Financial wealth inequality in America: it's worse than you think... (enemies, poll)

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Why not ask them?

And, while you're at it, ask them why they don't voluntarily contribute to the IRS in excess of what they must, to the level they think they should.

I know millionaires personally. They're not complaining about money. I've already talked to them.




Maybe you should.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

I know millionaires personally. They're not complaining about money. I've already talked to them.




Maybe you should.

I don't understand your response, at all.

You said this:

hen why were there Millionaires who marched on Washington demanding that they raise taxes on the wealthy?

To which I responded:

ask them why they don't voluntarily contribute to the IRS in excess of what they must, to the level they think they should.

If, they think they would be better served giving money to the government, why don't they?

[skoro]

I'm not sure about that.

I think it's pretty bad. The prospects for it improving are dim right now, too. One of the major parties seems hellbent on tilting the table even further in the direction of the already wealthy at the expense of the rest of America.

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I don't understand your response, at all.

You said this:

To which I responded:


If, they think they would be better served giving money to the government, why don't they?

Because you don't understand there's a difference between paying your fair share and paying extra.


But irregardless, your just distracting.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by Griffis

So, your assertion is that if poor people changed their thinking, they could all be rich.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

No, the FACT is that poor people continue to be poor due to decisions they make, which are a result of their thought processes (or lack of them). Been there, done that, got the medal.

Okay then. What specifically did you change about your thinking? Your claim is that one's thought process determines their wealth and that "people remain poor because of how they think." I believe we'd all like to know what thought processes are necessary to allow one to rise out of poverty or out of the ranks of the poor.

Can you not give us some pointers? Is this just some sloganeering, empty rhetoric stuff, or is there something behind it?

Originally Posted by Griffis

Essentially that is what you are saying, right?

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

No, I speak VERY plain and deliberate english. Nothing needs interpreting or summarizing. Poor people REMAIN poor because of how they think. One needs do precisely nothing to be abjectly poor. It requires positive, deliberate action to NOT be poor.

Okay. But what you SAID was:

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Because it's how you think that determines whether you're rich or poor.

...yet now you are saying it takes "positive, deliberate action." Which is it? Can you even hint at what either the thought processes or deliberate actions might consist of? It doesn't seem that you use plain English at all, since you are glaringly contradicting yourself, not to mention tossing off some platitudes as if they were fact and providing absolutely nothing but gobbledygook to attempt to back them up.

I would sincerely like to know (and I think others here would as well) what either the "thinking" or the "deliberate actions" are necessary to allow someone to rise out of poverty.

You've made two contradictory statements but done absolutely nothing to explain or support either one.

Originally Posted by Griffis

Can you delineate for us exactly how a person who works hard, lives within their means and just happens to not make enough to move beyond paycheck to paycheck would change their thinking to become a rich person?

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Yes, make better decisions about a LOT of things.

Okay. Such as...? Is this formula of yours applicable to every poor person in every scenario? Because it sounds like some ancient Protestant Work Ethic American Dream nonsense in which if you work really, really hard, get the proper education and training, make the right connections and, by golly, just have enough moxy, spunk and gumption, why then anyone can be a millionaire!

I mean, if you can spout overly simplistic, black and white statements while providing no basis for them, that goes both ways, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by Griffis

Do that, and you are guaranteed millions in book sales and on the lecture circuit.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Why? There's nothing secret or mysterious about any of it.

Then by all means you should have no trouble whatsoever explaining yourself a little bit and citing specifics, right?

It is ALL about individual choice and priorities and self discipline.

Like what, for example?

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Gtownoe

Because you don't understand there's a difference between paying your fair share and paying extra.


But irregardless, your just distracting.

No, I'm not. You yourself argued that millionaires marched on washington, demanding higher taxes.

I asked you to ask them why they don't volunteer to pay those taxes they're demanding. After all, if it's a good idea and they support them, why wouldn't they do it?

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

No, I'm not. You yourself argued that millionaires marched on washington, demanding higher taxes.

I asked you to ask them why they don't volunteer to pay those taxes they're demanding. After all, if it's a good idea and they support them, why wouldn't they do it?

Your logic is stupid. Therefore I won't waste any more brain cells on answering your question.


Your response has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It's a silly hypothetical.


Moving on.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Griffis

Okay then. What specifically did you change about your thinking? Your claim is that one's thought process determines their wealth and that "people remain poor because of how they think." I believe we'd all like to know what thought processes are necessary to allow one to rise out of poverty or out of the ranks of the poor.

I stopped trying to get instant gratification. I had to handle what I had MUCH better and not go into debt for "stuff". This included the size of house, the car, the furniture, how often we ate out, and the list goes on and on. In other words, it was a transformation of my thought processes to include future considerations as more important than present wants.

I stopped believing that opportunity was finding some "program" or mechanism to redistribute to me.

I had to understand that ** I ** needed to do things and BE more valuable, so that what ** I ** did was worth being paid more.

I stopped trying to figure out how to get my hands on what someone else produced and started trying to find a way to BE MORE VALUABLE MYSELF.

Can you not give us some pointers? Is this just some sloganeering, empty rhetoric stuff, or is there something behind it?

What? I don't comprehend your question.

Okay. But what you SAID was:



...yet now you are saying it takes "positive, deliberate action." Which is it? Can you even hint at what either the thought processes or deliberate actions might consist of? It doesn't seem that you use plain English at all, since you are glaringly contradicting yourself, not to mention tossing off some platitudes as if they were fact and providing absolutely nothing but gobbledygook to attempt to back them up.

I would sincerely like to know (and I think others here would as well) what either the "thinking" or the "deliberate actions" are necessary to allow someone to rise out of poverty.

Uhhh... I simply don't understand how you ask the question. This isn't even a conversation. Our natural state is to have nothing. We have to work, we have to think, plan, use our intellect to use whatever we have to improve ourselves. That's the positive, affirmative actions that have to happen, or we're just consumers of oxygen and space with nothing.

You've made two contradictory statements but done absolutely nothing to explain or support either one.

I suppose you can say this as some kind of deflection from the topic, for some reason I can't really imagine, but I can't imagine that you're as befuddled as you pretend to be.

Okay. Such as...? Is this formula of yours applicable to every poor person in every scenario? Because it sounds like some ancient Protestant Work Ethic American Dream nonsense in which if you work really, really hard, get the proper education and training, make the right connections and, by golly, just have enough moxy, spunk and gumption, why then anyone can be a millionaire!

Really, ANYONE CAN. But few are motivated to be. I'm not. I don't live for money. I need it, that's obvious, but I do not live my life in pursuit of it.

I mean, if you can spout overly simplistic, black and white statements while providing no basis for them, that goes both ways, wouldn't you agree?

Well, I do see how criticism of style, when you have no factual disagreement, could suffice as a means of personally discrediting someone who says inconvenient things...

[petch751]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

Look at Detroit...74% of the kids in Detroit belong to single parent homes. How does a single mother on government assistance build wealth? Is it not personal choices that lead to being single mothers more so than other factors?

Again, poor choices. It's that simple. Then to make it worse they have more kids and add to the problem. The problem is these people expect everyone else to pay for your poor choices. Well we do pay for them and then instead of appreciating the assistance they scream and holler then elect a president to go after the people paying their way.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I stopped trying to get instant gratification. I had to handle what I had MUCH better and not go into debt for "stuff". This included the size of house, the car, the furniture, how often we ate out, and the list goes on and on. In other words, it was a transformation of my thought processes to include future considerations as more important than present wants.

Well now, this is exactly the kind of clarification I was looking for. It's somewhat anecdotal, but I do sincerely appreciate you at least providing some examples.

And at base, I agree. Too many people live well above their means, regardless of their wealth or income. My family and I live quite meagerly. We don't have cable, we don't go out to eat much, we stopped partying years ago before our kids were even born, so we spend really zero money on things like alcohol, we don't have credit cards, we have one older car that we bought outright and for the first time (I'm in my mid-40s) I am making a car payment, but we really needed a dependable car and we got a good deal with reasonable payments and a low interest rate. We don't buy unnecessary "stuff."

But at the same time, we both have good educations with a few degrees between the two of us, and we both work for the state government. We have really good benefits and decent retirement plans, but we don't make much as far as salaries go. We still struggle from month to month but we are also trying to put as much back as possible and we both have pretty high payoff life insurance policies.

I feel we have made good decisions (though we've also made some that seemed good at the time but in retrospect were not good)...we have tried for education and training which in many ways did not net us what I feel we would wind up with as far as employment opportunities (and I have some student loan debt.) We both work very hard and continue to seek other jobs to try to improve our situation, but it's still paycheck to paycheck (barely) for us.

Well, I do see how criticism of style, when you have no factual disagreement, could suffice as a means of personally discrediting someone who says inconvenient things...

I wan't really "disagreeing" with you. I was asking if you could provide examples or back up the statements you made. It's not an attempt to "discredit" you if you make sweeping, general statements and I ask you to support them with facts, which you still haven't really done outside an example of one.