# Should your votes be equal to your income taxes?



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

I'm a firm believer that the rich in the USA get screwed.

I am against taxation without representation. 
The rich pay the majority of income tax, but only get one vote. They are grossly unrepresented at the polls.

I believe a more fair system would be something along the lines of a US citizen get to cast one vote in a federal election for every $10,000.00 paid in income tax. It's still probably not fair, but it's a start. 
Vote and cast your opinion.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Bear in mind the really mega-rich in this country are liberal - George Soros, Bill Gates... Oprah Winfrey.

I do pretty well, but not as well as many professional athletes and entertainers - not sure I really want them "buying" more votes than I have.

DCH


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I too believe we are overtaxed however your notion would be a slippery slope toward an Oligarchy. 

By the way, taxation without representation refers to the fact that you have a representative at different levels of government; it does not refer to any formula of proportionality.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*just tell your servants who to vote for!*

The rich benefit more from the existence of government, and should pay more. It's right there in Adam Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_:


> The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.





> It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.


On a more pragmatic side, the rich have myriad means of tax loopholes and deductions unavailable to the commoner. And they can flee to a nation with less progressive taxes (which is why the US gets British billionaire tax refugees). They can also evade taxes by choosing to be poor, which is what I do.

And besides, we have a republic to prevent the mob rule of democracy. And that 3/5 compromise.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

There's not an option for my view; explained in the previous discussion of the topic. https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=596438#post596438


----------



## stainless (Aug 27, 2007)

The rich already have an proportionally larger influence on policy/legislation through campaign contributions and lobbying groups. They also benefit more from tax loopholes and pork barrell spending. The rich are doing plenty fine with the illusion that the average American voter actually has much of a say in anything.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I think that it should go like this: you only get to vote if you spent a year in an infantry unit, or teaching school, and then, one vote for every $10K of income tax you pay.


----------



## bjorn240 (Jan 8, 2008)

Yes! Let's reinstitute the poll tax! And dust off the stocks and debtors' prisons while we're at it!


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> Bear in mind the really mega-rich in this country are liberal - George Soros, Bill Gates... Oprah Winfrey.
> 
> I do pretty well, but not as well as many professional athletes and entertainers - not sure I really want them "buying" more votes than I have.
> 
> DCH


they only pretend to be liberal, if they were really liberal they would give all their wealth away, not just the portion they can wrrite off on tax deductions or business expenses and then look like good samaritins.
Also, remember that most wealthy people have very little taxable working income and pay a much lower percent of income tax because much of their income comes from stock dividends. We only tax certain kind sof income in America. We dont tax wealth (worth) You should see the looks and my stdents faces when I explain that one to them.

And that's exactly why wealthy democrats can go around screaming to increase taxes, because their wealth is not effected. The working man in this country is the fool.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> I think that it should go like this: you only get to vote if you spent a year in an infantry unit, or teaching school, and then, one vote for every $10K of income tax you pay.


Great point, I forgot about earning votes through public service jobs.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Capt Ron said:


> they only pretend to be liberal, if they were really liberal they would give all their wealth away, not just the portion they can wrrite off on tax deductions or business expenses and then look like good samaritins.\


Goodness, you know a lot about liberals and what they should do.



Capt Ron said:


> Also, remember that most wealthy people have very little taxable working income and pay a much lower percent of income tax because much of their income comes from stock dividends. We only tax certain kind sof income in America. We dont tax wealth (worth) You should see the looks and my stdents faces when I explain that one to them.


And so they get screwed-- how?



Capt Ron said:


> And that's exactly why wealthy democrats can go around screaming to increase taxes, because their wealth is not effected. The working man in this country is the fool.


There is the estate tax, the last shot at keeping the playing field somewhat level. Warren Buffett and several of his peers have come out very strongly in favor of keeping it.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

The Interchange is dead. Long live the Interchange! This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.

I am all for lower taxes but if you think that the rich are screwed in this country when a hedge fund manager making tens of millions of dollars often pays a lower effective tax rate than a 2nd Lt. serving in Iraq then you really should give up and admit that complicated politcal matters are beyond your understanding and begin stocking items for End Times.

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> The Interchange is dead. Long live the Interchange! This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.
> 
> ...


+100, Karl.

I think I'll be spending considerably less time here.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> The Interchange is dead. Long live the Interchange! This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.


Word...+1


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> The rich benefit more from the existence of government, and should pay more.


Prove it. That is quite a statment to make with no presentation of evidence.



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> It's right there in Adam Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_:
> 
> 
> 
> > The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.


So from your quoting of this, it would seem you are for a flat tax? That is the only tax that requires one to pay in proportion vs. in increasing proportions.



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> On a more pragmatic side, the rich have myriad means of tax loopholes and deductions unavailable to the commoner.


I often hear this from liberals. I am not "rich", but I am affluent, although some of the Dems tax plans has me somehow grouped into "the rich" category, so for all effects and purposed regarding taxes, I am "rich". I have less ability to shelter income than "the commoner". Were you aware of this situation? Also, could you please share a concrete "tax loophole" with me? No one has yet to show me how I could take, say 25k, and somehow deduct it from my taxes, without a corresponding loss (which would defeat the purpose for me), or after I max my 401k, how I can deduct further income and tax shelter it. Please, enlighten me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.
> 
> Karl


Not only was your answer silly; it was summarily deconstructed and shown to be a combination of lies and inaccuracies.

We are still waiting for you to 'own up to' and correct them; as you well know. https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=698060#post698060

However, you choose to make your position worse by a continued attempt to condescend and divert.

You cannot be successful because your actions demonstrate a lack of intelligence and integrity.

I realize you need to get b*tch-slapped to start your day, but maybe you should just switch to coffee or get up a little earlier (ok, a lot earlier).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow. Nice to see folks so righteously band against a question! So much for valuing minority opinions and diversity of thought! How do we think the Framers, people I know some of you know decrying this topic have often appealed to, would answer this question? Did they not believe one should have certain criteria other than being 18 and able to press a chad out? Ignore the racial and gender requirements, did they not have economic criteria?

Shame, shame gentlemen. If you dislike an idea or concept, show why it is wrong headed, do not marginalize it through mere scorn.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

If you cant see anything wrong about a hedge fund manager paying a lower tax rate then someone serving in Iraq then you surely won't see why the question merits more than scorn.

Karl


----------



## jkreusc (Aug 14, 2006)

> I have been extraordinarily lucky. I mean, I use this example and I will take a minute ortwo because I think it is worth thinking about a little bit. Let's just assume it was 24hours before you were born and a genie came to you and he said, "Herb, you look very promising and I have a big problem. I got to design the world in which you are going to live in. I have decided it is too tough; you design it. So you have twenty-four hours, you figure out what the social rules should be, the economic rules and the governmental rules and you and your kids and their kids will live under those rules.
> 
> You say, "I can design anything? There must be a catch?" The genie says there is a catch. You don't know if you are going to be born black or white, rich or poor, male or female, infirm or able-bodied, bright or retarded. All you know is you are going to take one ball out of a barrel with 5.8 billion (balls). You are going to participate in the ovarian lottery. And that is going to be the most important thing in your life, because that is going to control whether you are born here or in Afghanistan or whether you are born with an IQ of 130 or an IQ of 70. It is going to determine a whole lot. What type of world are you going to design?
> 
> ...


Warren Buffett Lecture at the University of Florida School of Business October 15, 1998

How many of you who answered that it should be based upon taxes you paid would view your social decisions in this light? Or would you vote based upon what was the best for YOU.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Did they not believe one should have certain criteria other than being 18 and able to press a chad out? Ignore the racial and gender requirements, did they not have economic criteria?


Sory Wayfarer, "criteria" has become a bad word like "profits".

Criteria is just another way the white man enslaves everybody else.
Were you not informed that it's time that the rich man pay back for all the illgotten gains stolen from slaves, women, and the disabled.

I think the Asians really get screwed in all this. They never seem to make the media when it comes to civil rights.

Will there be a gop phoenix rising???


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> The Interchange is dead. Long live the Interchange! This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.
> 
> ...


Wow, hatchet buried. +1

The Interchange is beginning to resemble some sort of paranoid survivalist's bunker.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl, we don't agree on everything, but when you're right, you're right.

I heard Warren Buffett talking about a standing challenge he has made to CEO's (or some similarly advantaged group) that he will give them a million dollars of his own money (or to a charity, I'm fuzzy on the details) if they can demonstrate that they're paying a higher tax rate than their secretary. So far his money is safe.

Or if we're talking about political power: I guess we can all bemoan the fact that the levers of power are so blatantly denied to the wealthy that it is virtually unheard of for a person of means to achieve elective office, especially the U.S. Senate and that the wage-earning millions are so successful at throwing their weight around that capital gains, dividends, and other investment income are taxed at confiscatory rates, while wages from employment are virtually exempt from taxation.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> The Interchange is dead. Long live the Interchange! This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.
> 
> ...





RJman said:


> Wow, hatchet buried. +1
> 
> *The Interchange is beginning to resemble some sort of paranoid survivalist's bunker.*


+1 on both posts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> If you cant see anything wrong about a hedge fund manager paying a lower tax rate then someone serving in Iraq then you surely won't see why the question merits more than scorn.
> 
> Karl


Karl,

If you cannot see the question was more than just about this narrow example you surely will not see any reason not to find yourself right in all cases. I mean, it is a nice emotionally loaded example you pulled up here, but a thousand of such tear jerkers in no way refutes a concept, merely the current execution of the current paradigm.

To wipe away our tears, let us pose it thusly: if we have a flat tax rate, *so hedge fund managers paid exactly the same rate as all soldiers in Iraq*, what do you think of the concept of this?

Now you are free not to play on emotions, not to intimate moral high ground, etc., but rather, just answer the question. Also, just as an aside, I do believe people in battle deployment pay 0% income tax. I could be wrong, but if correct, that would really deflate that little tearjerker, would it not? Does anyone know if this is correct?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

I think the additional combat pay is tax free and those deployed to combat theatres are given filing extensions but I dont think they are exempt from taxes.

I support a flat tax, or even better yet a national sales tax. But I also think that for the time being there should be a war tax on top of any income tax, of say between 1-2%. President Bush has only asked the American public to shopping but hasn't asked us to pay what is necessary to make sure our troops have timley deliveries of the equipment they need and the medical and rehabilitation care they often need.

And finally just bc an example is emotionally charged does not make irrelevant either. Perhaps you dont have a problem with the example I cite but I think many Americans do.

Karl


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

> The Interchange is dead. Long live the Interchange! This has to be the silliest question posed since Ksinc asked what international experience John McCain has.


+1



Capt Ron said:


> I'm a firm believer that the rich in the USA get screwed.


_"Mo' Money, Mo' Problems... but being broke is harder" - Jadakiss_


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I have posted this before but with this thread it needs to be reiterated. When it comes to taxes in this country, please note the following:

High income DOES NOT mean "rich." Many like to cite this because its a great sound byte and allows higher taxes, but nothing can be further from the truth. The top 5% of income earners and the top 5% of net worth in this country are almost mutually exclusive. With our current tax system, everytime it is mentioned to raise taxes on the "rich," they really should be saying "the productive." If you want to really tax the "rich," institute a wealth tax. Wanna guess the chances of that happening are? Wanna guess why?

I always thought a society should provide incentive for the most productive people of its society. What do we do? Insist that the top 5% most productive people pay 50% of the total tax. You know what? This world is getting flatter and flatter - its getting easier and easier for that top 5% to take their 50% elsewhere to where maybe they get a little more rewarded for what they are contributing to society. Love to see the US Govt balance its budget with 50% less tax revenue and a much weaker economy bc of brain drain.

So no, the rich are not getting screwed in this country, but the productive sure are, and I think our politicians are just about to choke the golden goose......


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

No. It would concentrate the political power with the earning power and disenfranchise most people.

Remember, rich people, I don't like big government or taxes either, but if the little guy doesn't feel he has a stake in the process, he's not going to serve on the police force or in your army. There is something to be said for a society where most people feel they have a reason to at least accept the status quo.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I observe a consensus that Warren Buffet's opinion should get greater weight because of his success in the private sector. I actually agree with that. 

It's why I think voter's opinions should be weighted. (tangentally: it's also why I support Romney)

However, aren't yall contradicting the 'all votes are equal' theory by drawing Buffet like a sword? He's just another person like every other, right? Who cares what he thinks?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

In the interest of fairness - it seems Enlisted and NCOs do not pay income taxes while deployed to a combat zone. They still do pay SS and Medicare. Officers and Warrant Officers are allowed to deduct the highest enlisted salaries from their income and pay income tax on the amount above that. They are still responsible for SS and Medicare.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> In the interest of fairness - it seems Enlisted and NCOs do not pay income taxes while deployed to a combat zone. They still do pay SS and Medicare. Officers and Warrant Officers are allowed to deduct the highest enlisted salaries from their income and pay income tax on the amount above that. They are still responsible for SS and Medicare.
> 
> Karl


... they are just paying into their own SS and Medicare accounts, right? 

Is the solution to exempt them from SS and Medicare taxes or to exempt everybody?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

I would be happy to do away with Social Security and vastly scale down Medicare. But I dont think any of our troops should pay any taxes, do you?

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> I would be happy to do away with Social Security and vastly scale down Medicare. But I dont think any of our troops should pay any taxes, do you?
> 
> Karl


No, I don't and if you got rid of SS and Medicare they wouldn't. If you keep SS and Medicare they have to fund their accounts. That's not really a benefit to not pay SS since you get out of SS based on what you pay in. I think my projected SS benefits are something like $309/mo based on what I have paid in per my last statement.

For example, if I was getting combat pay and not paying income taxes on it, I would probably increase my contribution if SS had private accounts and I would max out a HSA too. Just like I would do with a 401K, an IRA, and a ROTH.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> I think the additional combat pay is tax free and those deployed to combat theatres are given filing extensions but I dont think they are exempt from taxes.
> 
> ...


Karl:

You did everything but answer the question.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> In the interest of fairness - it seems Enlisted and NCOs do not pay income taxes while deployed to a combat zone. They still do pay SS and Medicare. Officers and Warrant Officers are allowed to deduct the highest enlisted salaries from their income and pay income tax on the amount above that. They are still responsible for SS and Medicare.
> 
> Karl


Karl:

Thanks for looking this up and reporting on it.

As to emotionally laden examples: in conversational logic, it is usually deemed a poor choice, as the idea is to examine the idea or concept, not taint the thought processes of those considering it. So yes, I do have a problem with such examples. They obfuscate the issue.

By the way, I am surprised no one has noticed I have not said whether I am for or against this. I just have not summarily dismissed the concept. To actually address the concept, I think merely looking at income tax paid is not a good idea. However, I do think there is something to the concept the "gut reaction" that someone on welfare, who is able bodied and of sound mind, should get the same weight of input in deciding elections as someone that has worked their way up from poverty to affluence is inherently wrong and unfair. How we fix this I do not know, but I think we need to admit that in all seriousness, it makes little sense that everyone gets the same voting power.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

So would Paris Hilton get more votes? Does inherited money count? What about Larry Flynt? Does the porn industry count the same as other businesses? What about organized crime? Should the 5 New York families get more votes? What about Hollywood and the music industry? Should Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Britney Spears and Sean Penn receive more votes? They do pay more taxes than most people afterall.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

I'm sorry but I kind of agree that this is the silliest question seen round these parts in some time


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Laxplayer said:


> So would Paris Hilton get more votes?


 Absolutely! Britney too ... and ever other blond "bimbo" or "bimbette."



Laxplayer said:


> Does inherited money count?


 If it earns one taxable income -- and mine does -- absolutely!



Laxplayer said:


> What about Larry Flynt? Does the porn industry count the same as other businesses?


 They get double votes in my opinion ... for the "service" they perform for "society."



Laxplayer said:


> What about organized crime?


 Given the difficulty and chances they take "earning" their money ... they get triple votes over citizens earning their money legally! And I say ... that by some formula ... we give them even more votes for the money that remains unreported to the IRS.



Laxplayer said:


> Should the 5 New York families get more votes?


 Money is money ... they get votes.



Laxplayer said:


> What about Hollywood and the music industry??


 Yes, and yes. And if they are liberal ... they get double ... but if conservative ... only half ... and if neo-con ... they get negative votes.



Laxplayer said:


> Should Alec Baldwin? Michael Moore, Britney Spears and Sean Penn receive more votes? They do pay more taxes than most people after all.


 Yes, yes, yes and yes. Oh ... I didn't see Britney coming ... or I wouldn't have added her after Paris above. And, of course, if they are in rehab ... they get double votes ... and if simultaneously a party to a court case involving child custody and/or parental custody over the star him/herself ... they get double x double ... kind of like in scrabble.

Just my opinion. :icon_smile_wink:

EDIT: Just in the event anyone is left wondering ... I think the concept of votes tied to income represents the unbridled right-wing-leaning lunacy of this particular forum.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> However, I do think there is something to the concept the "gut reaction" that someone on welfare, who is able bodied and of sound mind, should get the same weight of input in deciding elections as someone that has worked their way up from poverty to affluence is inherently wrong and unfair.


 Given that comment ... you have now made your thought/s known ... enough in part even if not in whole.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> Given that comment ... you have now made your thought/s known ... enough in part even if not in whole.


I have never tried to hide them.

So share your thoughts. Do you believe an able-bodied, sound minded individual that decides to leech of society should have equal footing, and be equally valued, as someone born to poverty and works their way into being a successful, contributing member of society? We are not discussing the infirm, physically or mentally, we are discussing two healthy, whole people.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> I have never tried to hide them.
> 
> So share your thoughts. Do you believe an able-bodied, sound minded individual that decides to* leech* of society should have equal footing, and be equally valued, as someone born to poverty and works their way into being a successful, contributing member of society? We are not discussing the infirm, physically or mentally, we are discussing two healthy, whole people.


A question having that degree of bias inherent is not looking for an answer.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Higher IQ=more votes
tall people should get less votes. 
the moe deductions you take on your taxes=less votes.
people in Chicago automatically get extra votes. +4 if somebody at the Hall sent you. +8 if it was from the 5th fllor.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> By the way, I am surprised no one has noticed I have not said whether I am for or against this.


Regarding his feelings on the issue ...


Wayfarer said:


> I have never tried to hide them.


Perhaps that is why no one noticed. With 6000+ posts to your credit ... there isn't much left to wonder.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> A question having that degree of bias inherent is not looking for an answer.


Feel free to rephrase it as you wish, as long as the scenario presents the same facts. Then answer it.


----------



## jkreusc (Aug 14, 2006)

David V said:


> Higher IQ=more votes
> tall people should get less votes.
> the moe deductions you take on your taxes=less votes.
> people in Chicago automatically get extra votes. +4 if somebody at the Hall sent you. +8 if it was from the 5th fllor.


Worked pretty well for Mayor Daley (The original, that is.)


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Feel free to rephrase it as you wish, as long as the scenario presents the same facts. Then answer it.


You seem to appreciate the term Welfare Queen ... even if I do not.

The Welfare Queen -- if she is a citizen and registered to vote -- deserves one vote.

Wayfarer -- if he is a citizen and registered to vote -- deserves one vote.

Plain enough?

Given the prevalence of over-the-top beyond-right-wing views expressed so freely here ... it is becoming an embarrassment to be associated with this forum. This is ruining this website in my singular opinion. Too bad the _New York Times_ doesn't do an article on this part of AskAndy. You'd think that America was nothing but countless women on government assistance ... with each and every one spending their days living the life of luxury on an paltry government check ... and if it is to be believed ... one that comes directly from the pockets of a few tight-fisted, money-grubbing, selfish men lurking on the Interchange.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

RSS said:


> You seem to appreciate the term Welfare Queen ... even if I do not.
> 
> The Welfare Queen -- if she is a citizen and registered to vote -- deserves one vote.
> 
> ...


+1. I am a conservative and this place gives me the willies.

I will probably regret this, but...

Wayfarer, you really bring this forum down. While you seem to fancy yourself an intellectual giant, your cheap brand of sophistry does nothing but make it impossible for reasonable people to have a reasonable discussion.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

David V said:


> *Higher IQ=more votes*


The best version I've heard of this approach is "one vote per IQ point" ... :icon_smile_big:

As for the OP and its supporters, at least get the terminology correct -- you are positing plutocracy, not democracy.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

iammatt said:


> +1. I am a conservative and this place gives me the willies.


Iammatt, please know that I have only respect for you and for any true conservative. I fondly recall our AskAndy/London Lounge luncheon and certainly found myself much more in agreement than not when the discussion turned to politics. Of course, so much more of our discussion was about matters sartorial ... as well it should have been. When one has Manton and Will at hand ... matters sartorial are spot on for the appropriate topic.

Lately I cite John Dean -- of Nixon White House days --as one I consider to be a hero. He is a conservative with a conscience. And by many standards I am a conservative ... hopefully with a conscience.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

How about the more well endowed you are the more votes you get??? Maybe 1 vote per inch??? hey it's no more ridiculous than some of the other suggestions...



RJman said:


> The Interchange is beginning to resemble some sort of paranoid survivalist's bunker.


Seriously...some of these topics as of late are like something imagined by Dale Gribble and Hunter S Thompson...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Seriously...some of these topics as of late are like something imagined by Dale Gribble and Hunter S Thompson...


And they all seem to come from the same source, funny that.

Karl


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Seriously...some of these topics as of late are like something imagined by Dale Gribble and Hunter S Thompson...


"When the going gets weird, The Weird turn pro."

:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

iammatt said:


> +1. I am a conservative and this place gives me the willies.
> 
> I will probably regret this, but...
> 
> Wayfarer, you really bring this forum down. While you seem to fancy yourself an intellectual giant, your cheap brand of sophistry does nothing but make it impossible for reasonable people to have a reasonable discussion.


Matt:

I have to say I do find it funny you accuse me of a "cheap brand of sophistry" when you quote something from RSS where he has me using a term I have never used. I certainly do not consider myself an intellectual giant nor do I consider myself lacking in intelligence. I am sorry you consider my participation to be a detriment. I feel I post with honesty, try to be consistent, and admit when I do not know something. I try to be reasonable and I try to hold other people to fair arguments. I will admit I am dogged when people try and not prove their assertions with facts or when they use fallacies.

If I am seen as such a disruptive person, I will simply depart.

Cheers


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Matt:
> 
> I have to say I do find it funny you accuse me of a "cheap brand of sophistry" when you quote something from RSS where he has me using a term I have never used. I certainly do not consider myself an intellectual giant nor do I consider myself lacking in intelligence. I am sorry you consider my participation to be a detriment. I feel I post with honesty, try to be consistent, and admit when I do not know something. I try to be reasonable and I try to hold other people to fair arguments. I will admit I am dogged when people try and not prove their assertions with facts or when they use fallacies.
> 
> ...


Don't bail on my account. I only read here and do not post. I do think that you have a tendency to try to twist other people's arguments rather than dealing with the merits of an issue, but what I think about it really matters very little for the reason I state above.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*This is the interchange not a tea party!!!*

People Poleeeeeeeeeze

This is the interchange. We insult each other politely with wit, we understand typonese, but we still slam grammar. We argue, we defame, we slander, regardless of orientation we are still men.

We don't have to like each other or even respect each other to play. We should however maintain a semi-educated level of debate and rebuttal to keep it civilized and not to tarnish any part of the forum with displays of childish school ground replies. We shall argue like gentlemen and slap each other with our proverbial white gloves.

We are conservatives, liberals, pole sitters/ fence sitters and nut jobs from both wings of the house.

We do not flee when attacked we rebutt and defend or acknowledge our defeat or agree to disagree. We do not run, we are well dressed gentlemen not quitters.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *The Gabba Goul* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=701214#post701214
> _Seriously...some of these topics as of late are like something imagined by Dale Gribble and Hunter S Thompson..._






Karl89 said:


> And they all seem to come from the same source, funny that.
> 
> Karl


Gribble and Thompson are amateurs.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> "When the going gets weird, The Weird turn pro."
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal


You have been watching to much mtv.

1 vote per US citizen.

The only tax should be a sales tax. Yeah! No invasive irs! Every time somebody buys something - stocks, bonds, car, clothes, etc., except food, a tax is paid. And the seller pays no tax. When there is no way to write off a tax and everything is taxed, except food, the rich will pay the most.

Warren Buffett should put his money where his mouth is.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> You have been watching to much mtv.
> 
> 1 vote per US citizen.
> 
> ...


You're kidding right? Buffett gave 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's approximately $30 billion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You're kidding right? Buffett gave 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's approximately $30 billion.


You bring up a good point. I wonder why Buffett gave that money to Gates instead of to the government?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You bring up a good point. I wonder why Buffett gave that money to Gates instead of to the government?


Because he is friends with Bill and he likes his foundation? Why would he give money to the government after his taxes have been paid? I'm not sure what my good point was.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Because he is friends with Bill and he likes his foundation? Why would he give money to the government after his taxes have been paid? I'm not sure what my good point was.


Well, he's making such a big deal over his opinion that he didn't pay enough in taxes, but he gave the money to Gates instead of to the government. If he truly believed the government could do more good with that money (or deserved that money) wouldn't someone as smart as Buffett give it to them?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The Gates Foundation is a huge success by all measures that I have seen. Their push for privies, clean water, and malaria vaccinations, to name a few things, have probably saved more lives than any other five foundations combined. His Foundation is doing a great job at changing lives through simple, effective, and often cheap interventions. I think Buffet just decided re-inventing the wheel made no sense.

Also, I remember reading his payout was slow and basically he kept control of most everything until death. I am hazy on that in my memory, but seem to remember being unimpressed with how he had decided to donate, i.e. the bulk not during his lifetime.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer- You come across as way way over protective. Like a ghost from the past is going to catch up to you. No doubt you love a good argument but not everybody wants that much of an argument, or an argument at all. And there are otherways to argue. One of your previous profs., that you mentioned, I was reading one of his papers, and he writes about 3 methods of argument, which I do one of them, but you don't seem to recognize. And there are many ways of argumentation of which you couldn't hardly know many of them. And hiding behind other peoples paper work, really, has nothing to do with the truth, or even ones own paper work. If you remember something 40 years ago, but can't find the paper, is it right to omit it during a debate? I think those with low iq's come away from college thinking everything is on paper, and if it is not, then you cannot use it.

Lastly, you come across as though you earned all the money you take home. I think if chance took its share you would have a lot less. Everybody who works hard 8 hours a day 5 days a week deserves more than subsistance wages, but many get paid less- some of those on the bottom rung are there by chance, which means you are not worth any more than they are. I enjoy many of your post, but, dog eat dog- why?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The Gates Foundation is a huge success by all measures that I have seen. Their push for privies, clean water, and malaria vaccinations, to name a few things, have probably saved more lives than any other five foundations combined. His Foundation is doing a great job at changing lives through simple, effective, and often cheap interventions. I think Buffet just decided re-inventing the wheel made no sense.


That sounds like an answer to, "why didn't Buffett start his own foundation?"

Was this meant to be an answer to my question?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Everybody who works hard 8 hours a day 5 days a week deserves more than subsistance wages


Why do they deserve that? Who determines what they "deserve"?
What is so special about 40 hr work weeks? Why not 30 hrs?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

WA said:


> You have been watching to much mtv.
> 
> 1 vote per US citizen.
> 
> ...


I never watch MTV...drivel. Not quite my...err...demographic.
Why? Is there a show about HST on there?

BTW...I believe Buffett already has. Do you ever read the news? If earmarking the bulk of your multi-billion-dollar fortune isn't "putting your money where your mouth is," I don't know what is.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I wonder why Buffett gave that money to Gates instead of to the government?


Because he probably knows that government is hardly ever the solution, and is most often the problem.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Because he probably knows that government is hardly ever the solution, and is most often the problem.


Yes, I understand that. The point is that's not what he's saying. 
What he is saying and what he is doing are completely opposite.
I agree with what he is doing. I disagree with what he is saying.
So, he is not, in fact, putting his money where his mouth is. Although he is giving his money away.
See?
Why does he want me to give my money to the government while he gives his to TGF?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer- You come across as way way over protective. Like a ghost from the past is going to catch up to you. No doubt you love a good argument but not everybody wants that much of an argument, or an argument at all. And there are otherways to argue. One of your previous profs., that you mentioned, I was reading one of his papers, and he writes about 3 methods of argument, which I do one of them, but you don't seem to recognize. And there are many ways of argumentation of which you couldn't hardly know many of them. And hiding behind other peoples paper work, really, has nothing to do with the truth, or even ones own paper work. If you remember something 40 years ago, but can't find the paper, is it right to omit it during a debate? I think those with low iq's come away from college thinking everything is on paper, and if it is not, then you cannot use it.
> 
> Lastly, you come across as though you earned all the money you take home. I think if chance took its share you would have a lot less. Everybody who works hard 8 hours a day 5 days a week deserves more than subsistance wages, but many get paid less- some of those on the bottom rung are there by chance, which means you are not worth any more than they are. I enjoy many of your post, but, dog eat dog- why?


WA, huh? While I deeply enjoyed your insinuation that I have a low IQ (apart from my IQ, totally off base of course, as I think experience is a great teacher), I am unsure why this is directed at me. I did not start this thread nor have I agreed with the premise. While my IQ might well be low, at least I can figure out who is supporting what.

And as for working five day weeks, eight hour days? Man, I would love a job like that. It would feel like being semi-retired.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You're kidding right? Buffett gave 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's approximately $30 billion.


Look how old he is. He has to be pretty thick headed to finally figure out charity.

I was taught as a small child to give away 10% of my gross earnings, before taxes, to some charity every year (years before I worked). If he had been doing that his whole entire life I would have much more respect for him. While he has to be commended, because he has finally done so, what about the poor that give? They are to be commended more.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That sounds like an answer to, "why didn't Buffett start his own foundation?"
> 
> Was this meant to be an answer to my question?


More or less.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> Look how old he is. He has to be pretty thick headed to finally figure out charity.
> 
> I was taught as a small child to give away 10% of my gross earnings, before taxes, to some charity every year (years before I worked). If he had been doing that his whole entire life I would have much more respect for him. While he has to be commended, because he has finally done so, what about the poor that give? They are to be commended more.


Who are you arguing with here WA? No one said that the poor don't donate money to charity. Also, how do you know he hasn't always given to charities? Have you been checking in on him each year? After reading your post to Wayfarer and now this, I am wondering, are we reading the same thread????


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> WA, huh? While I deeply enjoyed your insinuation that I have a low IQ (apart from my IQ, totally off base of course, as I think experience is a great teacher), I am unsure why this is directed at me. I did not start this thread nor have I agreed with the premise. While my IQ might well be low, at least I can figure out who is supporting what.


Like I said - over protective. Mentioning that some show their IQ did not insinuation you have a low IQ. But I think you over rate yours.

If chance were to take part of the wage you get- how much would it take?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> More or less.


Cake or Death? Cake please!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Look how old he is. He has to be pretty thick headed to finally figure out charity.
> 
> I was taught as a small child to give away 10% of my gross earnings, before taxes, to some charity every year (years before I worked). If he had been doing that his whole entire life I would have much more respect for him. While he has to be commended, because he has finally done so, what about the poor that give? They are to be commended more.


I'm sorry, how do you know Buffett wasn't giving money to charity all along?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Who are you arguing with here WA? No one said that the poor don't donate money to charity. Also, how do you know he hasn't always given to charities? Have you been checking in on him each year? After reading your post to Wayfarer and now this, I am wondering, are we reading the same thread????


LAX, this cannot become a habit. If we agree three times in one day the sun will explode.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Hmm, maybe I should log off then. :icon_smile:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Why do they deserve that? Who determines what they "deserve"?
> What is so special about 40 hr work weeks? Why not 30 hrs?


You don't deserve what you take home in pay?

I have never meet anyone that says they don't deserve at least what they take home in pay, they mostly say the deserve more.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> You don't deserve what you take home in pay?
> 
> I have never meet anyone that says they don't deserve at least what they take home in pay, they mostly say the deserve more.


I actually have to practice asking for what I charge without laughing or looking uncomfortable and embarrassed.

It took me six years to ask for a $5/hr raise because I thought I was already paid more than I deserved.

I swear to you a CFO of an oil company actually came to me and said, "Aren't you going to raise your rates? Everyone else raises them every year and you never raise yours." These guys are not exactly known for being overly-generous with money. They also aren't particular loyal or fast payers, but I have noticed they pay me quicker than anyone else and they are loyal to me. Penney wise, pound foolish.

I bumped it $5/hr two years ago so he would feel better.

Market forces and competition determine the compensation for my skillset and credentials. "Deserve has got nothing to do with it." Clint Eastwood

I'm keenly aware that in the growing globalization I could be making 1/5th of what I make today. I had a discussion about it today at lunch, in fact, with someone who is "coasting". We were discussing Romney's 2nd Tier economy point in his speech last night.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I actually have to practice asking for what I charge without laughing or looking uncomfortable and embarrassed.
> 
> It took me six years to ask for a $5/hr raise because I thought I was already paid more than I deserved.
> 
> ...


That is interesting.

Why do those at the top of so many companies make millions and haven't the time of day to give a raise to those that on the lowest rung?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> Why do those at the top of so many companies make millions and haven't the time of day to give a raise to those that on the lowest rung?


See: supply and demand.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> You don't deserve what you take home in pay?
> 
> I have never meet anyone that says they don't deserve at least what they take home in pay, they mostly say the deserve more.


I've had a few jobs in my life that I didn't deserve what I was paid. I worked for this video store, and I can honestly say that I didn't do a whole lot of work there. It paid almost $3 more an hour than any of the fast food places plus we got a $1 for every internet service we sold, and I know I didn't work as hard as they did. Ring up the movies people rent, and put away the returned films, then vacuum quickly at the end of the night. The rest of the time, we sat around watching movies. My cousin had this cleaning gig once, and he sat around most of the night playing spades with the other guys he worked with. In his job, he said that out of 8 hours scheduled, he probably worked 3. I even stopped by a few times to play cards with them. Both of these jobs were while we were in college, and at the time neither of us were very interested in working.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I was going to extend my comment again even more, but you already read it and replied! 
I need to find a way to RELEASE my post when I am done drafting and editing without using preview which has lost my post before. Sorry. 

I was going to say that person is making $80k today with the same skillset that paid them $50k about 5 years ago. They haven't added any new skills, any new credentials, or taken on any additional responsibility. 

They think they are only going to continue to make more and more money in the next 15 years without any additional utility.

They think the people running their company will just continue to pay more without seeking alternatives. It's a very successful business run by very smart people. Eventually, they will find a substitute. This is supposed to spur us on to constant improvement and increased productivity, but some people just seem to resent the free market making them hump it.

I say "blame Adam & Eve; not me!"


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> See: supply and demand.


Your hard core.

I believe in supply and demand too, but also being "my brothers keeper". The people at the top, are they really in that much demand? If all the ceo's were wiped out do you think those on the side waiting wouldn't do just as good? If not better? Perhapes there is an over supply with an illusion of demand. It seems to me some of the share holders are finally coming to their sences (we shall see).


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

WA said:


> You don't deserve what you take home in pay?
> 
> I have never meet anyone that says they don't deserve at least what they take home in pay, they mostly say the deserve more.


Without a doubt, I do not deserve what I take home in pay, except when I deserve much, much more. The latter event only happens once every few years, but I think it all evens out in the long run.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I was going to extend my comment again even more, but you already read it and replied!
> I need to find a way to RELEASE my post when I am done drafting and editing without using preview which has lost my post before. Sorry.
> 
> I was going to say that person is making $80k today with the same skillset that paid them $50k about 5 years ago. They haven't added any new skills, any new credentials, or taken on any additional responsibility.
> ...


That sounds like a generous company. How lucky. What about wal-mart? If you walk in the store how many make $20,000 to $25,000? Any make $30,000 a year? 35 years ago I could live on $5,000 and pay for everything, but around here, nowadays, $25,000 is not enough. On top of that wal-mart has exported many worth while jobs (products come from somewhere). Do you think the people at the top of wal-mart are worht what they take home?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I've had a few jobs in my life that I didn't deserve what I was paid. I worked for this video store, and I can honestly say that I didn't do a whole lot of work there. It paid almost $3 more an hour than any of the fast food places plus we got a $1 for every internet service we sold, and I know I didn't work as hard as they did. Ring up the movies people rent, and put away the returned films, then vacuum quickly at the end of the night. The rest of the time, we sat around watching movies. My cousin had this cleaning gig once, and he sat around most of the night playing spades with the other guys he worked with. In his job, he said that out of 8 hours scheduled, he probably worked 3. I even stopped by a few times to play cards with them. Both of these jobs were while we were in college, and at the time neither of us were very interested in working.


I have seen the same kind of poor workers at the top who walk off with millions. What is your point?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> I have seen the same kind of poor workers at the top who walk off with millions. What is your point?


That I have had a few jobs in my life where I was paid more than what I was worth. You asked a question, and I answered your question. Again with the arguments. Are you seeing something that I am not?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

iammatt said:


> Without a doubt, I do not deserve what I take home in pay, except when I deserve much, much more. The latter event only happens once every few years, but I think it all evens out in the long run.


From minimum wage to the highest paid ceo, do you really think you are over paid sometimes? It really does come to what is worth.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> Like I said - over protective. Mentioning that some show their IQ did not insinuation you have a low IQ. But I think you over rate yours.
> 
> If chance were to take part of the wage you get- how much would it take?


I'm interested to know why you think IQ is such a good measure of intelligence? I have an IQ of 137. I have a physician friend who I feel is FAR more intelligent than I am, and his IQ is much lower than mine...I think he said 120 something. It's been awhile, and I don't remember why we were discussing IQ's. IQ is just some silly test. I don't believe it has much merit.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> From minimum wage to the highest paid ceo, do you really think you are over paid sometimes? It really does come to what is worth.


I don't know what the CEO of the company did. I know that I didn't do very much. Compared to others my age and working similar retail type jobs, yeah I was overpaid. I'm not saying I wasn't more than happy to take the money though. I paid for rent and part of my education that way (the rest was student loans and scholarships), and I also needed beer money. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> That I have had a few jobs in my life where I was paid more than what I was worth. You asked a question, and I answered your question. Again with the arguments. Are you seeing something that I am not?


Life is not fair, but what are people really worth who really work? Around here I see to many jobs that pay too low. So low that if the people working those jobs do not rent a place with somebody else then they will be living under a bridge. Think of the future.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

WA said:


> From minimum wage to the highest paid ceo, do you really think you are over paid sometimes? It really does come to what is worth.


Well, I am not paid hourly. Sometimes I add a tremendous amount of value to my clients net worths, but much of the time I just try not to mess things up. It isn't like I am working harder, or smarter, or better when I make them a lot of money, it just happens. If, and when, I do, I believe that I deserve a good chunk of that money. When I don't, I really don't deserve much, but I get paid for the average, so it all evens out in the end.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> Life is not fair, but what are people really worth who really work? Around here I see to many jobs that pay too low. So low that if the people working those jobs do not rent a place with somebody else then they will be living under a bridge. Think of the future.


I agree. It would be difficult for me to get by now on that salary, but at the time, I had 3 roommates to split the costs with. I also didn't have a car payment, insurance premiums or a wife and kids. My parents also gave me money each month. So yeah, I agree if I was working that job and trying to live on that amount of money, it would have been very, very difficult. I was still overpaid compared to other retail jobs though.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I'm interested to know why you think IQ is such a good measure of intelligence? I have an IQ of 137. I have a physician friend who I feel is FAR more intelligent than I am, and his IQ is much lower than mine...I think he said 120 something. It's been awhile, and I don't remember why we were discussing IQ's. IQ is just some silly test. I don't believe it has much merit.


To be honest I don't think IQ means that much either. Basically it means a person grasp what's at hand quicker, so learn much faster. But, that has nothing to do with making good choices. Some people think a high IQ says they are special. This one person said that to become a physician the iq needs to be 160.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Your hard core.
> 
> I believe in supply and demand too, but also being "my brothers keeper". The people at the top, are they really in that much demand? If all the ceo's were wiped out do you think those on the side waiting wouldn't do just as good? If not better? Perhapes there is an over supply with an illusion of demand. It seems to me some of the share holders are finally coming to their sences (we shall see).


I admit, I am hardcore.

I also believe in being my brother's keeper, but with my own money. A large part of my work is charities, foundations, and other "agencies". I also am supporting a MIL that is a total waste and a perfect example of walking entitlement. She's a widow, overweight, diabetic, just had a hip replacement, I can go on and on. However, she needs about $800/mo more than SS to live and buy medicines and syringes and blood test strips. To fund said "Mother-keeping" I am required to maximize my earning potential in the most efficient way possible.

Yes, there is a huge shortage of ethical and qualified leaders. Particularly so, as the "greatest generation" is retired and now the baby boomers are retiring. Unfortunately for our country, there is not much competition for the competent and faithful. But, if you are one of those - it pays well.

What is left of the next tier is almost functionally incompetent in my experience. The management practice is mostly comprised today of trying to convince Gen Yers that doing their job is as fun as playing XboX and their iPod. Lines of authority and accountibility went out around Y2k. Most people I talk to cannot find enough qualified employees that can pass drug tests, etc. If they can, a manager than can get them to produce is well worth their paycheck.

That's what Walmart is full of by the way. I have one client where they had to shut down some retail locations because of labor shortages. They told me "anyone we hire that shows up here for 90-days and can pass a drug test can then go get hired at Walmart for $2/hr more than we can pay and maybe get healthcare." My client had to hire people just out on parole basically. Walmart won't take them for 90-days or without a job reference.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> To be honest I don't think IQ means that much either. Basically it means a person grasp what's at hand quicker, so learn much faster. But, that has nothing to do with making good choices. Some people think a high IQ says they are special. This one person said that to become a physician the iq needs to be 160.


I'll have to let my buddy know that his IQ is too low for him to be a doctor. :icon_smile_big: I can see maybe that part about learning quicker. I memorize things very easily, so any subjects with a lot of memory work I excelled in. As for math though, I am not very good with math. I really had to work hard to get good grades in those classes. If the prof gave 10 problems to do for review, I had to do 3-4 times that many to understand the concepts.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

iammatt said:


> Well, I am not paid hourly. Sometimes I add a tremendous amount of value to my clients net worths, but much of the time I just try not to mess things up. It isn't like I am working harder, or smarter, or better when I make them a lot of money, it just happens. If, and when, I do, I believe that I deserve a good chunk of that money. When I don't, I really don't deserve much, but I get paid for the average, so it all evens out in the end.


Had a couple of jobs where some people almost never worked, but were absolutely neccassary, they could have done more, but I still think they were underpaid. In one of these companies there were several that should have been fired instead. It is time to go to bed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> That sounds like a generous company. How lucky. What about wal-mart? If you walk in the store how many make $20,000 to $25,000? Any make $30,000 a year? 35 years ago I could live on $5,000 and pay for everything, but around here, nowadays, $25,000 is not enough. On top of that wal-mart has exported many worth while jobs (products come from somewhere). Do you think the people at the top of wal-mart are worht what they take home?


How is borrowing $25,000-$50,000 for a college education, then working your a$$ off delivering pizzas or whatever to pay room & board, and doing what it takes to graduate with a high GPA, lucky?

Sure there are some trust fund twits around (no offense to the ones here  ), but by far and away most people I know worked hard to scratch and claw their way to achieve any level of success.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

WA said:


> Look how old he is. He has to be pretty thick headed to finally figure out charity.
> 
> I was taught as a small child to give away 10% of my gross earnings, before taxes, to some charity every year (years before I worked). If he had been doing that his whole entire life I would have much more respect for him. While he has to be commended, because he has finally done so, what about the poor that give? They are to be commended more.


Can we all just agree on this one basic point: *charity = good

*Perhaps that will be the basis for building some sort of common ground is this truly bizarre thread.

(Quietly waits for somebody to inevitably dispute this)


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> You're kidding right? Buffett gave 83% of his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That's approximately $30 billion.


Can you say Illuminate.................?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Capt Ron said:


> Can you say Illuminate.................?


I think you mean Illuminati, unless you are meaning _to brighten with light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Like I said - over protective. Mentioning that some show their IQ did not insinuation you have a low IQ. But I think you over rate yours.
> 
> If chance were to take part of the wage you get- how much would it take?


Well again, thanks for the insult. A shame you did not address anything substantive I replied to you over.

Chance already took a big hit btw. I was born poor. It took years to figure some things out, e.g. the vaule of education. I imagine if I was born wealthy I could have excelled more. Also, as this hit was front loaded, it is likely a far hugher hit than if "chance" hit me later in life. Time value of money, compounding, and all that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Can we all just agree on this one basic point: *charity = good
> 
> *Perhaps that will be the basis for building some sort of common ground is this truly bizarre thread.
> 
> (Quietly waits for somebody to inevitably dispute this)


I disagree. Charity is *very good* 

Not only money, but time too needs to be given. I was on the road at 8am last Saturday to spend the day proctoring an inter-school, day long math contest. We need to actually personally encourage things we believe in and I believe the US needs to foster math and science.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You know, I was watching the Sunday morning shows and it came to me while I was watching two Dems, one a Hillary, one an Obama supporter, get interviewed by Wolfie. 

Super-delegates.

We already have king- makers and they get more votes than all the rest of us. When you get to frame the choices, you have true power.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While the weight of one's vote should certainly not be keyed to the taxes one pays, the right to vote should be keyed to one's performing a period of national service (military, Peace Corps, Civilian Conservation Corps, etc). On those occassions something comes too easily to us, it is not apreciated and frequently is not even fully understood. A democracy is frighteningly prone to failure, when it is taken for granted...we see a lot of that in this Country.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You know, I was watching the Sunday morning shows and it came to me while I was watching two Dems, one a Hillary, one an Obama supporter, get interviewed by Wolfie.
> 
> Super-delegates.
> 
> We already have king- makers and they get more votes than all the rest of us. When you get to frame the choices, you have true power.


Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Yep.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media


Totally agree BertieW. Chomsky is exactly what is wrong with US politics. He makes his career on things like Manufacturing Consent and does things like set up trust funds to avoid taxes and has a stock portfolio that makes me jealous. Toss Micheal Moore into that pile too. Sorry Kav, but ditto Nader.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Totally agree BertieW. Chomsky is exactly what is wrong with US politics. He makes his career on things like Manufacturing Consent and does things like set up trust funds to avoid taxes and has a stock portfolio that makes me jealous. Toss Micheal Moore into that pile too. Sorry Kav, but ditto Nader.


That may be true, but I was calling attention more to his propaganda theory that seems to echo the point you seemed to be making about the kingmakers shaping the parameters of discourse and choice.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> That may be true, but I was calling attention more to his propaganda theory that seems to echo the point you seemed to be making about the kingmakers shaping the parameters of discourse and choice.


Of course you were. I just refused to have your choice of post content, with reference, to limit my choices to what you intended 

And that refusal is a lesson in itself, no?


----------

