RE: Mitt Romney income calculator
January 27, 2012 at 12:29 pm
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm by Perhaps.)
It's referred to by economists as opportunity cost and marginal benefit vs. marginal cost.
Debt isn't bad as long as one understands the timeline in which they have to pay it off and they conduct a marginal analysis. To become successful one must take on marginal cost and wage their opportunity cost. Obviously I could go straight into the work force and gain valuable experience for four years instead of attending college and not working for that time period, but if one analyzes the cost/benefit then they would quickly realize that the education will pay for itself if correctly applied. (Ironically, unless you get the education first you probably couldn't conduct a marginal analysis - even though it's very simple).
As to those born into wealth such as Paris Hilton - that wealth only depreciates when not used in an intelligent manner. Sure, she has money, but that money is being spent on things rather than being invested, thus it is going away. It's not up to us to determine whether it was fair that she was born into money, but one can easily see how someone uses their money - whether it is intelligent or not. I have absolutely no problem with the intelligent rich investing their money so as to grow their wealth, whether they were born into it or not they are still investing it to grow the economy. I also have no problem with those less intelligent rich spending away their wealth as it provides monetary capital for the economy and gives them great happiness.
At the end of the day, everyone is just trying to be happy, which is why work sucks. Everyone wants to retire and everyone wants to see their children be happy. It's not the responsibility of the rich to provide that happiness, nor should it be the responsibility of the government (which gets its money from taxing everyone) to provide that happiness. It should 100% be gained by the individual - unless they are disabled and unable to work in an manner.
We sell the bads (work) to gain the goods (luxury, leisure). Simple as that. No reason to be given goods when they are not earned. To compare an individual who received a large inheritance to one who uses well fare is not to make an equal comparison. One received without asking and makes choices which help the economy no matter what, the other asks to receive and made choices to land themselves in their position while hurting the economy overall.
I chuckled when I read this. I'm planning on going into law, but I do understand your animosity.
People wouldn't work if they felt they weren't getting paid enough - look at people who get laid off and refuse to work minimum wage jobs and use well fare. People also decide on how much they are going to pay for a good - it's predicted that people will pay up to $27 for a gallon of gas in the future, but after this point people will stop partially because of inability to pay, but also because the price surpassed the value. To fool somebody requires knowledge gained through education - educate the poor and you solve the problem. Maintaining wealth is not bad whatsoever, it's rather intelligent.
Lastly, it reflects a lot about a person's character when they dictate their feelings of someone based on a simple difference in opinion. I may be naive, but I am entitled to my opinion, tell me why I'm wrong and I'll most likely change my opinion.
Debt isn't bad as long as one understands the timeline in which they have to pay it off and they conduct a marginal analysis. To become successful one must take on marginal cost and wage their opportunity cost. Obviously I could go straight into the work force and gain valuable experience for four years instead of attending college and not working for that time period, but if one analyzes the cost/benefit then they would quickly realize that the education will pay for itself if correctly applied. (Ironically, unless you get the education first you probably couldn't conduct a marginal analysis - even though it's very simple).
As to those born into wealth such as Paris Hilton - that wealth only depreciates when not used in an intelligent manner. Sure, she has money, but that money is being spent on things rather than being invested, thus it is going away. It's not up to us to determine whether it was fair that she was born into money, but one can easily see how someone uses their money - whether it is intelligent or not. I have absolutely no problem with the intelligent rich investing their money so as to grow their wealth, whether they were born into it or not they are still investing it to grow the economy. I also have no problem with those less intelligent rich spending away their wealth as it provides monetary capital for the economy and gives them great happiness.
At the end of the day, everyone is just trying to be happy, which is why work sucks. Everyone wants to retire and everyone wants to see their children be happy. It's not the responsibility of the rich to provide that happiness, nor should it be the responsibility of the government (which gets its money from taxing everyone) to provide that happiness. It should 100% be gained by the individual - unless they are disabled and unable to work in an manner.
We sell the bads (work) to gain the goods (luxury, leisure). Simple as that. No reason to be given goods when they are not earned. To compare an individual who received a large inheritance to one who uses well fare is not to make an equal comparison. One received without asking and makes choices which help the economy no matter what, the other asks to receive and made choices to land themselves in their position while hurting the economy overall.
(January 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Sure hope that you had a lawyer with you when you put yourself that far into debt, as the fine print is how those rich sons-of-bitches rob the fuck out of you for the rest of your life.
I chuckled when I read this. I'm planning on going into law, but I do understand your animosity.
(January 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: No, I disagree whole-heartedly. To be "successful" (i.e. rich) is to be willing to fuck over as many people as possible. It means to short pay people on purpose and overcharge when possible. It means to fool people and to take advantage of the community that surrounds you. Sure, there are some legitimate people who got rich working hard and smart, but they are overshadowed by the wealthy people who were born wealthy, with companies pledged to them, and all they have to do is follow a guideline passed down from family to family.
People wouldn't work if they felt they weren't getting paid enough - look at people who get laid off and refuse to work minimum wage jobs and use well fare. People also decide on how much they are going to pay for a good - it's predicted that people will pay up to $27 for a gallon of gas in the future, but after this point people will stop partially because of inability to pay, but also because the price surpassed the value. To fool somebody requires knowledge gained through education - educate the poor and you solve the problem. Maintaining wealth is not bad whatsoever, it's rather intelligent.
Lastly, it reflects a lot about a person's character when they dictate their feelings of someone based on a simple difference in opinion. I may be naive, but I am entitled to my opinion, tell me why I'm wrong and I'll most likely change my opinion.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
