Boston Tea Parties springing up all over country Mainstream Media ignores

[mimartin]

Looks like President Bush had better luck with interest rates to me.

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Let's see what presidents are you talking about? We know Reagan and Bush were big spenders, then Clinton brought the Debt down, but W. Bush did what?

So 3 out of 4 and maybe depending on what happens over the next four to eight years 4 out of 5. With the evil Clinton being the exception to the rule, by the numbers Clinton appears to be the only conservative beyond lip service.

I’ve asked this question before, why is it alright to take from the middle class and give to the rich, but it is socialist to either make it fair or tax the rich? After all most small business owners are middle class and they make up a large part of employers.

Hey I was stating that it spans both parties and across the presidencies. And I was not saying that Reagan was the exception. But really lets look at congress for those years. Congress sends the budget to the president that signs them. Lets face it, I'm not trying to pretend that it's all the Democrats' fault. BOTH parties share the blame. And if we really want to go about how many presidents are involved in the current spend crazy attitude, we can go back to before I was born.

And the fact is that it isn't a fair tax. It isn't taxing the middle and giving to the rich. The top 25% pay nearly 50% of the taxes received by the fed. People making under a certain amount pay no tax, this progressive tax system ensures that the wealthy are penalized the most.

And how much do those small business owners make anually, Middle class is quite a wide array. 258k is the average(another average I've seen is 233k). Plus the actual definition of small business owner that was used by that "majority of small business owners" is rather suspect. Anyone earning even a dollar from their business gets called a small business. They don't actually have to employ people. It makes it seem like it'll affect less people this way. When you say it's only 3% of small businesses will see an increase, that's nifty. Now how about asking "How many EMPLOYERS will be affected?"

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Looks like President Bush had better luck with interest rates to me.

Yeah, but Bush was channeling the spirit of LBJ. Besides, he didn't have split govt (till last 2 years) and refer back to first point. THe problem with the parties is that they both seem to be moving to bigger central govt, just at different paces. Of course, what will your excuse be if BO gets his way and 3x the national debt w/in 10 years. 2xing down on Bushes excesses doesn't seem too terribly smart.

[Q]

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Our taxes are going to pay for people that do not represent us. They represent their lobbyists.

This has been my beef with the government since I first learned about politics.

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Yeah, but Bush was channeling the spirit of LBJ.

Yeah, in more ways than one.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Why is it that the top 20% of income earners paying 40% of the income tax, with the top 50% paying ~95% of all income taxes, is fair?

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Life's unfair sometimes.

I love the oft-trumpeted "Look at the percentage of taxes paid by the rich! No fair no fair!"

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

I love the oft-trumpeted "Look at the percentage of taxes paid by the rich! No fair no fair!"

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

To be blunt, I think income taxes are unfair anyway. A national sales tax makes more sense.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

You did see the emboldened section below, no?

Originally Posted by totenkopf

Why is it that the top 20% of income earners paying 40% of the income tax, with the top 50% paying ~95% of all income taxes, is fair? Perhaps the problem with the picture isn't the tax rates so much as the way in which income levels are arrived at in the country.

Also, what solution are you proposing? Taxing hell out of the rich and letting the govt decide how to "spread the wealth"?

[True_Avery]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Taxing hell out of the rich and letting the govt decide how to "spread the wealth"?

I believe that is -exactly- how taxes work, if I'm not mistaken.

I, personally, enjoy my roads, law enforcement, justice system, etc and hopefully my medical in the future.

And, repeating ET, why exactly are you defending the rich? They're the rich! They are rich upon the merit that they have more money than you, and more money that they'll ever need. I'm sure they feel so uncomfortable upon their gold plated toilets and 15 cars.

If we are going to play the solution game, then what exactly is yours? Drop taxes completely, privatize everything, and drop anything remotely like socialism since Sweden is, as Fox News states, a cess pool of the world?

And, if your problem is with the levels in which we define rich and poor then what is your suggestion for changing that? Like, say, what defines a rich person and a poor person as that is about where it boils down to.

The problem with taxing the poor %50 of their paycheck and taxing the rich the same is just simple math:

Someone who makes 1000 a month suddenly has $500 for food, rent, etc for the next month.

Someone who makes $10,000,000 a month gets a check for $5,000,000 instead.

While it, I admit, fair to all partys involved in some cases it renders the rich rich and the poor poorer, and simply widens the gap between the two and creates poverty.

We, again, tax the rich because they are rich. Because someone losing half of ten million still has a hell of lot of money.

And if your problem is with the government "spreading the wealth", then I ask what exactly that means because Fox has yet to give me an adequate definition.

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

I believe that is -exactly- how taxes work, if I'm not mistaken.

I, personally, enjoy my roads, law enforcement, justice system, etc and hopefully my medical in the future.

And, repeating ET, why exactly are you defending the rich? They're the rich! They are rich upon the merit that they have more money than you, and more money that they'll ever need. I'm sure they feel so uncomfortable upon their gold plated toilets and 15 cars.

If we are going to play the solution game, then what exactly is yours? Drop taxes completely, privatize everything, and drop anything remotely like socialism since Sweden is, as Fox News states, a cess pool of the world?

And, if your problem is with the levels in which we define rich and poor then what is your suggestion for changing that? Like, say, what defines a rich person and a poor person as that is about where it boils down to.

The problem with taxing the poor %50 of their paycheck and taxing the rich the same is just simple math:

Someone who makes 1000 a month suddenly has $500 for food, rent, etc for the next month.

Someone who makes $10,000,000 a month gets a check for $5,000,000 instead.

While it, I admit, fair to all partys involved in some cases it renders the rich rich and the poor poorer, and simply widens the gap between the two and creates poverty.

We, again, tax the rich because they are rich. Because someone losing half of ten million still has a hell of lot of money.

And if your problem is with the government "spreading the wealth", then I ask what exactly that means because Fox has yet to give me an adequate definition.

Taxing the rich even more means fewer jobs they want to create. You mention the gold toilets and 15 cars... Who makes those cars? Who makes that toilet? Who builds that mansion? Who makes the things rich people enjoy? The rich pay for other people to work. The rich employ several people. You say it drops their pay to 5million, so they have to do without that second house staff. 20 to 30 jobs gone. Perhaps they decide not to restore that villa. Perhaps they decide to lay off 1000 people from their company so they can still keep that 20-30 staff members at their winter home. They close down their last US help desk and ship it overseas. Hey it's ok, only the "rich" are affected when you tax the heck out of them.

[mur'phon]

And what happens to the tax money? Does it disapear? The poor (asuming they recieve the tax money) will spend it just the same, for different goods and services, but spend it all the same.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

ah yes i forgot we give the poor piles of tax money

****ing welfare queens spending my hard earned money on flat screens and 40s

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Taxing the rich even more means fewer jobs they want to create. You mention the gold toilets and 15 cars... Who makes those cars? Who makes that toilet? Who builds that mansion? Who makes the things rich people enjoy? The rich pay for other people to work. The rich employ several people. You say it drops their pay to 5million, so they have to do without that second house staff. 20 to 30 jobs gone. Perhaps they decide not to restore that villa. Perhaps they decide to lay off 1000 people from their company so they can still keep that 20-30 staff members at their winter home. They close down their last US help desk and ship it overseas. Hey it's ok, only the "rich" are affected when you tax the heck out of them.

the creation of government services (such as a universal healthcare system) would create jobs, and hopefully not just the "yes massa" jobs you described rich people creating. also, it's a bit optimistic to assume the rich are going to create these jobs you speak of or that those jobs will even last, that the wealth they save will "trickle down", if you will.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by Tommycat

To be blunt, I think income taxes are unfair anyway. A national sales tax makes more sense.

Yes, then the poor pay a greater tax with their income, while the rich purchase their yachts and their private jets elsewhere. That seems way more FAIR to me.

Oh and the top 5% may be paying the majority of Taxes, but they are also making the majority of the income. I guess that part is just forgotten. The upper echelon of those, in the top 5%, are also the ones with access to their representative.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by TA

I believe that is -exactly- how taxes work, if I'm not mistaken.
I, personally, enjoy my roads, law enforcement, justice system, etc and hopefully my medical in the future.
And, repeating ET, why exactly are you defending the rich? They're the rich! They are rich upon the merit that they have more money than you, and more money that they'll ever need. I'm sure they feel so uncomfortable upon their gold plated toilets and 15 cars.
If we are going to play the solution game, then what exactly is yours? Drop taxes completely, privatize everything, and drop anything remotely like socialism since Sweden is, as Fox News states, a cess pool of the world?
And, if your problem is with the levels in which we define rich and poor then what is your suggestion for changing that? Like, say, what defines a rich person and a poor person as that is about where it boils down to.
The problem with taxing the poor %50 of their paycheck and taxing the rich the same is just simple math:
Someone who makes 1000 a month suddenly has $500 for food, rent, etc for the next month.
Someone who makes $10,000,000 a month gets a check for $5,000,000 instead.
While it, I admit, fair to all partys involved in some cases it renders the rich rich and the poor poorer, and simply widens the gap between the two and creates poverty.
We, again, tax the rich because they are rich. Because someone losing half of ten million still has a hell of lot of money.
And if your problem is with the government "spreading the wealth", then I ask what exactly that means because Fox has yet to give me an adequate definition.

First, govt doesn't "spread the wealth", except maybe to itself and key constituents. Second, define "rich". I'm sure your concept of rich, based on your description, fails to meet the definition provided by people like Gore and even BO (both of whom probably fit your profile of what constitutes wealthy). Further, the number of those types of wealthy people to the population at large is miniscule. To get the kind of $3+ trillion dollar bloated govt budgets that the feds "need" based on its upcoming fiscal wish list requires much more than the rich can provide. We've not even looked at the demands of state and municipal govts yet, either.

This then raises another question. What is your concept of fair as income levels is concerned throughout society? Should the janitor of company X make the same as the CEO? Should the govt provide a level of income and luxury to the man who doesn't want to work, but still enjoy the level of comfort attained by those with greater ambition and direction? Remember, the number of examples where the CEO makes 400x the compensation of the average employee is a tiny number b/c the bulk of people in this country actually work for small to medium businesses. And in the one case where taxing the rich was tried, the luxury tax in the '80s, the "rich" merely decided to forgo those luxuries and put a number of people out of business as a consequence. Every state that incorporates high tax levels sees its tax base start to go elsewhere. CA being an excellent example.

So, back to the point about income levels and taxation. Can you define rich? Once you do, at what level are you taxing their incomes? Are you proposing that govt be the arbiter of deciding this? Should Congress start setting everyone's compensation levels? Do you stop with the overpaid CEOs of "evil" Wall Street firms? What about people in entertainment? Lawyers? Doctors? Union workers? Do you really think the govt has the wisdom to make those kinds of decisions when it can't, even won't account for its own spending.

I think it might be helpful to you to actually go and look at things like the fair and flat tax proposals to see what they actually say. We both know that the current "progressive" tax code is really only regressive and unduly cumbersome (55,000 + pages). Face it, such codes mostly work primarily for the accountants, lawyers, politicians and lobbyists who benefit the most from them.

Note also, that in the highlighted section of the passage I added above to ET, that I wasn't defending the rich. However, I was also pointing out that if I make 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes, am I not actually paying more than my fair share of the burden? At what level, if any, do you assess the "poor man" for his responsibilities to help run society?

We both can agree that there are piggish levels of compensation in society. Actors, athletes, CEOs of major corporations, and no doubt a host of others fit that description. Still, even after you tax the hell out of as lot of these people, you still have a huge gap left over before you attain the levels of revenue needed to satisfy an ever growing govt that promises to take care of you from cradle to grave.

@jmac--yeah, let's grow govt b/c it worked so well for FDR too.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

I was also pointing out that if I make 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes,

There is a difference between the top 20% of income earners, and the people who account for 20% of all income earned, so which one are we talking about when we say they account for 40% of income tax?

If you have 100 people, 20 of which earn a million dollars a year and 80 of which earn ten thousand dollars a year then the top 20% of income earners are bringing in over 99% of all income, and therefore SHOULD be paying most of the income tax.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

There is a difference between the top 20% of income earners, and the people who account for 20% of all income earned, so which one are we talking about when we say they account for 40% of income tax?

If you have 100 people, 20 of which earn a million dollars a year and 80 of which earn ten thousand dollars a year then the top 20% of income earners are bringing in over 99% of all income, and therefore SHOULD be paying most of the income tax.

However, I was also pointing out that if I make 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes,

Read that post again. I even highlighted part of it for you here.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Read that post again. I even highlighted part of it for you here.

I appreciate your assistance, cuz I don reed so gud.

of course, if we look back at your FIRST statement about income, you said

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Why is it that the top 20% of income earners paying 40% of the income tax,

which is why I asked for clarification, as you used both top 20% of income earners, and top 20% of all income earned. As I pointed out, these two numbers are not the same, which sort of muddies the waters.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

Thank You.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

I appreciate your assistance, cuz I don reed so gud.

Don't worry, I know that already.

of course, if we look back at your FIRST statement about income, you said which is why I asked for clarification, as you used both top 20% of income earners, and top 20% of all income earned. As I pointed out, these two numbers are not the same, which sort of muddies the waters.

Fair enough. It might have helped had you put both quotes together in asking the question for the sake of clarity. However, that aside, the second figure. Given the size of the overall population, the statements might effectively amount to the same thing. Regardless, if a group of people earn 20% of all income and pay 40% of all income taxes collected, then they have paid more than their fair share as a percentage of income earned for govt services provided. However, with the 20% discrepancy "mystery solved", what is your proposal, exactly?

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

what is your proposal, exactly?

I don't really feel the need to 'propose' anything. My personal feelings are that those who are in the higher earning brackets can afford to have a higher percentage of their income go toward government services. As I mentioned, those upper echelon earners are STILL in the upper echelon after taxes, and the poor are still trying to feed their children.

I recall a conversation in college with a fellow student whose thoughts on taxes were summed up nicely with her statement "If my dad didn't have to pay such high taxes I would've gotten a Viper instead of an Eclipse for my 16th birthday."

I had trouble sympathizing.

[Tommycat]

Ah the old "We have to help the poor" argument. Forget that many have never even tried to find work. Forget that some of us actually spent money on educations. Forget that the rich employ or lay off thousands of people. I mean surely the rich just sit back in their mansions and just get money rolling in. It's not that the rich actually own companies like Oracle Corporation or Microsoft. The only people they employ are "yes massa" jobs.

There will always be poor. There will always be rich. Tax the rich enough and they move their money where they are taxed the least. They can afford to do so.

[kipperthefrog]

Well, all I have to say is, let the people say what they want in the name of free speech. Holding up signs that say ridiculous things will only be more proof that the fear mongering folk don’t know what they are talking about.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

I don't really feel the need to 'propose' anything. My personal feelings are that those who are in the higher earning brackets can afford to have a higher percentage of their income go toward government services. As I mentioned, those upper echelon earners are STILL in the upper echelon after taxes, and the poor are still trying to feed their children.

I recall a conversation in college with a fellow student whose thoughts on taxes were summed up nicely with her statement "If my dad didn't have to pay such high taxes I would've gotten a Viper instead of an Eclipse for my 16th birthday."

I had trouble sympathizing.

You may not, but people who only bitch about something but don't offer any real solution beyond platitudes like "soak the rich" often tend to be ignored. Except maybe on election day.

[True_Avery]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

You may not, but people who only bitch about something but don't offer any real solution beyond platitudes like "soak the rich" often tend to be ignored. Except maybe on election day.

While I see where you are coming from, I never quite understood the whole "don't complain unless you have a better idea" mindset, as a complaint or even a bitch can have merit when heard or seen by someone who does have the ability to change something. Why must an opinion be ignored or unheard simply when it does not come with a full fledged, fully written solution to the world's problems?

And, lets be honest here, this is a forum srs bsns thread so regardless the talking seems to be ignored on the whole anyway.

[Q]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

And, lets be honest here, this is a forum srs bsns thread so regardless the talking seems to be ignored on the whole anyway.

It did kind of become one, didn't it?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Ah the old "We have to help the poor" argument. Forget that many have never even tried to find work. Forget that some of us actually spent money on educations. Forget that the rich employ or lay off thousands of people. I mean surely the rich just sit back in their mansions and just get money rolling in. It's not that the rich actually own companies like Oracle Corporation or Microsoft. The only people they employ are "yes massa" jobs.

There will always be poor. There will always be rich. Tax the rich enough and they move their money where they are taxed the least. They can afford to do so.

ahhh the old randroid "**** the poor" argument, you almost made me forget that the executives of those companies use their personal bank accounts to fund the company.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

You may not, but people who only bitch about something but don't offer any real solution

I'm sorry, I was complaining about what now? I don't recall offering any complaints, merely responding to the complaints of others.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by True_Avery

While I see where you are coming from, I never quite understood the whole "don't complain unless you have a better idea" mindset, as a complaint or even a bitch can have merit when heard or seen by someone who does have the ability to change something. Why must an opinion be ignored or unheard simply when it does not come with a full fledged, fully written solution to the world's problems?

In business school, they teach you that this is the surest way to get blind-sided by problems that everyone knew about except you. I'm sure that concept has application in other venues as well.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

I love the oft-trumpeted "Look at the percentage of taxes paid by the rich! No fair no fair!"

First of all, rich people make substantially MORE than poor people. If the top 50% of income earners only accounted for 50% of the income tax then the poor would be paying a significant percentage more of their paycheck to income tax than the wealthy. (which seems far more unjust).

Further, despite this (apparently) devastatingly heavy taxation the rich are experiencing, they're still richer than the poor people. They have not been taxed into poverty, and can still afford their million dollar yachts to lounge about upon and lament the dire economic straits Obama has put them in.

Also, people with low incomes will generally need to keep a larger percentage of their income for those frivolities like food and electricity.

Come again? You lodged this complaint (aka bitching) about the way things are. Just b/c you claim it was a response doesn't mean it's not a complaint.

@True-- I also get what you're saying. Should a complaint be ignored just b/c it's a complaint, especially if the person has a reasonable point (or at least from their pov)? Problem is, anyone can complain about anything. But if all they do is complain, people start ignoring them or just get ticked and wish they'd go away. One doesn't actually have to have an integrated, fully formed plan to not be dismissed (sometimes you will be anyway), but people are more likely to listen if you have something constuctive to bring to the table. Both in a general conversation and more importantly in RL.

[ET Warrior]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Come again? You lodged this complaint (aka bitching) about the way things are.

As near as I can tell, I am pointing out that the current taxation system is not unfair, for reasons I presented. But if you want to believe I'm bitching about something I suppose that's your prerogative.

[Q]

Originally Posted by jmac7142

****ing welfare queens spending my hard earned money on flat screens and 40s

I think that a ridiculous amount of waste could be prevented if people who are deliberately exploiting the system were actually held accountable for defrauding the government.

A good start would be the requirement that recipients of federal assistance be American citizens.

Originally Posted by jmac7142

ahhh the old randroid "**** the poor" argument

YouTube Video

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

As near as I can tell, I am pointing out that the current taxation system is not unfair, for reasons I presented. But if you want to believe I'm bitching about something I suppose that's your prerogative.

You saying you believe that the current system is not unfair? Sounds otherwise. Other than that, not sure why you're a little sensitive. Chalk it up to semantics, I suppose.

@Q--

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by jmac7142

ahhh the old randroid "**** the poor" argument, you almost made me forget that the executives of those companies use their personal bank accounts to fund the company.

Yeah because they don't get a percentage of the profits. Upper management wouldn't cut jobs to increase their profit margin to get a bigger bonus. Shareholders of major corporations look at their bottom line. If they aren't making enough, they demand more profits from the company. Then you get what happened with Oracle. They want more profit, so they lay off 1500 employees and shut down the whole call center that used to handle the support during the day. A bunch of highly trained tech people out of work. But it's only the rich guys that suffer when you tax them. So by all means, tax them some more. Then when even more people are layed off, raise tax some more on the "rich" to make up for the ones now drawing unemployment.

And quite frankly the poor in this country are pretty dang well off(speaking of course of the non-working poor, the working poor seem to be the worst off aside from the homeless). Keep in mind I work with the poor. I volunteer a great deal. While some are genuinely trying to improve themselves, the majority seem to be quite happy to waste money on frivolities like jewelry and video games. Granted maybe it's just the viewpoint I have with working with the types of underprivelaged youths.

[PastramiX]

Originally Posted by Tommycat

And quite frankly the poor in this country are pretty dang well off(speaking of course of the non-working poor, the working poor seem to be the worst off aside from the homeless). Keep in mind I work with the poor. I volunteer a great deal. While some are genuinely trying to improve themselves, the majority seem to be quite happy to waste money on frivolities like jewelry and video games. Granted maybe it's just the viewpoint I have with working with the types of underprivelaged youths.

What a jolly stereotype. So, the rich are where they at, because they're hard, honest workers who rode through the system to get where they're at, while the poor are poor, because they're simply lazy? How late 19th century...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

[Tommycat]

Originally Posted by PastramiX

What a jolly stereotype. So, the rich are where they at, because they're hard, honest workers who rode through the system to get where they're at, while the poor are poor, because they're simply lazy? How late 19th century...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

MALE-BOVINE-FECAL-MATTER

That is NOT what I said. Some choose to stay where they are. Others try to improve themselves. I did not say the rich worked hard. I said nothing about their honesty. In fact I tend to believe a greater percentage of the "rich" fell into money, were at the right place at the right time, or just flat out cheated their way to the top. BUT from my perspective, the ones who are chronicly poor tend to be the ones who make no attempt at improving their state. With hard work and making the right decisions, you can move up from being poor to middle class(notice I am not saying rich). The biggest problem is quite a few have a blame everyone else attitude. A great example of this is my brother and I.

Both of us started in the same house, I wasn't even given the opportunities he was. My parents were willing to PAY for him to go to college. He chose to join a gang and become a thug. Both of us at the time we graduated high school were drug addicts. I ended up joining the service. Got cleaned up, learned a skill(useful one... you know, computers). Worked my backside off to claw myself up. I backslid a bit, ended up homeless and on drugs again. Then realized I was better than that and took the skills I had and got work. Meanwhile in his world, he has chosen to stay on that thug path. It's really a sad thing too. He did as well in most subjects as I did, and in fact did better than I did in many of the same classes I took. He was in college level classes in school. He was phenominal at math. But now the only math he does is counting change at a register. I work primarily for one company, and occasionally contract to another institution. I am not by any stretch of the imagination "rich" but I don't go hungry. I am not hurting for cash, but that's because I budget everything(trust me, even when I was making 150k+ a year it was easy to spend above that when I didn't budget). My brother says that it's because everyone is out to get him. He doesn't recognize that the failing is his own doing.

I know there are some that are stuck in the situation because of other things out of their control. Those appear to be more of an exception than anything. I don't know every poor person. I know quite a few. I cannot explain away everyone's situation. but I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of them make choices that lead them to where they are.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by PastramiX

What a jolly stereotype. So, the rich are where they at, because they're hard, honest workers who rode through the system to get where they're at, while the poor are poor, because they're simply lazy? How late 19th century...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

Oh, don't forget this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

(i.e. god rewards the righteous with success and punishes the unrighteous with lack thereof. Therefore if you see a poor person, don't feel sorry for them because god made them poor to teach them a lesson).

[mimartin]

Does that mean that people like Madoff and the executives up for bonuses at AIG should be anointed sainthood? God made them rich for some reason.

[Achilles]

That's the flip-side of the argument, yes. I remember being quite shocked at how pervasive this attitude is in our country when I first learned about it in a sociology course back in my early 20's.

I'm always a little saddened when I see hints of it in our daily discourse.

[EnderWiggin]

Protestant work ethic in the house!

_EW_

[Tommycat]

pffff. Not all hard work is rewarded. But one should always work to improve oneself unless you're completely happy with your station in life. If you don't like being poor, do something to make yourself a better prospect for a better paying job. Education is one thing. Working very hard in your current job is the slowest way to improve your pay.

Reasons people choose to be poor are varied. Oh they don't come out and say, "I want to stay poor because..." but they tend to make decisions that end up making them remain poor.