Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class) Rich (Now with the Upper Middle Class)

01-29-2011 , 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me
Being bitter about netting $2100 a month doesn't now mean people making a lot more than you are rich. That seems to be the common theme ITT however.
I have a very nice quality of life. I get to go out to fancy dinners at Olive Garden and everything.

But if I happened to be in the bottom 2% of income earners and somebody said to me "Hey, you're kinda poor", I'd say "yeah, you're probably right". I wouldn't try and justify my 'richness' by crying like a like beyotch.

That seems to be the common theme ITT.
01-29-2011 , 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
.

Yeah, I can see how it would be laughable because the gap between the rich and super-rich is large. Wait, no, I don't see the humor. Or the relevance.



Here's an even better idea: make $250,000 a year, send your kids to community college, buy them a Toyota, vacation in Florida, and then use the other $200,000 to make it ****ing rain like T-Pain.



The issue here is whether someone making $250,000 a year is rich relative to those around them/in the same country. If the average person in a third-world country owns 5 chickens, then calling someone in that country with 25 chickens 'rich' is laughable? I bet not to the people in that country.
I already said if we wanted to be ******ed about it then yes the person with 25 chickens is rich. But you just basically acknowledged that you're basing a definition of rich on relativity rather than in absolute terms. If you want to consider yourself rich making 45k a year because there's homeless people out there then sure, by all means do so. We're all rich using that meaningless definition though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
I have a very nice quality of life. I get to go out to fancy dinners at Olive Garden and everything.

But if I happened to be in the bottom 2% of income earners and somebody said to me "Hey, you're kinda poor", I'd say "yeah, you're probably right". I wouldn't try and justify my 'richness' by crying like a like beyotch.

That seems to be the common theme ITT.
lol you're trying to argue a point that was already conceded. I said a long time ago that clearly if people want to just say that anyone making more than them is rich then that's fine even if not true.
01-29-2011 , 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me
This list is missing way too much and understating the expenses of a family of 5. Anyhow, /thread.
Yes I was trying to be fairly conservative and I knew I was only getting the obvious expenses.
01-29-2011 , 08:59 PM
Quote:
I already said if we wanted to be ******ed about it then yes the person with 25 chickens is rich. But you just basically acknowledged that you're basing a definition of rich on relativity rather than in absolute terms. If you want to consider yourself rich making 45k a year because there's homeless people out there then sure, by all means do so. We're all rich using that meaningless definition though.
Obviously, rich is a relative term like 'smart', 'skinny', or 'tall'. There will always be a dumbest person at a MENSA meeting, and there will always be a skinniest person at a Weight Watchers meeting.

I am talking about the term 'rich' relative to our society as a whole. Calling the person with 25 chickens 'rich' isn't ******ed, it is absolutely correct when referencing the society they live in.

Quote:
lol you're trying to argue a point that was already conceded. I said a long time ago that clearly if people want to just say that anyone making more than them is rich then that's fine even if not true.
I don't think you are getting the point. It isn't 'just anybody' making more money than me. I am talking about statistical outliers. People who make $250K+.....yeah, that's them.
01-29-2011 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me
but if we want to be ******ed about it anyone that's middle class in the USA is considered rich by most of the worlds standards.
Hell, minimum wage earners in America are among the wealthiest groups of people in the world.

Bunch of whiiiiiiiiiiiiners crying about the rich, should have made non-stupid choices when growing up. I have no sympathy for MOST poor people who whiiiine. And if you make more then 250k, that is great and should never make 1 single excuse to anyone.
01-30-2011 , 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenguy123
Hell, minimum wage earners in America are among the wealthiest groups of people in the world.
I read an article within the last couple of days (no link, sorry) that said in Egypt; 40% of the population lives on less than 2$ a day.

I had heard before that something like 1/2 the world population lives on 2$ a day or less - but (due to my own ignorance) didn't realize Egypt was so poor.
01-30-2011 , 09:39 AM
I think that's Yemen, not Egypt, but I could be wrong.
01-30-2011 , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdaddydvo
Bump per recent discussion w/Fly in the LC thread.
Most underrated bump of the last six months, at least.
01-30-2011 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
Obviously, rich is a relative term like 'smart', 'skinny', or 'tall'. There will always be a dumbest person at a MENSA meeting, and there will always be a skinniest person at a Weight Watchers meeting.

I am talking about the term 'rich' relative to our society as a whole. Calling the person with 25 chickens 'rich' isn't ******ed, it is absolutely correct when referencing the society they live in.



I don't think you are getting the point. It isn't 'just anybody' making more money than me. I am talking about statistical outliers. People who make $250K+.....yeah, that's them.
sure, so on a global scale you're rich as well (a statistical outlier) and the diff between your 25k and someone elses 125k (family making 250k) in the big picture, relative to everyone in the world, is meager. thus you'd be in basically the same grouping as them and would have no business trying to differentiate between yourself and someone making 125k, or even 250k for that matter. Most of the world would basically tell you "stfu you're rich too" and would consider the diff between 25 and 125k irrelevant compared to the situation they're in.

And yeah, like someone else said, while we're at it basically everyone in America is rich. Since things operate on what's considered a global economy these days why don't we just tax everyone in America 99% across the board and redistribute the wealth to the people who really need it.

Last edited by boobies4me; 01-30-2011 at 03:37 PM.
01-30-2011 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me
sure, so on a global scale you're rich as well (a statistical outlier) and the diff between your 25k and someone elses 125k (family making 250k) in the big picture, relative to everyone in the world, is meager. thus you'd be in basically the same grouping as them and would have no business trying to differentiate between yourself and someone making 125k, or even 250k for that matter. Most of the world would basically tell you "stfu you're rich too" and would consider the diff between 25 and 125k irrelevant compared to the situation they're in.

And yeah, like someone else said, while we're at it basically everyone in America is rich. Since things operate on what's considered a global economy these days why don't we just tax everyone in America 99% across the board and redistribute the wealth to the people who really need it.
Thank you for your input. So basically, if you make $250,000, you are either rich (nationally speaking) or super-duper rich (globally speaking).

I will not respond to any ludicrous 'redistribution of wealth' comments, because I never suggested higher tax rates for the rich.

If I was in a third-world country and somebody said to me "wow, 25K a year, you're pretty rich", I wouldn't insult them by saying "no, no, I can barely afford my second car." I'd say "Why, I guess I am. Thank you."

But some people seem to get their Gucci panties in a bunch over the word 'rich'. I don't exactly know why.
01-31-2011 , 12:26 AM
From reading this forum I have decided that I really need to start a Tea Party branded tax consulting firm and market it to conservative small business owners. You could rob those ******s absolutely ****ing blind.
01-31-2011 , 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
If I was in a third-world country and somebody said to me "wow, 25K a year, you're pretty rich", I wouldn't insult them by saying "no, no, I can barely afford my second car." I'd say "Why, I guess I am. Thank you."
Yeah, which would once again just mean rich relative to them. Not rich in terms of having great wealth or possessing assets, which is what it's intended to mean. But if you think making 25k in the USA being classified as rich is fine all because it's better off than 3rd worlders then there's really no sense in discussing it further. For 25k you'd be struggling to get by or living a very constrained/limited lifestyle -- I don't see how that is consistent with being rich.

Your whole point about offending them is a strawman since nobody says you need to make them feel bad. You can acknowledge you're way better off than them while still realizing you're not rich by any means.
01-31-2011 , 06:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
Obviously, rich is a relative term like 'smart', 'skinny', or 'tall'.
Quote:
Yeah, which would once again just mean rich relative to them.
Uh, yeah, that's kinda been established.

Quote:
But if you think making 25k in the USA being classified as rich is fine all because it's better off than 3rd worlders then there's really no sense in discussing it further.
Honestly, now I don't know if you are ****ing with me or purposely being obtuse. Of course someone making 25K in the U.S. is not rich RELATIVE TO PEOPLE IN THE U.S. Who do you want to relate this discussion to?

And seriously, enough with this:

Quote:
great wealth or assets
Dude, it's like a four word definition, many of which are of the 'relative' variety you speak so lowly of. I get it. GREAT WEALTH. ASSETS.

Really, I think the problem here is rich people honestly do not believe they are rich (this has been brought up by someone else in the thread). But looking from the outside, it is hilarious.

450 lbs. man walks into the doctors office. Doctor says "Sir, you are fat and you need to lose weight." Consider the following responses:

1) Yes, I am fat, but I'm not gonna lose weight. Piss off.

2) I'M NOT FAT. What about that 600 lb. guy over there! He's fat. What are you Dr.? About 190 lbs.? You know, in Ethiopia, YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERED FAT! Fat means 'great girth'. My girth isn't great. I can still get into my car! I'M NOT FAT I TELL YOU! Since I'm not fat, I'm not going to lose weight.

Seriously? The second response?
01-31-2011 , 10:38 AM
So do you only use the top 2 percentiles to define fat like you do to define rich? Bottom 97 percentiles are not fat?
01-31-2011 , 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
I personally think people earning $250k/year should be paying somewhere around 75-80% of their total income in taxation (they keep around $65,000). We have too much debt and it's not fair that these people are living it up while main street is drowning in a sea of personal debt and unemployment.
My. God. Get out of my country.
01-31-2011 , 11:07 AM
So I've seen what the communists here describe as rich. What do you think poor is?

I don't consider having a roof a over your head, air conditioning, television, and a cell phone as poor by any means, while most of you might even throw in a car and still consider that poor.
01-31-2011 , 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
The minimum wage should be raised above $20/hr, as it is in many European countries. This would help the economy because these people are more likely to spend their salary than those who live in $800k mansions and claim that they are not actually rich. Our biggest problem in the USA is that the rich exist like a cancer and are living off of the poor and are generating income at the expense of the poor.
Lol, this exactly part of what is wrong with the US today. The policies of the democratic party are leading us into a class warfare situation that might equal or overtake the way a lot of the population felt during the great depression in the 30's.

So we need to pay kids at MickeyD's 20 bucks an hour to flip burgers? Do you even start to realise what that burger would cost?
01-31-2011 , 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRUDEFINDER
So we need to pay kids at MickeyD's 20 bucks an hour to flip burgers? Do you even start to realise what that burger would cost?
They should also get a full health care plan, a 1:1 401k, and a guaranteed gov't retirement starting at 50. I look forward to the new and improved $20 value menu
01-31-2011 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Do you realize how many burgers and everything else everyone who worked at Mcdonalds would be able to afford?
Considering the cost of everything from clothes to food to housing would skyrocket...Not a whole hell of a lot
01-31-2011 , 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Do you realize how many burgers and everything else everyone who worked at Mcdonalds would be able to afford?
Why only $20/hour?

Why not $200?
01-31-2011 , 11:47 AM
Quote:
The Minimum wage in Denmark is 14.2 Euros and they enjoy a much higher overall standard of living than America.
No, they don't.
01-31-2011 , 11:54 AM
1: Raise everyone's wages by 400%

2: Prices of everything go up 400%

3: Declare victory in the war on poverty.

EZ GAME
01-31-2011 , 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
If instead of allowing them to save this money you use it for the better of the nation
lol

what do you think "saving" entails? You can't increase the standard of living without capital accumulation, DUCY?
01-31-2011 , 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Okay. I will try this one last time.

When you allow the wealthy to keep the money they earn, they just save a large percentage of it. If instead of allowing them to save this money you use it for the better of the nation and to raise up other men and women then you create an economy that moves faster and climbs higher while at the same time, you are doing the morally right thing by giving all members of a society a more equal standard of living and overall level of enjoyment. I will ask again, why should some Americans be living it up in $800k mansions and leasing multiple cars when their employees are drowning in credit card debt and can't afford healthy foods?
Well here's one good reason: People are lazy, particularly in the US. I freely admit that if I could make 50k a year being a door greeter at walmart I sure as hell would not be up to my ass in debt getting an engineering degree so I can make 65k a year down the road.

While the system in denmark may work for a population of 6 million people (for the time being at least). It sure as hell would not work for the 300million people in the US, most of whom do not give a **** about the "greater good" of the country
01-31-2011 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Try looking at the purchasing power adjusted index, where they are approximately equal.

However, looking at average aggregates like this does not tell you jack about where or not a law designed to unemployee people who provide less than $X/hour of value is a good thing.

      
m