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 , 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
OK, in this case you should be able to produce some science that shows $20/hour is the "optimal dose".
I didn't claim it was. I'm mocking your arguing technique. It's transparently specious. I don't even think people who read Zero Hedge and Mises sincerely are dumb enough to find that persuasive.


Also, you do not believe in science under this analogy. It's not that I haven't produced it, you're supposed to not care. Also, let's be honest, academic economic papers? You aren't reading those. Neither are any of the other people furiously upbraiding Zombie in this thread.

I know, I know, you don't actually have any views or whatever and you didn't say any of that, but "Austrian" voluntarists literally do not accept the results of empirical economic studies.
01-31-2011 , 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boobies4me
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.
Now this I can agree with. I would agree that someone at that 98% mark probably more closely resembles someone at the 50% mark than someone at the 1% mark. Note that 'more closely resembles' does not mean 'resembles'.

But again, this is more a statement about the extreme wealth of the top 1% than the 'non-wealth' of someone at the 98% mark.
01-31-2011 , 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I didn't claim it was. I'm mocking your arguing technique. It's transparently specious. I don't even think people who read Zero Hedge and Mises sincerely are dumb enough to find that persuasive.
I agree, it is transparent.

That was precisely the point.
01-31-2011 , 10:50 PM
As for the rest of that post, you're failing to differentiate between realizing why the "science" analogy is false (in particular cases of empirical data) and pretending data doesn't exist.

Data itself isn't science.
01-31-2011 , 10:54 PM
I thought this was interesting.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-have-nots/

Basically, all of the US is more wealthy than 50% of Brazilians, 80% of Chinese, and all of India.

Or on a world scale, everyone in the US is rich.
01-31-2011 , 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
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.
stealing this idea
01-31-2011 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathspazz
Now this I can agree with. I would agree that someone at that 98% mark probably more closely resembles someone at the 50% mark than someone at the 1% mark. Note that 'more closely resembles' does not mean 'resembles'.

But again, this is more a statement about the extreme wealth of the top 1% than the 'non-wealth' of someone at the 98% mark.
The fact that $250k more closely resembles people in the top 50% of income than top 1% illustrates the point. They're being lumped in with the rich for tax purposes using a statistical measurement that doesn't factor in the very point you just agreed with. A family making $250k is still very much constrained lifestyle wise by money and if they are in more expensive locations probably living close to the felt.

Obviously though we're just disagreeing on the intended meaning of rich and I think measuring it just in relative terms is off the mark. For example if the world's population was hypothetically 1000 and you had 1 king who lived off the productivity of the other 999 people as his servants. He makes $100M a year and pays all the rest of them $5 a day except for 1 guy $10 a day a couple times during the year. Grouping the $10 guy in with the king as 'rich' would be asinine even though statistically it would seem as though he is. What's more relevant is his lifestyle and what the money provides him. In that sense, the $250k doesn't provide a lifestyle that's consistent with "rich".

When people dream of striking it rich one day they aren't dreaming of making $250k as a family then being taxed 45%, then after expenses, insurance, food, mortgage, retirement saving, etc, etc, having money left over for a vacation or two outside of their 40-50 hour work week then retiring at 65 like everyone else.
01-31-2011 , 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxtower
I thought this was interesting.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-have-nots/

Basically, all of the US is more wealthy than 50% of Brazilians, 80% of Chinese, and all of India.

Or on a world scale, everyone in the US is rich.
Exactly. Would love to see the facial expression of a person making 30k a year that's cheerleading to tax the "rich" and then their rebuttal when they're told that they're actually rich.
01-31-2011 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bills217
stealing this idea
I also have plans for a series of fraudulent charities that help our entirely fictional crises so that liberals can one-up their friends. "Oh, you donated to Haiti? Because of the earthquake? That's nice. I just gave a microloan to a victim of the plague outbreak in French Guyana so he could start an organic lentil bean farm."
01-31-2011 , 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
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.
Fly, I know you are smarter than these conservative small business owners, but why are they making **** tons more money than you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyyDD3gQMo
01-31-2011 , 11:58 PM
Quote:
The fact that $250k more closely resembles people in the top 50% of income than top 1% illustrates the point. They're being lumped in with the rich for tax purposes using a statistical measurement that doesn't factor in the very point you just agreed with. A family making $250k is still very much constrained lifestyle wise by money and if they are in more expensive locations probably living close to the felt.
I think this more of a snap to judgment regarding the most often follow up to the 'rich' tag; higher taxes. I am making (nor am I even suggesting) such a follow up.

I don't suggest that people making 250K be lumped in with people making 100 mil. I'm just saying that there can be varying degrees of rich, that's all.

If a family making 250K is 'constrained' money-wise in the U.S., it is by choice, not by any necessity or simple expenses. What type of people do you think choose to live in expensive locations?

Quote:
Obviously though we're just disagreeing on the intended meaning of rich and I think measuring it just in relative terms is off the mark. For example if the world's population was hypothetically 1000 and you had 1 king who lived off the productivity of the other 999 people as his servants. He makes $100M a year and pays all the rest of them $5 a day except for 1 guy $10 a day a couple times during the year. Grouping the $10 guy in with the king as 'rich' would be asinine even though statistically it would seem as though he is. What's more relevant is his lifestyle and what the money provides him. In that sense, the $250k doesn't provide a lifestyle that's consistent with "rich".
I understand what you are doing here, but you hypothetical is much too extreme to have any real-world significance. I have already conceded the fact that, in some made-up and ridiculous situations, you are correct.

Let me pose you a question. Suppose only 7 people existed on earth, each with an equal share of the world's resources. Are any of these people rich? Do any of them have great wealth? What makes it great? What is 'rich' without comparison?

Quote:
When people dream of striking it rich one day they aren't dreaming of making $250k as a family then being taxed 45%, then after expenses, insurance, food, mortgage, retirement saving, etc, etc, having money left over for a vacation or two outside of their 40-50 hour work week then retiring at 65 like everyone else.
You would be surprised what people dream of.
02-01-2011 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonh
Fly, I know you are smarter than these conservative small business owners, but why are they making **** tons more money than you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyyDD3gQMo
You guys don't understand the tax system and you think liberals are making it up or whatever when we try to explain it to you. Really, the same thing happened with Obamacare, happens with global warming, evolution, etc...

Really the defining feature of modern American politics is conservatives being angry at the world for being too complicated.
02-01-2011 , 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
You guys don't understand the tax system and you think liberals are making it up or whatever when we try to explain it to you. Really, the same thing happened with Obamacare, happens with global warming, evolution, etc...

Really the defining feature of modern American politics is conservatives being angry at the world for being too complicated.
wow at best fly response ever. What part of the tax system do I not understand? In fact, what part of the tax system did I even bring up? I asked why you cannot make as much money as the ****** small business owners. Simple question really.
02-01-2011 , 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonh
wow at best fly response ever. What part of the tax system do I not understand? In fact, what part of the tax system did I even bring up? I asked why you cannot make as much money as the ****** small business owners. Simple question really.
If he makes more than 0 dollars he makes more than most of them.
02-01-2011 , 10:52 AM
This whole thread is people arguing a basically subjective viewpoint so here is mine. My mom worked 2-3 jobs the whole time I was growing up and government supplied food was a regular in the cupboard. I make a decent living now, especially considering I have guaranteed retirement when I hit age 42 or thereabouts (when I retire from the military). But if I started making 250k a year tomorrow Id feel pretty ****ing rich.
02-01-2011 , 10:58 AM
One of my professors in undergrad was a co-owner of a small engineering company. I would estimate he made between 200-400k/ year, but he has 9 kids. Is that rich?
02-01-2011 , 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNeedScissors61
One of my professors in undergrad was a co-owner of a small engineering company. I would estimate he made between 200-400k/ year, but he has 9 kids. Is that rich?
Yep. I mean, you have the kids knowing the financial obligation they represent. Bad investment, IMO.
02-01-2011 , 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNeedScissors61
One of my professors in undergrad was a co-owner of a small engineering company. I would estimate he made between 200-400k/ year, but he has 9 kids. Is that rich?
Let's go the other way. Suppose someone has $1 billion buried in their yard, but lives in a shack, has one pair of shoes, and eats only Hungry Man dinners. Rich?
02-01-2011 , 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNeedScissors61
One of my professors in undergrad was a co-owner of a small engineering company. I would estimate he made between 200-400k/ year, but he has 9 kids. Is that rich?
Of course he is. If you look at kids strictly as a financial liability and not people who enrich your life, then you've got to take a look at your values.
02-01-2011 , 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNeedScissors61
One of my professors in undergrad was a co-owner of a small engineering company. I would estimate he made between 200-400k/ year, but he has 9 cars. Is that rich?
FYP.

Yes.
02-01-2011 , 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Of course he is. If you look at kids strictly as a financial liability and not people who enrich your life, then you've got to take a look at your values.
Or you've got to take a look at the context. If we're talking about social welfare programs, few are going to turn away the single working mother of 9 who is "rich enough" because of all the value her kids bring to her life.
02-01-2011 , 11:58 AM
He wore Dickies dress pants with his button up shirt, if that means anything.
02-01-2011 , 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Of course he is. If you look at kids strictly as a financial liability and not people who enrich your life, then you've got to take a look at your values.
Yea, and if times got really bad you could eat a couple of them.

I have a friend in the rental house business. He makes about 260-270K yearly from rentals. Is he rich? No, because his payments, insurance and taxes cost 200K + a year.

So pay attention here. He makes over 250K a year and HE IS NOT RICH!
02-01-2011 , 04:31 PM
No, he makes 60-70k a year.

I guess 100k or thereabouts if you dont remove taxes. But certainly how much someone makes shouldnt be calculated as what he makes before payments and insurance (im guessing on the properties), cos that is income, not profit.
02-01-2011 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRUDEFINDER
Yea, and if times got really bad you could eat a couple of them.

I have a friend in the rental house business. He makes about 260-270K yearly from rentals. Is he rich? No, because his payments, insurance and taxes cost 200K + a year.

So pay attention here. He makes over 250K a year and HE IS NOT RICH!
Uh, yeah, you aren't really getting the point here. He wouldn't HAVE the 260K without SPENDING the 200K. This isn't what is meant when it is said that someone 'makes' 250K.

      
m