Wealth inequality

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

I was born and raised in a very small town. Once I was older, we moved to a bigger town. 

I moved to this bigger town when I was 5 and from that point onward, I remember becoming more and more attuned to who, among my peers, wielded the most power and obviously, it was the big kids.

Once we moved into Junior High, all these people that I had now grown with, began forming their own cliques and groups. 

Around this smaller town, there were a number of farms that were owned by people that lived in this smaller town; these farms were very propserous and for an example, my own family has operated a farm there since earlier in the 1900s and went on to farm on even more land after, point being, our families had access to Generational Wealth.

None of the kids who came from Generational Wealth, played with each other, instead, we all became surrounded by our own group of friends and any that tried to attach themselves to the people who came from Generational Wealth, were chased off by their friends.

Whenever one of us who came from Generational Wealth had an issue, we would simply send the biggest guy in our group to fix it... Well, soon, the biggest guy, he becomes a very hot commodity for all of us, because this bigger guy can help us spread our power and influence... As kids in Junior High. The interpersonal dynamics here are very deep.

 

As you can see, those people who end up coming from Generational Wealth, just based on where they come from alone, they wield a TON of influence, even just in a place like Junior High and the thing is, the people who benefit from that influence, those people will never admit to the existence of this influence, because then they themselves are less powerful and so, simply by association, these people are now in a better position than they potentially would be otherwise and fiercely defend that position. 

 

It is now 20 years later and do you want to know what happened? Despite their size, their influence... All the broke people stayed broke and all the rich people stayed rich... All the potential influence gained, all the potential money that these people saw themselves earning by surrounding themselves around wealthy people, they earned none of it and infact, probably came out more behind than if they had just focused on their own.

The point I am making, is that as a wealthy person, you do not need to protect your position, because often you are surrounded by people who will do that for you, but this leaves the people who cannot participate in this system, socially and financially alienated.

 

The one thing I always get a kick out of, in this life, is when people try to make it fair... I could watch videos of people doing this all day, I love it, because most of the time, fair has nothing to do with it... Ever saw a woman say "I AM FOR EQUALITY!" and then speak on women's rights for 45 minutes? Yeah, that isn't equality, that is women's rights. Another example: Black Lives Matter... Protesters cannot be held responsible for the damage they caused in a riot, but i'm responsible for setting up systematic racism that happened over 200 years ago? 

Fair does not exist and it entertains me to no end when I see people pushing their own interests and their own agenda under the guise of fair, I love it.

Edited July 21, 2020 by CAPSLOCK BANDIT

[Weezy1973]

1 hour ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

Ever saw a woman say "I AM FOR EQUALITY!" and then speak on women's rights for 45 minutes? Yeah, that isn't equality, that is women's rights. Another example: Black Lives Matter... Protesters cannot be held responsible for the damage they caused in a riot, but i'm responsible for setting up systematic racism that happened over 200 years ago? 

Fair does not exist and it entertains me to no end when I see people pushing their own interests and their own agenda under the guise of fair, I love it.

Fair does not exist, but inequality does. As long as people have equal rights and opportunities, then things are fine. Unfortunately some people have better opportunities than others and want to keep it that way. 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

Just now, Weezy1973 said:

Fair does not exist, but inequality does. As long as people have equal rights and opportunities, then things are fine. Unfortunately some people have better opportunities than others and want to keep it that way. 

It is not necessarily about keeping it a certain way, it is about keeping it alive.. For example, statistically, if you are an Owners Son, of whatever company and you, as the Owners Son, stand to inherent the business, that business, once inherited, has an extremely high chance of failing, because the person who owns it is no longer the person who created it, but rather simply that persons son; just because he is his son, it does not mean he has any merit or intellectual ability to perform the task, but all the same. the company will fall into his hands and it will probably fail.

What will keep the company from failing? Status quo? If things are just run the same as they were with the previous business owner, that will work, right? No. The law is constantly changing; public perception has meant more than ever before right now... The reason the business was successful was because it was ran by people who could adapt to the changing conditions.

When thinking about changing conditions, what other conversation is there to have, than the one about computers, the internet, etc... Well, there are some people who are just not going to be able to adapt to these new and changing conditions.. Likewise, there are those who have adapted to these new conditions too well.. They are able to manipulate the situation behind the scenes, create new situations with just a single post to a popular social media page.

The age old question: What do we do with people who do not want to conform to our society/system, well we alienate them and in the most extreme situations, lock them up or outright kill them... But what do we do when there are a million of them? What do we do, when these millions of people, are not even believing in facts anymore, they are not welcoming of any sort of debate about their views? Do we give these peoples opportunity and rights and on what basis? Do we restrict these peoples opportunity and rights and on what basis?

People believe making money is about chance; its about taking risks, right? Let me share something with you: when you have enough money, risk just disappears. When you can just make money, without fear of risk, why would you ever want to readopt that same fear, or experience it for the first time when you do not have to?

Another observation I have made: the fear of sharing... A great example is, consistently, I go for a walk every day and when I do, I make a point to step onto the grass when I am passing somebody on the side walk, just to avoid any Covid, anything like this, right? Well, consistently, what people will do, is they will immediately try to take the space that I was just occupying on the side walk, they won't give me space, they will actually take the space I gave them and then I have to step even further away from them... I know this sounds like some psycho-esque s***, but its really just a microcosm of what people do: they min/max... They try to put a minimum effort in and get maximum effort out... This makes sharing with people scary, because they immediately will try and take as much as they can from you without giving anything in return.

 

 

[schlumpy]

25 minutes ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

People believe making money is about chance; its about taking risks, right? Let me share something with you: when you have enough money, risk just disappears. When you can just make money, without fear of risk, why would you ever want to readopt that same fear, or experience it for the first time when you do not have to?

Good post but I'm curious as to why you think risk disappears when certain amount of money is reached.

There is always long term illness to sponge up your dutifully earned cash. I don't think people in the stock market that watched half the value of their portfolio in the last market crash would agree there is no risk.

I would say there is a certain amount of luck involved but it's educated luck by putting yourself in the right situation, so something like a stock split can double or triple your shares. 

Give me a number where you see the risk disappear, please.

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

2 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Good post but I'm curious as to why you think risk disappears when certain amount of money is reached.

There is always long term illness to sponge up your dutifully earned cash. I don't think people in the stock market that watched half the value of their portfolio in the last market crash would agree there is no risk.

I would say there is a certain amount of luck involved but it's educated luck by putting yourself in the right situation, so something like a stock split can double or triple your shares. 

Give me a number where you see the risk disappear, please.

Well, the stock market is rigged, so any number you introduce is going to see risk.

However, making an investment into lets say a hard metal, such as silver, this is going to be a good investment, because with enough money you can buy enough silver to control the silver market, once you control the silver market, you dictate the price, this is why there are laws against monopoly, because monopoly means the complete dissolution of risk, but to assume control of an entire resource, this is not technically a monopoly, even though it basically is.

[schlumpy]

Don't forget collusion where companies with the same or similar product will agree not to compete on price.

The problem with controlling one asset is the same problem the canals faced with the expansion of the railroads. New technology can bust you overnight. A new material is created that supersedes the metal silver in all in uses and is cheaper.

Now there is no market to control.

[SumGuy]

On 7/21/2020 at 2:13 PM, sothereiwas said:

The key words were, in my estimation, "extra income", where someone not the earner decides what part of the earner's income is essential and what part is "extra". Once we go down that road all manner of justification is possible. From each according to ability and to each according to need. He didn't need that extra part, even though he earned it. Should be glad he got to keep some, I reckon. 

Well we do already go down that road, just in the opposite direction.  By rewarding (taxing less) those who make money off of money (capital, investment) versus those who work, especially those who are self employed and make money off their reputation and simply services (who we tax more) choices have already been made; where the burden of supporting the needs of government falls more on to those whose income derives from work versus those whose income derives primarily from the efforts of others (e.g. investment).   

I am well aware of the economic rationalizations for this but they do boil down to favoring the "risks" one "class" of earners takes over those of another.  I am also well aware of the historical origin of this and it is not surprising that it seems "natural" but it is anything but.  It doesn't help that the tax laws mollify and lessen the risk for those who make money from money and investment, especially in the area of real estate. 

Not to mention how corporations remove personal risk and liability (which was kind of their point) so as long as a corporation does it those who are the executives in charge can still get paid a pretty penny but face no risk if the corporation goes bankrupt, all about externalizing cost, in this case onto the investor and government.  It used to be there was a check on this in the form of no one would lend you money for your business if you ran too many into the ground.  That was before the rise of drug lords and kleptocracies, these two groups together have trillions they need to clean so they don't care about a profit, any loss is just the cost of cleaning the money, and since a loss in certain business can also be used to offset other income and even carried forward...it is not even necessarily a loss in that you recoup the money through lower taxes.  If you are thinking shell game....yes, it gets even better with the shell corporation thrown in.

Let's not forget the other tax advantages (what they can deduct) given to corporate entities versus real people, which are generally not even noticed.  Say you need to sue a corporation (lets assume as well you are 100% right and guaranteed to win).  The legal expenses of the corporation, especially if in house counsel, are deductible as a business expense (they are paid with pre-tax dollars).  Yours on the other hand are generally not (so you pay them with after tax dollars).  Also I've been told that it is very, very rare you recover any or all of your legal fees even if you win on a slam dunk case (barring certain very explicit laws).

So don't get me wrong, personally I want as little taken in personal (as in natural people) income taxes as possible and really would like to see the 16th amendment repealed as it has been used to pick winners and losers (not any different in approach than a planned economy just different ones).   You make money from investments or are a corporation (a 20% tax rate for you, and we'll let a few small business in that have the "right" kind of business to mollify the masses), ...you make money from the sweat of your brow (35%+ tax rate for you on the same income level)...oh and if you are self employed we'll throw on another 10% or so foe SE tax...and wait there is also AMT if your worked for your money, after all we wouldn't want to let people who sweat for their bread get out of their "fair share" of taxes. 

Yes we have gone down a road all right (pun intended) and continue to, further and further.

What we have is a system from each according to their work to each according to their capital (the more you make from the efforts of others the more you get). 

[Ellener]

I can't follow your writing @SumGuy but I think it's like my personal situation right now, Ibeliev all I have is all I need. Until people get that, there's a spiritual lack in their world. Drives themto oppress and hurt each other.

Kindness is what counts, love is what counts.

 

 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, SumGuy said:

Well we do already go down that road, just in the opposite direction.  By rewarding (taxing less) those who make money off of money (capital, investment) versus those who work, especially those who are self employed and make money off their reputation and simply services (who we tax more) choices have already been made; where the burden of supporting the needs of government falls more on to those whose income derives from work versus those whose income derives primarily from the efforts of others (e.g. investment).   

Can't really agree with the proposition. Anyone can earn money by participation in investing; I certainly do, as do many Americans of a wide variety of income levels. The disparate taxation of capital gains vs income is real, and that's an interesting philosophical discussion, but it's really not related to what you quoted. 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

Here is all you need to understand: our society, ultimately caters to the majority, through votes, when the system is applied right... Thus, the group of people who have the largest tax base underneath them, that group is going to be the central focus of policy.... When you look at the replacement rate between people in 1st world countries and people in 3rd world countries, one of the things you immediately see is that people from 3rd world countries have many, many more kids than people from the 1st world... But what happens when we invite a group of people into our country, who have a 3rd world mentality, are from a 3rd world country? We end up losing the power we wield, to immigrants, who have completely different values than we do, but will ultimately overtake us in population and taxpayer base.

We are destined to be foreigners in our own country and our government, due to its nature alone, will assist in ushering that time in, because more taxes.

[Ellener]

9 minutes ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

We end up losing the power we wield, to immigrants, who have completely different values than we do, but will ultimately overtake us in population and taxpayer base.

we are all immigrants here in America.

The only values which count in any society are justice, freedom, equality and most of all compassion and love.

 

[sothereiwas]

43 minutes ago, Ellener said:

we are all immigrants here in America.

No, we're actually not. Words mean things, and *I* was born here as were many others, which makes us actually literally natives. 

I don't use the word literally lightly. 

[schlumpy]

7 hours ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

 We end up losing the power we wield, to immigrants, who have completely different values than we do, but will ultimately overtake us in population and taxpayer base.

We are destined to be foreigners in our own country and our government, due to its nature alone, will assist in ushering that time in, because more taxes.

That's why illegal immigration should be stopped post haste. That's why there should be perks to citizenship as opposed to visas, green cards, dual citizenship, etc. If you don't want to be a Canadian or American then why should you accrue benefits?

Language competency tests are a must.

 

[Ellener]

When it works in our favour we all USED illegals. It's been part of the way things work so far, we were look-the-other-wayers so long as we got new slave labour.

Perks to citizenship @schlumpy What exactly do we offer for people to emigrate here, assuming they even can get here legally now?

We need an amnesty of kindness.

And a rule of kindness.

America is meant to be a citizenship of kindness I am convinced.

 

[schlumpy]

40 minutes ago, Ellener said:

Perks to citizenship @schlumpy What exactly do we offer for people to emigrate here, assuming they even can get here legally now?

We need an amnesty of kindness.

And a rule of kindness.

America is meant to be a citizenship of kindness I am convinced.

 

In my admittedly limited experience Ell, if a person does not earn what they have they, tend not to respect it.

I don't see citizenship being any different.

 

[Weezy1973]

15 hours ago, schlumpy said:

In my admittedly limited experience Ell, if a person does not earn what they have they, tend not to respect it.

I don't see citizenship being any different.

 

What is earned exactly? Someone being born in the US didn’t earn anything did they? 

[schlumpy]

6 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

What is earned exactly? Someone being born in the US didn’t earn anything did they? 

What is earned is an opportunity. How you earn it is to take advantage of living in a western nation. 

[Weezy1973]

5 hours ago, schlumpy said:

What is earned is an opportunity. How you earn it is to take advantage of living in a western nation. 

So you don’t believe in equality of opportunity then? Again, how has someone who just happened to be born in a western nation earned anything? 

[pepperbird]

On 7/23/2020 at 1:09 AM, Ellener said:

we are all immigrants here in America.

The only values which count in any society are justice, freedom, equality and most of all compassion and love.

 

but isn't it pretty huberistic to assume that everyone else values those same things or sees the same path to get there? At some point, there needs to be a shared culture, because your definition of " justice, freedom, equality  compassion and love" may be very different from someone elses.

Edited July 24, 2020 by pepperbird

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, pepperbird said:

but isn't it pretty huberistic to assume that everyone else values those same things or sees the same path to get there? At some point, there needs to be a shared culture, because your definition of " justice, freedom, equality  compassion and love" may be very different from someone elses.

As an American it's the basic tenet of our democracy- 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness', which definitions of who we are, who we love are personal, yes.

The shared culture of America is the free place to do that: freedom for you is freedom for me, and why we need to respect others even when we don't agree.

And why we need to stand up for others even if it doesn't look like the issue affects us.

 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Ellener said:

'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'

Not, it should be noted, "Life, Liberty, and Happiness"

The founding document enshrines the idea that personal effort is required, and the freedom to expend that effort is a natural right. 

[Ellener]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This was the foundation for America in 1787.

Washington's inaugural address in 1790 he was addressing so many aspects of life including his own ignorance, but he said

Knowledge is in every country the surest base of happiness.

[basil67]

5 hours ago, Ellener said:

As an American it's the basic tenet of our democracy- 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness', which definitions of who we are, who we love are personal, yes.

The shared culture of America is the free place to do that: freedom for you is freedom for me, and why we need to respect others even when we don't agree.

And why we need to stand up for others even if it doesn't look like the issue affects us.

 

The only values which count in any society?   Let's just make it clear that while other countries understand that absolute freedom in an important value in the the US, it's not a value which lots of other societies want.   

Where I am, I'm seeing zero blow back against police who are trying to prohibit our upcoming BLM marches.  Most of us value trying to manage COVID over having freedom to have a large gathering which will ultimately put others at risk.   They are better to find another, safer way to protest. 

A lot of the rest of the western world is currently looking a the US and shaking their heads as you rip yourselves apart in the name of freedom.    

Edited July 24, 2020 by basil67

[Ellener]

8 hours ago, basil67 said:

A lot of the rest of the western world is currently looking a the US and shaking their heads as you rip yourselves apart in the name of freedom.    

I know. But it really is freedom or die to an American. It was honour or die when I was an English woman, but I could never have been free there with the class system as it was. I was working class which to be a hard worker is valued here, not looked down upon. If it makes me a millionaire people will encourage and applaud me, not resent it, though I do think wealthy people also have a duty to take care of the poor.

That's where we've been going wrong, when the world favours and rewards us we are meant to give it back!

[basil67]

6 hours ago, enigma32 said:

@basil67there were a lot of people who thought the BLM "protests" were moronic to hold in the middle of a pandemic, just sayin. IMO, much of the problem here is caused by the media being absolutely, 100%, completely full of crap. 

I'm sure that there were plenty who were opposed to the recently BLM protests - but would those same people be in favour of an amendment restricting freedoms?