why not? do you have any examples of this type of site?

Because that is for poors?

I don't expect to stick around very long. With respect to people who love high taxes I've dealt with radical egalitarians before so that isn't an issue. The problem is that here there is no arguments or reasoning just people crying and stopping their feet.

Henry,

Please do stick around, I personally am interested in your perspective and vastly entertained by fly's responses to you. "...random idiosyncratic definition of how many pets you need to be able to support to qualify as "well off"" made me laugh out loud.

That's an argument and a reason.

I know many people including myself that meet this criteria and make much less than $250k still. Unless going full baller once a month means I'm making it rain $100s at the strip club or some ****. So what's $250k get ya? Note: I don't have kids.

What about the reasoning that almost all of the "rich" or "well off" people have had privileges throughout their life that others don't have and therefore should give back?

There's also the reasoning that the money that is higher taxed on the rich will go towards making the society as a whole better.

I'm not sure I agree with the first point and I definitely don't agree with the second point given the misappropriation of funds in our government but they are both fairly legit reasons.

Haven't read the rest of the thread but wow.

Then why do you have an opinion on the subject? You have no frame of reference for this argument, nor do you possess the knowledge base to offer a qualified and informed opinion.

Yet for some reason, you kept typing:
I've explained that is exactly where I was going repeatedly! I even reposted the OP like 5 posts up.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here or what relevance it has to any larger point.

Jesus Christ. Yes, it has been explained to me repeatedly how tough is it to be wealthy. Sure, you get nice things, but you have to pay for them! From all that money all you get out of it is a nice car, nice house, financial security, and luxury vacations! Practically Dickensian.

The whole lifestyle thing is utterly nonsensical. Lifestyle is what you spend your money on. The grownups, WHO DO UNDERSTAND TAXES, were talking about income.

But I'll humor you. What conclusion is that? That I am heartless towards the plight of the upper middle class and my rapacious and insane hatred towards rich people has lead me to...

If nothing else this thread has really changed my views on Kayak.com, which is practically food stamps but for hotels.

And those Priceline ads where the guy brags about getting a cheaper price? How uncouth.

I'm sure Henry means things like hotwire, where you don't even get to choose your hotel.

Then all I can say is lol. Honestly that is your big argument? It isn't a good argument and you should be embarrassed for making it.

It isn't that hard. Basically until you try to actually live a certain lifestyle it is very difficult to actually grasp how much it costs.

Except the level isn't all that nice. Certainly better than a lot of people have but you are not living in a mansion while your butler pours Veuve for you and all your fabulous friends. $250,000 is a decent upper class existence but rich is more than that. I think you avoid facing what $250,000 family income actually gets you because tif you did hen you could no longer go off on your rants. ]

The conclusion is that $250,000 in family income does not actually lead to a lot of purchasing power. That people making this lead a comfortable but rather modest lifestyle. That doesn't fit with you desire to just throw a hissy fit about rich people though so you choose to ignore it.

What is the big reveal going to be? Do you live in Wisconsin? Do you consider 700 sqft to be decent sized? Is going to a pub and having one beer a night out? I don't mean to be impudent since I am not familiar with your posting but historically that is how these types of things go.

I've lived in a handful of cities and it would be impossible in all of them. I don't know if it is a mistake to do so but I have no choice but to believe that that those cost of living rankings that come out occasionally are legitimate. I know where the cities I have lived in rank and it often is not all that high. As such I am doubtful that it is possible in most metros to have those things on $250,000 family income.

I for one am amused with Fly and PVN agreeing with each other without actually admitting it explicitly.

Politard forum hint: If those two both think you're wrong...you're wrong.

I've now participated in about a half-dozen politics topics. My impression is that this is pretty much just people of different ideologies yelling at each other. I haven't yet been able to identify a single poster that has studied political theory or which can actually engage in an argument properly. Fly I had such high hopes for but he has turned out to be a complete disappointment. PVN I have not reached a conclusion on yet. If they are the best politics has to offer I think I've adequately proved my position that you should never engage in any exchange even remotely academic / serious on the internet.

I just don't understand how you can be so narcissistic and wrong at the same time. Seriously though, please keep posting here. This is hilarious stuff.

Welcome to politards Henry!

I don't think this is the case. In a prior discussion he said it was ok to take a discount in exchange for not knowing which resort he was going to be staying at so you would think this type of site would be fine given you can restrict to only 5 star hotels if you want.

I think he's actually referring to the sites that most people who know about the internet actually use to book travel such as travelocity, expedia, etc.

Look I'd be happy to be wrong about this and maybe my sample is too small but that is an accurate assessment of the state of politics based on the topics I have participated in.

Your assessment is accurate.

If we agree with Henry's list, then lets hear either why that list is wrong, or a rough pricing of his list that shows that it is under 250k.

I disagree a little with Henry's list, but I agree with the overall premise and think that his argument is "essentially correct."

Lol if that list is accurate only 1% have retirement accounts, send their kid to school, go out to eat, etc.

The problem I had is the arrogance, but that is just window dressing. You're probably right that most of this forum is just partizan yelling matches. Considering there is a US election in a month we are about to enter a super high signal noise ratio. Plenty of butt hurt to go around right now.

I would suggest that you make your own thread. A subject you want to argue about. Ask for super serious talk only and let's see if we can raise ourselves to your level of candor. This thread is far beyond dead and attempting to scrape together some high level conversation will be pointless imo.

I hope he sticks around, I'm a fan of his OOT presence.

I disagree with my own list but I thought it was about the lowest I could go that would still make my point and not be subject to the criticism of lol out of touch rich person.

If you don't have retirement savings that is kind of an issue that is going to lead to problems. I'd have issues with calling someone who is rapidly moving towards a financial disaster rich. Likewise I'd have issues with considering someone who can't assist their child with university rich.


Why would I do that? I'm not a masochist and I have zero interest in being a pro bono professor. Also lets be honest -- if I started a topic where I talked about Locke and Rousseau at least 80% of the participants would think I was talking about Lost.