Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as you are set up for retirement, without becoming a ward of the state.
"I'm not rich because I choose not to be" is as good as saying "I don't have the work ethic or the intelligence and that's a great excuse for my failures".
I pay my social security contributions (almost 1/4th of my gross income), so I am entitled to my pension later on. This is the purpose of the system
I assume you are American. I have noticed time and again that most Americans simply can't comprehend an alternative way of life and try to find some fault with anyone challenging their idea of the purpose of life.
My IQ is 143, as determined in an official test, and I have never failed in anything I did professionally. Whoever I worked for, they have always been happy with my work. It was always me who quit, I have never been fired.
Work ethic to me is about doing one's work well, not delegating work to colleagues, not cheating on customers, etc. Some people's understanding of work ethic, namely working a lot and making profit, is just a perversion of the expression in my view.
Unlike you I have the guts to challenge the status quo of our societal and economic priorities and standards.
So Mr. Siebold America wouldn't have existed without the rich? LMAO!
It's not a bottoms up world with the exception of government giving you the shaft.
You want the people that can do to become busy. Taxing, regulating the hell out of them and so forth will only uninspired the top and they will remain idle.
I mean, why the hell should they employ people for the privilege of getting sued, getting lots of stress, taking risks... FOR WHAT?
You are seeing the top do enough for themselves and they are not motivated by our socialists to become the giants they are anymore.
I pay my social security contributions (almost 1/4th of my gross income), so I am entitled to my pension later on. This is the purpose of the system
I assume you are American. I have noticed time and again that most Americans simply can't comprehend an alternative way of life and try to find some fault with anyone challenging their idea of the purpose of life.
My IQ is 143, as determined in an official test, and I have never failed in anything I did professionally. Whoever I worked for, they have always been happy with my work. It was always me who quit, I have never been fired.
Work ethic to me is about doing one's work well, not delegating work to colleagues, not cheating on customers, etc. Some people's understanding of work ethic, namely working a lot and making profit, is just a perversion of the expression in my view.
Unlike you I have the guts to challenge the status quo of our societal and economic priorities and standards.
We generally agree....
I do not cheat my customers or, anyone eles.
I am getting the impression that success to you means the person has done something wrong somehow.
It's not a bottoms up world with the exception of government giving you the shaft.
You want the people that can do to become busy. Taxing, regulating the hell out of them and so forth will only uninspired the top and they will remain idle.
I mean, why the hell should they employ people for the privilege of getting sued, getting lots of stress, taking risks... FOR WHAT?
You are seeing the top do enough for themselves and they are not motivated by our socialists to become the giants they are anymore.
You can literally do better by staying small and not make lots of money than try to strike it big. But doing that means some sacrifice which isn't all that bad. So you don't have the McMansion, boat, annual trip to Hawaii, every channel on cable, inground pool, etc.
It can be done and one can live quite comfortably if they put their mind to it. And that can be a richer life than slaving to stay ahead of the taxman.
Considering 2,000 years ago, they didnt use dollars, I'm not sure how you can compute if there is more now than before..
Is there more now than 100 years ago? Not really, rich people were rich then, rich people are rich now.. Sure now they have more wealth as a $ figure, but because the dollar isnt the same now as it was then, a millionaire now isnt the same as a millionaire 100 years ago..
Its like some of you guys have never heard of the Rockefellers, who's wealth would be about $310B in todays dollar, or Carnegie, $300B.
Ah I see your confusion. Wealth existed prior to the invention of currency. The dollar doesn't limit wealth creation. Dollars are One way to measure wealth and of course the money supply increases without affecting the value of each individual bollar that much, meaning inflation is low.
I believe you are mistaken, there is much more wealth today than 100 years ago. Certainly there is more wealth in the world. That couldn't be possible if wealth was static. How is that possible in a zero sum world. I suspect you haven't done the research I suggested, if you had you would see that you ate mistaken.
"I'm not rich because I choose not to be" is as good as saying "I don't have the work ethic or the intelligence and that's a great excuse for my failures".
Implying that "rich = success" and "not rich = failiure" ?
I would guess you are very young. As you see more of life, you will come to meet many successes who are not rich, and some failiures who are.
It is easy to point out examples of the latter. Look at Hollywood, six-time divorced multimillionaires whose kids won't talk to them and who live in fear of visible aging or being forgotten. Or rock stars who die before forty, their minds eaten up by drugs and their bank accounts holding millions.
The successes who are not rich may not be as publically visible, but you will see many in most small towns, people who work at something they enjoy and provide what their families need.
I've met rich people who were happy, but none of them had ever had "getting rich" as a major ambition. They were people who got rich as a consequence of doing something they enjoyed. The people who had "get rich" as a major ambition replaced it with "Get richer" as soon as they got rich. Driven people, who put off happiness untill their first heart attack, or till the grave.
Considering 2,000 years ago, they didnt use dollars, I'm not sure how you can compute if there is more now than before..
Is there more now than 100 years ago? Not really, rich people were rich then, rich people are rich now.. Sure now they have more wealth as a $ figure, but because the dollar isnt the same now as it was then, a millionaire now isnt the same as a millionaire 100 years ago..
Its like some of you guys have never heard of the Rockefellers, who's wealth would be about $310B in todays dollar, or Carnegie, $300B.
Perhaps this will help. Please read the whole thing.
Other people work much harder than Gates and in more meaningful areas, still they are working poor.
So Gates helped organize and coordinate and implement a productivity revolution that lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty around the world and dramatically improved the potential and profitability of small business. The cost of basic office applications software (database, word processor, spreadsheet) fell by 95% between 1985 and 2000 due to Gates' efforts, and improved by a factor of one thousand times.
Gates has done more for mankind than Mother Teresa, and you think someone, somewhere does more meaningful work?
Personally, I can tell you for a fact, there is no way that I will ever pay Microsoft more than a tiny fraction of the value that has been rendered to me through their products.
I am getting the impression that success to you means the person has done something wrong somehow.
Hm, I assume we just have very different ideas of what success means. To me a good teacher or a firefighter or a nurse is a successful person. They don't earn much, but through their work they really help others and ultimately society. While to many people a manager or broker is a successful person, to me they aren't.
Success only means that you set yourself a goal and manage to reach it. What that goal is, is up to the individual. To a kid with learning problems a C in maths may be a huge success, while those used to A's will be sad about a B.
Sometimes when you hit a button in a software program you get a pop-up saying Success! It simply means that the action was carried out as planned.
Nah, I am just saying something inconvenient. Of course people who don't like or understand what I say will call me envious. It is always the same pattern (just like anyone criticizing gay parades is himself gay, right? ).
Other people work much harder than Gates and in more meaningful areas, still they are working poor.
The market (you) don't agree. Name one industry these people work in. Then ask yourself if you would be willing to pay substantially more for that good or service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who gets paychecks from the poor?
).
