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

01-31-2011 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Is this a joke? Bob has $200k. Sarah has $20k. I suggest making it so that Sarah has $100k and Bob has $120k. There is no capital lost. DUCY?
lol zero sum game.

Enjoy tapping the glass guise.
01-31-2011 , 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Is this a joke? Bob has $200k. Sarah has $20k. I suggest making it so that Sarah has $100k and Bob has $120k. There is no capital lost. DUCY?
Proof ^^^^

Winston Churchill once said the best argument against democracy was spending five minutes with the average voter.

ZY, do you not think that whatever Bob did to get the 200k (which you just took half of ) he would 1.) quit doing it or 2.) GTFO of Denmark?
01-31-2011 , 12:17 PM
Seriously.
01-31-2011 , 12:17 PM
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.
Let's say there is a 75-80% income tax on $250k/year, leaving the person with ~ $65k. Let's also say the tax rate for incomes of $90k is ~40%. Why in the world would that person work so much harder at the $250k job to bring home basically the same amount at the $90k job?
01-31-2011 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRUDEFINDER
Proof ^^^^

Winston Churchill once said the best argument against democracy was spending five minutes with the average voter.
Every Churchill quote I hear just makes him sound more awesome.
01-31-2011 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Is this a joke? Bob has $200k. Sarah has $20k. I suggest making it so that Sarah has $100k and Bob has $120k. There is no capital lost. DUCY?

Bob having 80k less money to invest or keep in a bank so Sarah can buy more Kobe Cheeseburgers DOES lose capital. DUCY?

Not to mention Bob loses a ton of incentive to produce capital when he is reaping little of the reward of it.

Last edited by THAY3R; 01-31-2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason: dying pony
01-31-2011 , 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by THAY3R
Bob having 80k less money to invest or keep in a bank so Sarah can buy more Kobe Cheeseburgers DOES lose capital. DUCY?
No, he does !CY.
01-31-2011 , 12:31 PM
Zombie,

An employer will only pay someone minimum wage if that worker would produce enough value to him where it would be worth it to hire him. The only thing that minimum wage laws do is ensure that anyone who would be willing to do a job for less than minimum wage can not legally work. DUCY?
01-31-2011 , 12:42 PM
There are very few black people in Denmark. I guess what you're trying to say is that the USA should just exterminate the blacks, right? Latinos too obv
01-31-2011 , 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
It's not the same amount, it is substantially more. However, both of these figures are still more than double what the average minimum wage full time employee makes now. So what does that tell? PS: In WWII tax rates were above 95% and the wealthy paid them because they believed in the good of the nation.
You are completely clueless.

75-80%:
0.20 x 250,000 = 50,000
0.25 x 250,000 = 62,500

40%:
0.60 x 90,000 = 54,000

And just so you know, there were endless amounts of tax deductions and loopholes during that time period in the U.S., meaning no one paid any where near the 90% rates you talk about.
01-31-2011 , 12:44 PM
I think the troll is all but confirmed.
01-31-2011 , 12:48 PM
Dear Denmark,

You are doing something wrong. The average age of your population is rising. The birth rate in your country is still not high enough to sustain, let alone grow, your population. Soon your population will be in decline, and you will not be able to afford your lavish social and retirement programs because you will not have a large enough work force. Enjoy the coming economic disaster.
01-31-2011 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZombieYellow
Someone tell Denmark that they are doing something wrong even though they have a higher standard of living. Turn off the Ron Paul you tube video and come back to reality.
Ceteris paribus is a word you would have learned had you taken any economics at all. Good luck getting anyone to take you seriously here.
01-31-2011 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
Uh, yeah, that's kinda been established.



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:



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?
This whole post is lol and is completely missing the point still. But OK, if using fat makes it easier for you then to put it in perspective how you're defining rich, it's more like a man that's 140lbs, 6'2, and lives in a community where 98% of other people are 100lbs instead, and then the top 1% of people weigh 400lbs+, so now the guy whose 140lbs is being referred to as fat because he's in the top 2%. Just because he weighs more than them doesn't mean he's now FAT. It's a false dichotomy.

I also pointed out many times already (not sure why you're still confused) that yes if we want to use definitions simply based on relativity then sure everyone in USA is rich. That's not how I define rich though -- as just to mean having more than other people. Would you agree that someone that's "rich" shouldn't be burdened with financial worries? Or is that not in the context of the definition for you?

Do you not see why definitions purely based in relative terms can be rather misleading? Just because someone is placed high on the percentile doesn't have to mean they fit the definition of the word people are using to describe them.

The guy in the 3rd world country that still drinks his water out a stream and lives in a hut but with 20 chickens instead of 10 isn't rich. The smartest kid in special ED isn't a genius. The best basketball player on a neighborhood block isn't a great player. And thus, the family making 250k in the USA is not "rich". Refer to the BFI thread I already linked if you need further clarification.

Last edited by boobies4me; 01-31-2011 at 01:22 PM.
01-31-2011 , 01:18 PM
I'm pretty sure Zombie is just 100% leveling fwiw.
01-31-2011 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me
This whole post is lol and is completely missing the point still. But OK, if using fat makes it easier for you then to put it in perspective how you're defining rich, it's more like a man that's 140lbs, 6'2, and lives in a community where 98% of other people are 100lbs instead, and then the top 1% of people weigh 400lbs+, so now the guy whose 140lbs is being referred to as fat because he's in the top 2%. Just because he weighs more than them doesn't mean he's now FAT. It's a false dichotomy.
Yep. You got it. Someone with 250K is like someone who weights 140 lbs in a neighborhood of 100 lb. people. Got it.

Except that it is absolutely ******ed.

Please explain to me mathematically how the relation of 100 lbs. to 140lbs. has anything to do with the relation of the median income to an income of 250K. I at least tried to pick a weight in the top 2% of people in the USA, not just make up some ridiculous numbers.

Who cares if there are people who weigh 500 lbs. or 120,000 lbs. Does this make the 400 lb person 'not fat'? I choose 400 lbs. because it is well above the median weight. You choose a 140 lbs. because you...uh...don't understand math?

Quote:
I also pointed out many times already (not sure why you're still confused) that yes if we want to use definitions simply based on relativity then sure everyone in USA is rich. That's not how define rich though-- as just to mean having more than other people. Would you agree that someone that's "rich" shouldn't be burdened with financial worries? Or is that not in the context of the definition for you?
Is a billionaire who worries about finances 'rich'?

It seems that 'not worried' is a pretty silly prerequisite for being rich.

Quote:
Do you not see why definitions purely based in relative terms can be rather misleading? Just because someone is placed high on the percentile doesn't have to mean they fit the definition of the word people are using to describe them.
Yes, you showed that in an absolutely unreasonable, made-up context, this could possibly be the case.

Quote:
The guy in the 3rd world country that still drinks his water out a stream and lives in a hut but with 20 chickens instead of 10 isn't rich.
He is compared to those in his country.

Quote:
The smartest kid in special ED isn't a genius
Don't sell yourself so short.

Quote:
The best basketball player on a neighborhood block isn't a great player.
He is compared to everyone on the block.

Quote:
And thus, the family making 250k in the USA is not "rich".
You have a dizzying intellect
Quote:
Refer to the BFI thread I already linked if you need further clarification.
Will do.
01-31-2011 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkidd
So do you only use the top 2 percentiles to define fat like you do to define rich? Bottom 97 percentiles are not fat?
Nope, never said that. I just said if you ARE in the top 2% of wealth, you ARE rich. If you ARE in the top 2% of weight, or body fat percentage, then you ARE fat. I never said bottom 98% = not rich, or bottom 98%=not fat.

Get the difference?
01-31-2011 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone Booth
Income = Revenue - Expense. Business owners don't pay income tax on revenue, or even on gross profit. No one whose gross profit is 250K would be considered to have made 250K, not accountants, not IRS, not his friends or wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_profit
Oh, but they do. Have you heard of the gross receipts tax or in some places it is called the business license tax? You can lose money and still owe this tax as a business owner. It is usually levied at the lowest level of government - the locality.
01-31-2011 , 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
Why only $20/hour?

Why not $200?
PVN, still baffled that aspirin bottles don't say "recommended dose: EVERY PILL IN THE WORLD"

Though, tbh, there's probably some heterodox school of medicine that rejects the scientific method out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
No, they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
lol zero sum game.

Enjoy tapping the glass guise.
Yeah, I gotta say, mocking people who don't know anything about economics is pretty amusing. It's more fun when they are pretentious blowhards who hilarious think they DO know economics because they watched three Peter Schiff youtube videos.

P.S. Lew Rockwell would be right at home in this political party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom

I think you were too hard on Denmark.
01-31-2011 , 08:49 PM
Quote:
Except that it is absolutely ******ed.
Glad we agree.

Quote:
Please explain to me mathematically how the relation of 100 lbs. to 140lbs
Oh, so it's necessary to actually look at factors beyond the person being 140lbs and in the top 2% in that example? Ya don't say.

Quote:
Is a billionaire who worries about finances 'rich'?
It's clear that I meant worried in the sense of being able to afford necessary/simple expenses. A billionaire is not worried.

Quote:
Yes, you showed that in an absolutely unreasonable, made-up context, this could possibly be the case.
So the overly simplistic manner in which you go about defining things can be made to look quite silly, got it.

Quote:
Don't sell yourself so short.
Says the person whose marginal utility is only valued at about $2100 a month.
01-31-2011 , 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
Nope, never said that. I just said if you ARE in the top 2% of wealth, you ARE rich. If you ARE in the top 2% of weight, or body fat percentage, then you ARE fat. I never said bottom 98% = not rich, or bottom 98%=not fat.

Get the difference?
You said it's fine to consider someone rich based on the fact that they are in the top 2% of income and that's it. Now sure, if that's how you want to define rich, but this threads basically about the fact that that family's lifestyle would more closely resemble people in the top 50% than the top 1%, even though 2% looks closer to 1% on paper. The magnitude of the wealth distribution gap isn't being accounted for.
01-31-2011 , 09:29 PM
If you really believe 250k/year is rich, you have a very odd definition of rich or you don't have anywhere near 250k coming in each year. The only way 250K/year is rich is if you have 5+mil saved. Then you can argue.

25k/year is not rich in America, not rich in Egypt either. Applying standards of living in third world countries to American slum salary ITT is ridiculous. In Nicaragua 25k/year is nice, however where in the US can you sustain the same cost of living as in Nicaragua? You can't.
01-31-2011 , 09:30 PM
Great Marxian failure throughout... entertaining thread.
01-31-2011 , 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
PVN, still baffled that aspirin bottles don't say "recommended dose: EVERY PILL IN THE WORLD"

Though, tbh, there's probably some heterodox school of medicine that rejects the scientific method out there.
OK, in this case you should be able to produce some science that shows $20/hour is the "optimal dose".
01-31-2011 , 10:13 PM
Quote:
Glad we agree.
Me too.

Quote:
Oh, so it's necessary to actually look at factors beyond the person being 140lbs and in the top 2% in that example? Ya don't say.
Yeah, like the factor your example is mathematical gibberish.

Quote:
It's clear that I meant worried in the sense of being able to afford necessary/simple expenses. A billionaire is not worried.
If you make 250K and are worried about 'necessary/simple expenses', you're doing it wrong.

Quote:
So the overly simplistic manner in which you go about defining things can be made to look quite silly, got it.
But your definitions are so much more intelligent and sensible. Wait, what were your definitions again? GREAT WEALTH. NOT WORRIED ABOUT 'SIMPLE' THINGS. Very deep and complex.

Please explain to me the superiority of your definitions to mine.

Quote:
Says the person whose marginal utility is only valued at about $2100 a month.
Hey, at least I'm rich in Zimbabwe.

Last edited by mathspazz; 01-31-2011 at 10:32 PM. Reason: I f'ed up

      
m