There are many programs out there to help inner city kids. They need to make a decision in regards to taking advantage of these programs.

I'm not gonna get into the whole boondoggle of the "did rich people deserve to get rich" because it's irrelevant, BUT, I will say that even though there are a lot of programs available for many inner city youth, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have access to the programs. The programs are underfunded, understaffed, and there are few, if any, efforts to publicize them.

You don't know what you don't know, etc.

You got that backwards. Shaq is rich. The man that signs his paycheck is wealthy.

Do most of the wealthy people you know simply inherit it? Most of the wealthy people I know earned it... that's just me though though.

In general, I find those that simply inherited often have a big standard of living drop because their parent's fortune is then taxed in passing, split up amongst grandchildren, and the kids don't know how to maintain the wealth either.

Is it really that sensationalist of a claim to say that the vast majority of wealthy people got their through hard word and perserverance?

Poor kids from inner city Detroit could be successful just like a poor kid in Johannesburg coud be successful just like someone who buys into a poker game with 5BB could be successful if only they make the right decisions.

Harder situations mean better decisions, harder work, and more luck need to fall into place for one to attain success. Better situations mean less of the above. It's a gradient in between.

With that qualifier in effect, yes, people who have amassed a bit of uninherited wealth have usually done things right and generally deserve to reap that success. How right they had to do things to get to that level will vary.

are people so ignorant that they don't realize that high income =/= wealth, although it surely makes being wealthy much easier

People grow up with people of similar socio economic backgrounds and maintain them throughout their lives unless a catastrophic event occurs. Obviously they are sheltered within their particular SES and being on the internet is probably the first time a person from a family that made 300k/year is going to be able to debate with a person from a family that make 75k/year. Yay for 2p2 solving socio economic differences!

Pretty sure that this is demonstrably false. If I recall correctly most people end up in a different socioeconomic class than their parents.

Perhaps why making the "correct decisions" in one circumstance weighed against doing the same in another is not exactly an even measurement.

I'm sure we're all aware that success and richness aren't the same, thank you.

Not everyone has the luxury to afford going to somewhere like Harvard. You need some serious money or connections to get in. How do good decisions = success when so many people can't even make so many certain decisions? And even if you got in, going there is no promise of success (though I will concede it may boost your chances).

Sorry, I don't know many rich people

I do doubt inheritance is taxed so highly as to suddenly make a family rich in one generation and poor in the next.

Yes it is, because not only have I seen zero evidence or citations to back this claim up, it just seems lazy to assume success is a direct result of work and not take luck into account. IMO, while hard work totally accounts for a good number of people getting far in life, luck plays a much bigger role than people are giving credit for.

Let me put it this way: Something like 5% of America is above the $250K mark. That's 15 million out of our 300 million people. Am I supposed to just believe 285 million people aren't working as hard? Cuz that's alotta lazyasses

Stupidity is the largest tax.

If your earning 250k a year and are still living from paycheck to paycheck then guess what, you're a moron, and your monetary troubles would likely not be alleviated with twice the income.
Once you supplement your basic needs as a human everything else becomes luxury. This line falls so way, way below 250k a year.

Also I would say it is the mid-strata's (income wise) of society who have the most balanced perspective, only those who are most likely to interact with both the relatively rich and the poor alike while avoiding the restrictions poverty entails and the segregative effect often seen when possessing a large fortune.

Indeed, it is so far below 250k a year that almost all of the ostensibly struggling middle class could easily make ends meet. Basic needs are very cheap if the incomes that much of the world live on are any guideline, even adjusting for purchasing power parity.

We need to drop the pretense that the debate over "who is rich?" has any meaningful implications for political philosophy. You can make arguments for progressive taxation on a number of grounds, but all the reasonable ones I have seen focus on a continuous function of income (e.g. as income increases, the marginal utility of money decreases). The only purpose of defining discrete categories such as "middle class" and "rich" is political posturing: you're trying to find the point at which a majority of voters will stop empathising with the taxed.

Liberals itt are not yearning to be rich, the others are.

Also, the ownage of fly itt is awesome.

It would be interesting to see the breakout of dems vs gop of small business owners... Hmmm, who do you think they support???

We have a consumer/debt driven economy. We should tax accordingly.

If you aren't spending at least 70% of your income making payments on some form of debt, then you are too rich and are not contributing enough to the economy and the government will have to take your money and do it for you.

So, it doesn't matter how much you make. Just make sure you leverage the **** out of every penny and everything will be ok.

wasn't that obvious when we got the "when the candy falls out" line?

grunch: This is lol horrible. 2k/month on two acuras? Wat??? And replace "many" with "a few" for the house part.

This a lot more accurate than you probably think.

You've been killing it lately with your posting.

+1 agreed.

This is completely off topic, but this isn't all that far out of line. You could very very easily spend close to $2k a month leasing two Acuras. Go take a look at what a reasonable lease is on a 50k car.

50k base with 15k miles a year, has a residual of 44% and a MF of .001 (per Edmunds). That is $915 a month. Lower miles would lower that, but a less then perfect credit score (800+) wouldn't get you that MF either.

our brains just aren't wired to comprehend the amount of variance and chance in life. Most every successful person thinks they are successful b/c of hard work, good decisions, etc when those things are just a small part of the bigger picture.

anyway, it was a stupid derail that is only tangentially related to the thread topic, and I shouldn't have brought it up.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._250000_i.html

that is def possible

econophile- Yeah, but you gotta realize that bottom 97% probably doesn't have kids, mortgages, commutes, or real bills. Highly likely they are mostly 21 year olds with no sense of perspective. Or worse, live in Staten Island.

What idiot is spending 50k on an Acura? You can get brand new E-series, 5-series, and good Audis for 50k right now. Dolt.