5
Malloy must go
Nice work everyone. ^^^^This is why this thread exists. To make the distinction we seem to forget about during the vilification process.BN wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich. Some people treat being rich as a crime.
If you are well-to-do I believe you have a responsibility to help the less fortunate.
However, I'm not advocating whether its the responsibility of the government nor the individual's responsibility to determine who the less fortunate are.
Me = 6ish.
Family = 9.8, don't have any helicopters.
Family = 9.8, don't have any helicopters.
#rekt
Lol, I doubt anyone has to prompt you to write a book.topal63 wrote:
I thought I was going to be asked to write a book...
I mean how I am supposed to respond the mikkel's post? If he simply doesn't value "work" or production itself; and thinks it equates to non-killed; unneeded; not in-demand jobs; etc. Our economy has been in decline industrially for 40 years. You can go to any local college bookstore open it up and there will be a graph in there stating this long term trend. It isn't a good trend. Nor is it good for Americans.
Consumerism does not replace industrial production. Even if that production is augmented by computers and robots.
When production is high, all jobs begin to be in-greater-demand. Only a portion of the workforce will ever be employed: some are to old, retired, to young, some are single mothers, some are in college, some between jobs, some are stay at home mothers, crippled, etc...
For example: engineering suffers as a profession when the base production declines. There is less to do in the economy at the base level; therefor there is less need/demand for engineers in America if globalization and exporting any job (to ensure ever increasing corporate profit levels) is more important than retaining jobs that involve "work" that leads to production. Also, just because another place in the world can do it for less; doesn't mean we benefit in the end. Especially not in a debt-structured monetary system.
High skilled jobs may earn more in the system in which they exist, but they are dependent upon the system being healthy at the production level.
Example: Insurance premiums - and the people who sell them administrate them and the politicians that regulate and sometimes deem them required - are dependent upon the ability of people to pay. But they are not doing work; the premiums are a system of wealth transfer; form work being doing someplace else. I am betting against myself while a non-productive sector makes profit off that bet. We say it's necessary - to have insurance. How can an industrial nation not deem industrial production and the associated jobs not necessary as well?
________
PS: We need consolidation of wealth (even our government does that, else no: roads, bridges, airports, schools, etc). We need the rich and a healthy private sector economy. And, there is nothing wrong with it: being rich - nor did I even indicate that it was inherently wrong or evil, depending on how you arrived there (of course). But, I do not benefit from those who use money to make money. I do benefit from the entrepreneur involved in production, valued added services, fair commerce, invention, etc. He is risking capital and deserves the reward and accolades that go along with that risk-taken. But, often money in America is not used for invention or production - it is money for money; money for money's sake. And worse it's leverage; money that doesn't exist conjured into existence to make more-money.
I don't agree with everything you're stating but I would like to discuss "the industrial decline of the US". As you are aware capitalism is a double-edged sword. One day you are a "9" and the next you're a "3". The nature of capitalism is competition, so every advantage is temporary.
Traditional economy has centered around industrial jobs, but in tune with a capitalist society, the opportunity was to expand globally. If you understand product lifecycle curves:
Each economy also has a lifecycle curve. Employment also corresponds to where Take agriculture - 90% of people used to have these jobs, now like 2% of people provide food for the rest. Reason? Process improvements and technology breakthrus. As part of the lifecycle curve, new industries start, a "new age", which is on its own curve. And each "new age" includes new technology or improvements which shortens the time involved until the "next age".
Unfortunately, understanding these process improvements and new technologies as has a hurdle - education. No education was fine for agriculture, then basic math for industrial, then entry level required a college degree...and now you can say a lot of people need master's degrees. Next step = phD.
Industry has been in decline because it's beyond the mature stage. Computers is in decline. The information age is now mature. So we are in the development stages for other economies (as we always are). Biotech, nanotech, health care...etc. This is the future, areas where the US is very well positioned to lead.
So even though I see industry is decline, I'm not surprised. So I don't think industry is as important as you do...I'm focusing on the future.
Last edited by Pug (2008-10-24 07:35:08)
I've gone from 1 to about 4/5 in the last 6 months. Hoping it carries on like this...
sameRAIMIUS wrote:
6ish
I have a single debt, but could pay it off if I needed to (I don't like touching my long term investments, especially when the market is down).
He was ejected straight out of his mothers womb and straight on to teh interwebz.CameronPoe wrote:
You didn't have any parents and didn't attend school?rdx-fx wrote:
"All men are created Equal" .. but, from there, you're on your own, son.
I'd say about a 6 for my family and for myself. We don't really have any debt, but income isn't exactly "disposable". Although it might be the 3 kids in college thing
No, but apparently YOU and PUG have decided what the rest of us are supposed to be responsible for. I tell you now, I give to charity because of generosity. How d oyou come to the conclusion that it is right for the govt. to dictate to me who I am supposed to be responsible for, outside my own family?Pug wrote:
Nice work everyone. ^^^^This is why this thread exists. To make the distinction we seem to forget about during the vilification process.BN wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich. Some people treat being rich as a crime.
If you are well-to-do I believe you have a responsibility to help the less fortunate.
However, I'm not advocating whether its the responsibility of the government nor the individual's responsibility to determine who the less fortunate are.
you cant?lowing wrote:
No, but apparently YOU and PUG have decided what the rest of us are supposed to be responsible for. I tell you now, I give to charity because of generosity. How d oyou come to the conclusion that it is right for the govt. to dictate to me who I am supposed to be responsible for, outside my own family?Pug wrote:
Nice work everyone. ^^^^This is why this thread exists. To make the distinction we seem to forget about during the vilification process.BN wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich. Some people treat being rich as a crime.
If you are well-to-do I believe you have a responsibility to help the less fortunate.
However, I'm not advocating whether its the responsibility of the government nor the individual's responsibility to determine who the less fortunate are.
In a socialist country like Canada, being rich is being guilty of not sharing your wealth. So the govermnent tax you more and more to give to the poor so they don't have to work harder to have better conditions. Result: No more middle class.. you have the rich, the poor and the middle class who in reality is just a poor guy working his ass off to afford the same standart of living as a poor person without receiving all those pretty gift from the government.
Don't fall into that trap America.. don't vote for Obama.
(And don't vote for McCain either)
Write in Ron Paul.
Don't fall into that trap America.. don't vote for Obama.
(And don't vote for McCain either)
Write in Ron Paul.
lol.. He quit the race you know.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Write in Ron Paul.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There's nothing wrong with being rich, but the problem is what the "rich" does with there money.. It takes the money away from your everyday man, then they have to pull money out of their stocks to support there family. Long story short is when the rich amass most of the money, which isn't by hard work, it's usually by being born into it.
Then the poor has to figure out ways to survive, so then they don't have the money to pump the rich up any more. So the Rich then end up being just as poor as everyone else..
Then the poor has to figure out ways to survive, so then they don't have the money to pump the rich up any more. So the Rich then end up being just as poor as everyone else..
Well said.God Save the Queen wrote:
Im not rich, thats whats wrong.
Uhh...no. If you read CAREFULLY I said the SAME THING as YOU.lowing wrote:
No, but apparently YOU and PUG have decided what the rest of us are supposed to be responsible for. I tell you now, I give to charity because of generosity. How d oyou come to the conclusion that it is right for the govt. to dictate to me who I am supposed to be responsible for, outside my own family?Pug wrote:
Nice work everyone. ^^^^This is why this thread exists. To make the distinction we seem to forget about during the vilification process.BN wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being rich. Some people treat being rich as a crime.
If you are well-to-do I believe you have a responsibility to help the less fortunate.
However, I'm not advocating whether its the responsibility of the government nor the individual's responsibility to determine who the less fortunate are.
I'm saying people SHOULD help the less fortunate via charity. NOT they HAVE to, in addition to who CHOOSES to make the contribution - the GOV'T versus the INDIVIDUAL.
Hope the HELPS.
Have a good WEEKEND.
Go DEVILRAYS
WHAT time is IT?
Notice the EMPHASIS
Oh and LOL
Last edited by Pug (2008-10-24 11:26:10)
bless youPug wrote:
Go DEVILRAYS
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's the RAYSKmarion wrote:
bless youPug wrote:
Go DEVILRAYS
I'm not sure where I'd fit in on there. Probably 7+. My disposable income is probably about £200/week (that's after I've paid my rent, bills, insurance, bought fuel, pension payments, student loan repayments etc.).Pug wrote:
Please state whether you are loaded or if your family is loaded on a 1-10 scale.
1 = I'm on food stamps, and I'm borrowing someone's computer to respond
3 = I've got creditors calling or they are about to
5 = I've got manageble debt, and I have to save for most purchases, usually it's not the best stuff either
7 = I have little worries, I have some nice things, and have disposable income
10 = I own three helicopters and a yacht. I'm married to a 23 year old, or if not married yet I will marry a 23 year old even if I'm 70.
So what's wrong with being rich?
Nothing wrong with being rich. Also there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich more than the poor. They can afford it, whereas the poor can't and struggle to get by as it is. There is a basic quality of life that people should be entitled to and if the rich have to contribute more than the poor do to help achieve that, then so be it.
So people that have achieved in life should have to pay for the people who haven't? I don't agree, even though I am generalising, you should be able to see my point. Of course, it isn't the fault of the people who were never given the opportunity in the first place, but yeah.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure where I'd fit in on there. Probably 7+. My disposable income is probably about £200/week (that's after I've paid my rent, bills, insurance, bought fuel, pension payments, student loan repayments etc.).Pug wrote:
Please state whether you are loaded or if your family is loaded on a 1-10 scale.
1 = I'm on food stamps, and I'm borrowing someone's computer to respond
3 = I've got creditors calling or they are about to
5 = I've got manageble debt, and I have to save for most purchases, usually it's not the best stuff either
7 = I have little worries, I have some nice things, and have disposable income
10 = I own three helicopters and a yacht. I'm married to a 23 year old, or if not married yet I will marry a 23 year old even if I'm 70.
So what's wrong with being rich?
Nothing wrong with being rich. Also there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich more than the poor. They can afford it, whereas the poor can't and struggle to get by as it is. There is a basic quality of life that people should be entitled to and if the rich have to contribute more than the poor do to help achieve that, then so be it.
And the mindset that just because you are rich means that you can afford to be taxed more? Well of course you can, but it doesn't make it right. My Father was subject to a tax investigation a couple years back as he was moving money to the Caribbean, so now he is taxed over 50%, fucking ridiculous. He will also be taxed on stocks in American oil company Conoco if he sells them, and he has a substantial amount, it's not right imo.
And my final misguided point is that I think Inheritance Tax is a fucking joke.
#rekt
Not if you've been following a long time.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's the RAYSKmarion wrote:
bless youPug wrote:
Go DEVILRAYS
I'm a Halo fan. Los Angelese Angels of Anaheim if you haven't been following a long time.Pug wrote:
Not if you've been following a long time.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's the RAYSKmarion wrote:
bless you
It's a fucking disgrace. Now that one is the true "spreading the wealth around" tax. Progressive income tax - no. Death-tax, oh yeah.Mint Sauce wrote:
And my final misguided point is that I think Inheritance Tax is a fucking joke.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-24 13:03:32)
The government needs to provide for those who cannot (not will not, but cannot) provide sufficiently for themselves. This needs to be paid for. Who should contribute most? Those who can most easily afford to. Do you disagree? Do you think the poor should be taxed at a higher rate than the rich?Mint Sauce wrote:
So people that have achieved in life should have to pay for the people who haven't? I don't agree, even though I am generalising, you should be able to see my point. Of course, it isn't the fault of the people who were never given the opportunity in the first place, but yeah.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure where I'd fit in on there. Probably 7+. My disposable income is probably about £200/week (that's after I've paid my rent, bills, insurance, bought fuel, pension payments, student loan repayments etc.).Pug wrote:
Please state whether you are loaded or if your family is loaded on a 1-10 scale.
1 = I'm on food stamps, and I'm borrowing someone's computer to respond
3 = I've got creditors calling or they are about to
5 = I've got manageble debt, and I have to save for most purchases, usually it's not the best stuff either
7 = I have little worries, I have some nice things, and have disposable income
10 = I own three helicopters and a yacht. I'm married to a 23 year old, or if not married yet I will marry a 23 year old even if I'm 70.
So what's wrong with being rich?
Nothing wrong with being rich. Also there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich more than the poor. They can afford it, whereas the poor can't and struggle to get by as it is. There is a basic quality of life that people should be entitled to and if the rich have to contribute more than the poor do to help achieve that, then so be it.
And the mindset that just because you are rich means that you can afford to be taxed more? Well of course you can, but it doesn't make it right. My Father was subject to a tax investigation a couple years back as he was moving money to the Caribbean, so now he is taxed over 50%, fucking ridiculous. He will also be taxed on stocks in American oil company Conoco if he sells them, and he has a substantial amount, it's not right imo.
And my final misguided point is that I think Inheritance Tax is a fucking joke.
Your opinion on tax seems to be based on what you've heard form your dad who sounds like he's been avoiding tax and is now being penalised for it. Good thing too. All these fucking tax cheats and don't pay their fair share are absolute cunts.
I have to agree in part on inheritance tax. I believe it shouldn't apply to houses, but should to everything else.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-10-24 13:03:47)
Shoulda gone with the Andorra offshore banks like my Uncle...Mint Sauce wrote:
So people that have achieved in life should have to pay for the people who haven't? I don't agree, even though I am generalising, you should be able to see my point. Of course, it isn't the fault of the people who were never given the opportunity in the first place, but yeah.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure where I'd fit in on there. Probably 7+. My disposable income is probably about £200/week (that's after I've paid my rent, bills, insurance, bought fuel, pension payments, student loan repayments etc.).Pug wrote:
Please state whether you are loaded or if your family is loaded on a 1-10 scale.
1 = I'm on food stamps, and I'm borrowing someone's computer to respond
3 = I've got creditors calling or they are about to
5 = I've got manageble debt, and I have to save for most purchases, usually it's not the best stuff either
7 = I have little worries, I have some nice things, and have disposable income
10 = I own three helicopters and a yacht. I'm married to a 23 year old, or if not married yet I will marry a 23 year old even if I'm 70.
So what's wrong with being rich?
Nothing wrong with being rich. Also there is nothing wrong with taxing the rich more than the poor. They can afford it, whereas the poor can't and struggle to get by as it is. There is a basic quality of life that people should be entitled to and if the rich have to contribute more than the poor do to help achieve that, then so be it.
And the mindset that just because you are rich means that you can afford to be taxed more? Well of course you can, but it doesn't make it right. My Father was subject to a tax investigation a couple years back as he was moving money to the Caribbean, so now he is taxed over 50%, fucking ridiculous. He will also be taxed on stocks in American oil company Conoco if he sells them, and he has a substantial amount, it's not right imo.
And my final misguided point is that I think Inheritance Tax is a fucking joke.
The problem with being "rich" is that you don't know the hardships Ronny Retard the Voter goes through every day.