27/poverty/ I'm not sure that is an accurate number as it as it seems to be based on an arbitrary number of dollars which isn't a realistic gauge. I remember my grandfather telling stories about when he worked as a carpenter for one dollar a day. Later I asked my grandmother whether this was true about the $1.00 a day. She assured me that the story was true and one could live pretty well.... when 10 lb. of potatoes cost fourteen cents. In fact, realistically, I'm not sure exactly how one does define "poverty". Is it when you only have one car? In Los Angeles that might be correct, unless they have improved public transportation remarkably since I lived there. In New York, if you live on Manhattan Island, I suspect that one can get along quite well with no car at all. -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Revolution! | Tony Raven | UK | 1 | June 7th 06 02:15 PM |
The revolution is here? | cfsmtb | Australia | 2 | August 8th 05 10:01 AM |
The revolution is here? | flyingdutch | Australia | 3 | August 8th 05 07:56 AM |
The revolution is here? | cfsmtb | Australia | 1 | August 8th 05 07:14 AM |
The revolution is here? | flyingdutch | Australia | 2 | August 8th 05 04:17 AM |