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.
I don't know. I am just putting possibilities out there. Don't take offense at it. Could it be that whites start more family business, where the family (brother, sister, etc) pool their money? Again I am not saying this to be offensive I am just throwing out some possibilities.
Yeah, it's all about what happened 60-100 years ago. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that many still believe they are victims and are taught that by their peers? It's exactly like raising a pet, you don't give it the proper attention, training and affection, it will pee and poop all over your house and bite the hand that feeds it. People are no different, we are still animals, we only know what we were taught. Some people have the ability to climb out of that box and do some actual deconstruction and figure out how, when and why they were programmed like they were and actually do something about it, others not so much.
Could it be that blacks making the same amount as white spend more and save less?
A key factor that must be included in points like those would be... as a percentage of income? If we start with the premise that xyz group earns less, then with regressive taxation all around us, that group can't save as much (again, as a percentage of their income) to begin with.
For example, if someone makes 20K and taking care of basic needs amounts to $20K, including all taxes, the net savings would be zero. OTOH, another person, making 30K, could spend $24K (20% more than just meeting the basic needs), they save $6K. This progression continues as we go up the income ladder, and has necessitated the need for progressive taxation. The federal tax codes try to reduce the impact of these regressive taxes via tax credits (a reason many don't pay federal income tax, while paying a hefty chunk of their income via regressive local/state taxes).
This issue was something Adam Smith pointed out in The Wealth of Nations: "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"
So, savings can only take you as far as your income, on top of you meeting the basic needs. It doesn't necessarily has to imply "spending" as would be the case of luxuries.
Maybe a 400 year start factors into this and a economy built off sweat *cough*
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuditTheFed
Yeah, it's all about what happened 60-100 years ago. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that many still believe they are victims and are taught that by their peers? It's exactly like raising a pet, you don't give it the proper attention, training and affection, it will pee and poop all over your house and bite the hand that feeds it. People are no different, we are still animals, we only know what we were taught. Some people have the ability to climb out of that box and do some actual deconstruction and figure out how, when and why they were programmed like they were and actually do something about it, others not so much.
I somehow feel this has something to do with majority vs minority of population.
Ahh no.. It has to do with the fact that minorities are taught that things are owed to them, that they should go out and spend everything they have, no need to save, a check will be there in a few more weeks, while whites have been raised to
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8.00 per hour
No one even read the article but just came in here spouting the typical....
While the story is new, the figures behind the story is old news.. Are you blaming whites for the failure of the minorities to obtain and save?
Could it be that blacks making the same amount as white spend more and save less?
DING DING DING... We have a winner!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8.00 per hour
5x more?
Please
Is your argument that whites get paid 5x as much as blacks? That would be a humorous argument...
Wealth is ACCUMULATED, it doesnt have to be 5x as much to have THE SAME to be worth the same.. And since I doubt you are proclaiming whites get paid 5x as much as blacks, then the problem isnt the pay, its a lack of SAVINGS!
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.
