Mitt Romney income calculator

[Tiberius]

Forgive me, but I didn't see anything else that needed commenting on. You know I don't think the system of capitalism is incomplete; in fact, you know I think the complete opposite, that we'd be better off if the government stopped messing with the economy. Other than that, I disagree with the entire concept of being "too successful".

I hold that the only reason the system is "unbalanced" is because of crony capitalism. It's far too hard (and expensive) to start a business these days, all because of ridiculous amounts of government interference.

I'm not ignoring the massive accumulation of wealth; I know it's there, I just don't think it's a problem. Unless those people accumulated that wealth through illegal means, what right do I have to tell them they have too much money, or that they should give some of it away. Sure, you'll get some bad apples in the system, but you'll get them in *any* system. An increasingly large amount of wealthy people are joining the ranks of those pledging to give away 99% of their fortune, and that's exactly how it should be done, because at the end of the day, it is their money, and they should choose where it goes. The other option is to have the government take it by force, and I don't think I need to tell anyone here about the massive amount of frivolous spending government do.

You see, here is the real problem with the system: the government are the ultimate monopoly on everyone. They have the power to tell you what you can and cannot do, and they will charge you for that "luxury". If you had to rank the government as a company, they would come at the very top, because doing business with them is not an option. Whilst companies ultimately have to look after the interests of their customers for fear of losing them, the government never loses customers (or at least, it arrests those who refuse to pay taxes), and only has to look after the minority of people it needs to get re-elected (yes, a minority...just look at the retarded voting systems we have). Not only that, but due to the two party systems we both have, we are constantly in a state of flux between two groups of people who have (mostly) different ideas about how to run the country. Again, whoever is in power is decided by the minority of swing voters, and the system lurches on changing policy after policy, spending dollar after dollar, and ultimately throwing any hope of stability out of the window.

This isn't how business should be run...let alone an entire country. I don't know what the ultimate solution to this is, but whatever we have now clearly isn't it, because it isn't working.

[reverendjeremiah]

Once again, devout capitalists refuse to admit their system is incomplete...

Incomplete for the "losers" that is. Not for the "successful". In fact capitalism is going EXACTLY how they have planned it. A very small handful of people controlling everything while they dangle the carrot "you can be like us" in front of the rest. Of course you cannot have upward mobility when 1% owns 50%. Of course they "give away money" to help keep the poor from completely rising up and overthrowing the rich bastards.

How about that "charity" crap anyways? Im the richest person in Virginia, I own half of the food production in Virginia. I gush about "poor people starving" and give out 3 million to help pay for food. People buy food and at least half of the money comes back to me. Im now considered a "great man" because who could ever dream of giving 3 million to help the poor?

In reality I am the reason why they are poor. I have cornered many markets, and I never once worked a day in my life. My money works for me now. I got it from my family who cornered the market years and years ago.

Or like in Oklahoma where only a small group of families own the oil in the state, and if they find a well in your property, then they can put up a pump on your property and give you around 10% or less of the profit.

No, capitalism is almost perfected. Capitalism is clearly the few having the mass of welath while the masses have the fewest of wealth.





Well Moros, loook like Adrian answered "try to reduce the burden on the rich"

Are you suprised? Im not.

[Autumnlicious]

Problem with your model of capitalism, Tiberius, is that you assume gives consumers from all walks of life a fair chance.

But it doesn't.

If your parents make all the money such that you coast off of it like a socialite (the Hilton family comes to mind), is it your wealth because you worked hard through capitalism?

No. You won it by birthright.

There you go -- glaring fault with capitalism right there: does not factor in initial resources for any individual being disproportionately unequal (between the common plebe in America and the 1%'s kids, who get's to Harvard on a regular basis? Is it purely because those 'regular basis' people are endemically smarter, better? Or is it simply that they come from a moneyed class?)

Consider the example in the parenthesis -- ask yourself "Is it in anyway fair for competing in a Capitalist system if the stakes are endemically unfair?"

Because it is -- people with massive amounts of resources continue to win big while people with few/lesser resources continue to lose.

This is the problem of capitalism -- in a fair setting, businesses/individuals with the best ability to outmarket, outproduce, etc their opponent succeeds.

But in an unfair setting, businesses/individuals with the most money can:
- simply buy the better product/producer and make it theirs
- undersell their crappy product aka engage in a price war (Carnegie was notorious for driving people out of business because he could tolerate a price war longer)
- invest their resources into changing:
-- popular opinion (Hearst and Du Pont for getting cannabis criminalized through calling hemp 'marijuana' -- a term unfamiliar to Americans at the time -- and pushed propaganda through his newspaper)
-- buying off politicians (do I really need an example? Ok -- howbout SOPA/PIPA?)

The most egregious example of "being too successful" (really Tiberius, really? You claim there "is no such thing?)?

Let's replace "being too successful" with something else:
"being too powerful" -- you can buy off politicians and government. You can own a newspaper and work with your friend to induce a public panic and cause the criminalization of a goddamn plant that everyone liked.

Nope -- there is no such thing as being too successful. Gotcha. I trust you. ~

[Tiberius]

Do you actually bother to read my posts? I tackled the problem of "too powerful"...what you refer to is crony capitalism; the interference of government in the economy. In the capitalism supported by right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, business and the government are completely separate.

As for your example of inheritance, I presume you are also against a parent giving their children pocket money, or feeding them as well? After all, they have done nothing to earn the money / food. C'mon man, do I really have to explain this point? The ability to transfer your property applies to everyone equally.

As for your other points, competition is how the free market works. If you can convince people to buy an inferior product, you are suceeding. Capitalism is all about innovation; if you have a niche market, you have the power. You don't like capitalism because WalMart can close small business down, yet the same WalMart is providing the consumer with lower prices (meaning they keep more money) and more jobs (meaning they make more money).

All big business started off somewhere; follow the line back long enough and you'll find they were all small businesses with a niche market. The same applies today.

[Perhaps]

Incomplete for the "losers" that is. Not for the "successful". In fact capitalism is going EXACTLY how they have planned it. A very small handful of people controlling everything while they dangle the carrot "you can be like us" in front of the rest. Of course you cannot have upward mobility when 1% owns 50%. Of course they "give away money" to help keep the poor from completely rising up and overthrowing the rich bastards.

It's called education.

How about that "charity" crap anyways? Im the richest person in Virginia, I own half of the food production in Virginia. I gush about "poor people starving" and give out 3 million to help pay for food. People buy food and at least half of the money comes back to me. Im now considered a "great man" because who could ever dream of giving 3 million to help the poor?

In reality I am the reason why they are poor. I have cornered many markets, and I never once worked a day in my life. My money works for me now. I got it from my family who cornered the market years and years ago.

Or like in Oklahoma where only a small group of families own the oil in the state, and if they find a well in your property, then they can put up a pump on your property and give you around 10% or less of the profit.

No, capitalism is almost perfected. Capitalism is clearly the few having the mass of welath while the masses have the fewest of wealth.

Capitalism depends on intelligence. If all are educated then all can be successful, but if only a few are educated then only a few are successful.

Well Moros, loook like Adrian answered "try to reduce the burden on the rich"

Are you suprised? Im not.

Why are the rich to blame? Give the poor education and allow them to accomplish what the successful have accomplished.

It's quite unfortunate to see individuals beg for money saying that they were robbed of their retirement or that they were misguided in their decision making. The only person they have to blame is themselves.
For the individuals working menial jobs making wages which barley support themselves... perhaps you should have invested in education early in your career.

Personally, I'm going to be over $200,000 in debt, but i'm not complaining about it. I'm going to pay for my education and I'm going to apply it so that I can make vast amount of money.

[reverendjeremiah]

How naive of you to think that education, and only education makes people successful. Surely Paris Hilton fits in this system of yours somewhere, or is she a rare example?

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.

You even make up excuses for the rich fucking people over.

It's quite unfortunate to see individuals beg for money saying that they were robbed of their retirement or that they were misguided in their decision making. The only person they have to blame is themselves.
For the individuals working menial jobs making wages which barley support themselves... perhaps you should have invested in education early in your career.

Look at how deep in debt you are going, which is not very smart to do in this particular economy. The most intelligent thing to do in this economy is to become debt free as much as possible. I currently own EVERYTHING that I have flat out. I avoid the robber barons and their crooked loans. I work my ass off and buy things flat out with cash. My home, my cars, everything I own flat out from my own hard work and damn near ZERO help from family or friends.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[Violet]

In 2010, Mitt Romney made $19000 in 7 hours 41 minutes and 1 seconds.

It would take you 1140 years 25 days 19 hours 39 minutes and 17 seconds to make what Mitt made in 2010.


Ouch.

[Perhaps]

Wow, are you an idiot. To get that wealth, you have to accumulate it from others. How hard is that to understand?

It's reciprocal which is why it's fair and why competition works. The ad hominem attacks are amazing in this thread.

The end goal of society should not be to live off each other, but rather to provide for one's self.

That is an even more idiotic assertion. Looking at our roots and our closest evolutionary cousins, it seems that society is nothing BUT living off each other.

Why the fuck else would a social species for groups, troops and dynasties, if not for the very purpose of living off, in some way, another?

Durrrrrr.

Society = The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

Not living off each other, but rather living together. You can live together while competing for resources in an orderly manner.

In true capitalism all have equal opportunity through education to compete equally. The problem is that education is lacking currently. Don't hate the economic system - hate the current state of affairs.

[reverendjeremiah]

I chuckled when I read this. I'm planning on going into law, but I do understand your animosity.

Animosity? Yes, but that is not the reason I posted that response.

The reason I posted that response is that debt for education CANNOT be cleared by a bankruptcy.

People wouldn't work if they felt they weren't getting paid enough

Another naive response. People work because they must do so to survive in this fucked up system. What kind of social vacuum do you live in? thats why some people have to work 2 or 3 jobs and never have a life. Not because they "feel" that they arent being paid enough...but because they KNOW they arent being paid enough and have to work much more just to make ends meet.

look at people who get laid off and refuse to work minimum wage jobs and use well fare.

Right, so if I have two car payments, a house payment, and 2 children, me losing my $25 an hour job...I should go directly to a minimum wage job and be glad that the rich "job proivders" are taking care of the system. And if I work hard enough then maybe I too will be rich one day.

As I have said before, what kind of social vaccum do you live in?

BTW - its "welfare", not "well fare". You also seem to be completely ignorant to what welfare is anyways. Welfare is an insurance that has been PAID FOR by the person who is collecting it in most all of the cases. If I work 20 freaking years paying into welfare, and some scum bag decides to move my job to the philipines to pay children 2% of my original pay to do the work I once did...then you mean to tell me I should NOT take advantage of the welfare insurance I have paid into and purchased?

I have a suggestion. How about you actually do your homework on a subject before you type your ignorance upon this board for all to see and cringe at.

*Bet you dont know jack shit about unemployment benefits as well*

Lastly, it reflects a lot about a person's character when they dictate their feelings of someone based on a simple difference in opinion.

Then clearly you havent the foggiest notion between "opinion" and "fact". It is quite obvious that you are extremely ignorant to the social safety nets of America, and even basic economic system in America. Just like your mentioning of predictions of gas prices. Does that INCLUDE the billions we give annually in oil subsidies, will we be removing them? Or did you not know anything about such govt plans?

The ad hominem attacks are amazing in this thread.

Especially the ones you have been posting:
"On a forum which celebrates intellectual conversation, I'm amazed at how many people have the socialist mindset. "
Ad-hom and blanket statement: All socialists are not intellectuals

educate the poor and you solve the problem

THIS, is why I keep calling you naive.