Are The Rich Getting Richer?

In 2016, the U.S. added 400,000 new millionaire households. This adds up to a recored 10.8 million households with a net worth over 1 million. Since the crisis, the number of millionaire households has grown every year, and 1/10 households are now at the millionaire level. Apparently, this is a result of people who are already wealthy, achieving a smaller amount of wealth, an amount that puts them over the threshold. In my opinion, I think most people currently have the opportunity to increase their wealth, not just the rich.


Since the 2008 financial crisis, the number of millionaire households has grown every year, adding a total of 4 million millionaire households, according to Spectrem Group, the wealth research firm. The stats mean that more than one out of every 10 households in America is worth $1 million or more.

"It's more of an escalator than an elevator," he said. "You're seeing people worth maybe $900,000 move into the million category, rather than someone going from $100,000 to $26 million."

What are your opinions? Are we in a system that only benefits the rich?

Reference:
Record Number Of Millionaire Households

 

I remember a saying that's often thrown around, "to make make, you need to spend money". Folks with higher disposable income, have more money to use to create wealth. I believe this is one of the many reasons wealthy individuals continuously acquire more wealth.

Just an Undergrad trying to get a job. Something you disagree or dislike about my posts? Let me know by PM'ing me or commenting constructive criticism.
 

The first million is always the hardest.

I think there's more nuance than the assertion that our system only benefits the rich--perhaps 'our system only benefits the knowledgeable and connected' is more fitting. I've seen many cases where an individual who lacked monetary capital was still able to acquire it via leveraging their personal fortune in social capital. Doors open and opportunities will present themselves when you know enough people. However, if you have no money and no worthwhile contacts then I admit it's exponentially harder to prosper in the US today and grit alone likely won't cut it.

 

System does not ONLY benefit the rich. It benefits just about everyone, BUT the problem is not the lack of capability to become rich - more so the ability on gaining the required toolset to do so. Education and health are the points of importance in my eyes. When was the last time you heard of a kid in the middle of a ghetto dreaming of becoming an IBD BSD at 18?

...
 

Yeah I think i've seen stats on upward social mobility being at an all time low. This may just be a function of the U.S. being in the very later stages of development, so there are less opportunities for people to be "in the right place at the right time." The rich are definitely getting much richer and I think tax reform will exacerbate this. I also agree that the gap between 'knowledge workers' and non knowledge workers is getting a lot wider. This explains the real-estate valuations in places like Silicon Valley, Seattle, Austin, Boston, NYC which people in the rest of America think are nuts, but probably have a lot more basis in actual economics than most ppl realize.

 

This is stupid, it has never been easier to make money in this country than it is today. What prevents people from doing so is the same thing that prevented people from doing so 200 years ago. People don't want to put in the effort to do what they need to do. In my opinion that is perfectly fine. If you are content with a job that makes you 45k a year there is nothing wrong with that. Just don't shit on the people who have more ambition.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

This is the furthest thing from the truth. Easy to become a millionaire by what creating an app? You need money to make money. If I had more disposable income I would be buying property left and right, however I don't nor do many of my peers. Even if you are in banking how much money are you able to take home after taxes, expenses? Many don't become MD or VP. They just sit idle at Associate - VP level samething with consulting. Also, lets not forget to add that going to a better college gives you better job opportunities. Many of the kids that end up in top schools also become from a privileged background.

 

great video - I would also add that the wealth data is often based on the yearly Credit Suisse survey. Wealth is calculated as net debt: the bottom 10% of the distribution often has a "negative wealth," yet lives on very comfortable standards (think of college grads). America has shifted towards a more indebted society, yet that society services debt very well (think of record low interest rates). So comparing "wealth" from 1975 to 2000s is often very misleading.

 

Yes, the rich are getting richer. But I don't think they are greedy like many Bernie Sanders supporters believe them to be.

I think that the value of EDUCATION that the upper middle class (and the upper class) has led to a divergent economy where those with great degrees and skills are gaining more while those who have none are suffering in a country that doesn't need them anymore.

Personal Anecdote = The NJ public school I went to was predominately filled with families making around $120K and 60% Asian (30% Indian, 30% Chinese). The Asian parents worked their butts off to go to great schools in India and China (IIT/Peking) and put the same emphasis on their children. The unmotivated pot smokers were accepted into good public schools like Penn State and Rutgers. While the top 50/400 attended top 25 schools. The 'worst' are living relaxed middle class lives, while the best are working at the likes of McKinsey, Google, and NASA. None of us had legacies or connections, but an Asian view of education and work ethic (combined with progressive social values) created exceptional graduating classes.

 

That is only half of the picture, people who do this shit annoy me to no end. No one looks at the quality change, the poor in 1967 lived lives of far less convenience than the poor of today do. Technological dissemination is never taken into account about the stagnation of wage dollars. But you have to to get the whole picture. Not to mention that 1967 is a bullshit year to choose as well and is done so by people who to manipulate the data sets.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
 

"No one looks at the quality change, the poor in 1967 lived lives of far less convenience than the poor of today do. Technological dissemination is never taken into account about the stagnation of wage dollars. "

That's not really responsive to OP's headline question.

"Not to mention that 1967 is a bullshit year to choose as well and is done so by people who to manipulate the data sets."

Feel free to present your own data. Criticizing something but not providing an alternative is pretty meaningless.

 

This is all about education. The rich (and those who become rich) teach their kids about investments, have large investments themselves, and constantly look for opportunity to grow their wealth with more assets. The middle-class does not think this way, and nor do they pass this mentality along to their children (in most cases, not all). Sometimes the middle class simply doesn't have the capital, but often, it is a lack of sophistication with personal finance/investing that is the limiting factor to upwards mobility

 
Best Response

It depends....

If you are middle class, then yes the rich are getting richer because the middle class is shrinking. Your net position in relation to their now, or forecasted in 10-years wealth will be farther from their trajectory. But this is not because you are getting richer, rather you are getting poorer.

The richest 1% always always inherit their money, however due to the number of children, or financial mismanagement this wealth will be diluted and absorbed back into the economy by 3 generations or so. So there is always a new rich you are comparing yourself to, never the same people or families.

Maybe the rich are getting richer. With low interest rates who has had the ability to take advantage and positively lever their wealth to creating more wealth. I think we have decoupled interest rates with what they were originally supposed to represent risk. So we bail out the rich when they fail and then we help them get back up with 3% interest rates. Great, let's keep them low so only 4 corporations exist in America, they can buy every other corporation and put people out of work or pay them nothing in relation to the profits they make.

 
inews]With everything going on with the recession, tax changes, inflation etc, richer people seem to be getting richer. I also read that although consumer spending was down, demand for luxury goods remained quite stable. People have often argued that richer people should be taxed more but is this fair given that they are earning that money (usually) legitimately?</p> <p>[quote:
Britain's wealthiest people saw their fortunes rise to record levels last year

Britain's richest woman was former "Miss UK" beauty queen Kirsty Bertarelli, who shares a 7.4 billion pounds fortune with her Swiss-Italian entrepreneur husband Ernesto.

Do you think richer people should be taxed more? Or is this unfair? And is it because rich people tend to marry other rich people does this create a rich people poor people breakdown?

Check Out This Article Here: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/30/uk-britain-richlist-idUKLNE83T…]

Demand for luxury goods remains stable in economic downturns because the rich are the ones who are hit the least by its effects.

MM IB -> Corporate Development -> Strategic Finance
 

No, rich people should not be taxed more. And when you are talking about rich marrying rich, It is a symptom of marrying people who are like you. It doesn't make it wrong anymore than an attractive person marrying another attractive person. I think people should focus on trying to become rich rather than ostracizing those that are already rich.

 

This is how the story should go:

Someone who has more than me has even more. This makes me angry. Should we use the government to steal from them because I don't have the balls to just rob their house myself?

If you feel entitled to someone else's wealth, just go get a gun and redistribute it yourself. Same damn thing as ganging up in a mob and using the government to do your dirty work for you.

 

I think the trend is probably going to come to an end over the next 10-15 years and US ginis will be somewhere back in the 40s by the time we're done.

China is running out of cheap labor.

Facebook or Google, even Apple, is five years from becoming the next RIM.

Global food prices are rising, putting pressures on the growth of the global labor supply, and the US is going to make sure its citizens get fed first.

Let's call the period from 1933-1980 a historical divergence, but even if you factor that period out, ginis in the US have generally hovered around 40-50 during the 20th and much of the 19th century. I would also argue that progressivism- providing more information to consumers, balancing bargaining power between business and labor, and reducing negative externalities from 1890-1920 was merely a natural response to the industrial revolution in any government that John Locke and Adam Smith would call a classically liberal (libertarian) one.

In 30 years, the US will be more equal. People will start to understand the externalities of the tech and financial revolution and there will be a regulatory response to those externalities which will probably check a lot of the growth in ginis. On top of that, the world will run out of food (the US is fairly safe; we're the world's largest grain exporter), so labor prices will be forced up.

We need to focus on maintaining cheap postsecondary STEM educations at public schools.

We need to focus on finding noncoercive ways of keeping population growth- especially among folks who depend on the government- under control.

We need to focus on protecting the environment especially in the grain-producing regions of the country.

We need to make sure the middle-class and poor remember that rich people are a blessing, not a curse.

If we do those four things, everyone will wind up benefitting when income disparity begins contracting again.

If you feel entitled to someone else's wealth, just go get a gun and redistribute it yourself. Same damn thing as ganging up in a mob and using the government to do your dirty work for you.
Interestingly, that is what happened in Iraq when the Saddam regime fell. A lot of folks with connections to the Saddam regime- and therefore a lot of money- had their homes looted and their assets taken.
 

Yeah, and look at Iraq's wonderful economy.

If you take the richest 100 people and take every penny of their wealth (at book value) you would not be able to even bridge the budget deficit for this year, let along pay down debt or fix over spending. Once we get into this mob mentality where we tax the hell out of the rich to satisfy a childish concept of fair, this country is D O N E.

The rich will pay and then leave. Or they will hire elsewhere. Punitive taxation comes with a general animosity within society. Considering that there are tons of other places with nice standards of living and maybe just as high taxes, but without the hatred, the rich will leave.

We have a spending problem in this country. We have a nation that enjoys a service, but does not realize the cost. We have a country of jealous people.

This Va-gini ration is great when looking at the Middle East or something. Dirt poor and uber rich. In the US you have a poverty level that includes an apartment, LCD TV, amenities, free healthcare, free K-12, food stamps, etc. Yeah, sucks, no doubt, but it isn't like Robin Hood days where all the deer were the kings and you have the rich and the starving.

So yes, if I was poor I would be jealous, no doubt. But this isn't about rich and destitute. This isn't grapes of wrath. This is I have stuff, but someone has more stuff and I want it. It is a materially driven Gini.

I would 100% support higher taxes if you had a Solyant Green level of income disparity, but we do not have this. We have people in Honda Civics wanting higher taxes because they are jealous of the guy in the 7 series. That is a societal problem, not an income disparity issue.

Go to a gas station with an American running the register. They will be playing on their phone, not doing their job. Go to a gas station with an Indian/Paki on the register. They will be doing their job and working hard.

Why? Because one realizes what is like to be from a poor country and the other is looking for a hand out. To feed into this parasitic behavior is to cast this nation down a hole from which we will never return.

 
TNA:
Yeah, and look at Iraq's wonderful economy.
It's growing. Debasing Saddam's cronies helped restore social order faster. The US succeeded in Iraq where the British, the Turkish, heck, Alexander the Great all failed. We now have a somewhat stable country.
If you take the richest 100 people and take every penny of their wealth (at book value) you would not be able to even bridge the budget deficit for this year, let along pay down debt or fix over spending. Once we get into this mob mentality where we tax the hell out of the rich to satisfy a childish concept of fair, this country is D O N E.
Maybe. But folks said that in the 1930s, too. Probably a better way of putting it is that it hurts more than it helps, economically.
The rich will pay and then leave. Or they will hire elsewhere. Punitive taxation comes with a general animosity within society. Considering that there are tons of other places with nice standards of living and maybe just as high taxes, but without the hatred, the rich will leave.
We control the world's grain supply. And we're the only country in the world that could find Osama Bin Laden. If we REALLY wanted to- and I'm not advocating this- we could cap incomes globally. China has the only military that could stand up to us, but we have them checkmated since we control their food.
We have a spending problem in this country. We have a nation that enjoys a service, but does not realize the cost. We have a country of jealous people.
Don't disagree with you. Just think that jealousy is human nature and you can't complain about it; you just have to work with it and around it.
Dirt poor and uber rich. In the US you have a poverty level that includes an apartment, LCD TV, amenities, free healthcare, free K-12, food stamps, etc. Yeah, sucks, no doubt, but it isn't like Robin Hood days where all the deer were the kings and you have the rich and the starving.
That was the '70s. If you look around, New York and most cities have a terrible homeless problem.
I would 100% support higher taxes if you had a Solyant Green level of income disparity, but we do not have this. We have people in Honda Civics wanting higher taxes because they are jealous of the guy in the 7 series. That is a societal problem, not an income disparity issue.
Again, jealousy is a natural human instinct that we have to work around. It is unavoidable and it is real. It is one of those economic brick walls that Austrians love to talk about, but they can't mention this one. It is tough to get much higher than ginis of 60 in a Democratic country.
Go to a gas station with an American running the register. They will be playing on their phone, not doing their job. Go to a gas station with an Indian/Paki on the register. They will be doing their job and working hard.

Why? Because one realizes what is like to be from a poor country and the other is looking for a hand out. To feed into this parasitic behavior is to cast this nation down a hole from which we will never return.

Again, folks said that in the 30s. Socialism didn't help us economically, but it saved us from "It Can't Happen Here." 1890-1910 progressivism DID help us economically and also helped keep us from having a revolution.
 

There is poor and then there is destitute. The people clamoring for higher taxes on the rich are not homeless people. Besides, the Buffet rule will not do anything to fix the economy.

Yes, jealousy is a human emotion, but so is hatred and racism. Non of which should be encouraged or particularly listened to. And yes, the voting rights of the least informed is the biggest problem with Democracy.

 

You know that welfare makes up 11% of the 2012 federal budget, right? Defense makes up 23%... Did you know the interest on our debt is almost half of what we spend on welfare? Education is allocated a minuscule 4%. Cut spending on EVERYTHING and raise taxes on EVERYONE... It's the solution that will never happen. And we shouldn't blame the politicians, if they stand up for that happy compromise they don't get re-elected. The more polarized we become the less we can achieve.

 
Yes, jealousy is a human emotion, but so is hatred and racism. Non of which should be encouraged or particularly listened to. And yes, the voting rights of the least informed is the biggest problem with Democracy.
The difference is that jealousy doesn't really threaten anyone's freedom, and when jealousy gets acted on, it sometimes makes the world a better place. Some level of correction for income inequality has been around for thousands of years, and it generally makes societies healthier as long as it has well-defined limits.

Jealousy ("Fairness") can be good sometimes. Conservatives simply choose to see it as bad and call it "Jealousy", liberals see it as good and call it "Fairness". In reality it was probably "Jealousy" in 1975, it was probably "Fairness" in 1905, and one day, it will probably be "Fairness" again. I'm not sure we've hit that point, but I don't think that we should be saying it's a good thing for income inequality to rise indefinitely. Nobody would say the same thing about P/E ratios.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
I think the rich should be taxed less. Government is terribly inefficient in a lot of areas, especially on poverty. But the upshot is that the rich should be required to give to 501c3s to replace the taxation.

Let the rich define the US's social policy. Let them figure out how we make the country a better place.

Hmm, this would be a fascinating compromise indeed! Though sub-optimal, it would be tantamount to having competing public sectors (since it's still a paradoxical "required-gift"), which I think is a great idea in comparison to the monopoly government currently holds.

What I came here to say though is that we're going to have to disguise it a little better. The Occupy crowd would shit its collective hemp shorts if it realized such policies were letting "the rich define the US's social policy." We're gonna have to spin it a little differently.

“Millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do”
 

Why wouldn't they be happy about it under the new 501c3 rule you just implemented? You know that if a charity pays me it isn't tax-free for me right? I mean if a charity pays me, I pay taxes on those wages. The charity doesn't pay taxes but I do. If anything the IRS would ecstatic for this to happen. They get taxes from myself, charity doesn't get shit, and I get a lower effective tax rate. It's the loophole that beats all other loopholes.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Why wouldn't they be happy about it under the new 501c3 rule you just implemented? You know that if a charity pays me it isn't tax-free for me right? I mean if a charity pays me, I pay taxes on those wages. The charity doesn't pay taxes but I do. If anything the IRS would ecstatic for this to happen. They get taxes from myself, charity doesn't get shit, and I get a lower effective tax rate. It's the loophole that beats all other loopholes.
Actually, the IRS has certain rules about highly compensated individuals at charities and how much funding can go to a single person.

You could obviously try to optimize things in your favor to some extent, but at least ~70% of the spending is going to have to go directly towards one of the enumerated 501c3 objectives, or the IRS will take away your status and hit you with penalties. Why go for 35% when they can get 150%? :D

 

Seriously... I could actually do that. A charitable organizations objective could be to donate to various charities and in fact many of them do (not to douches like my hypothetical self but to real charities). So it's not like this would be any kind of red flag to the IRS, especially if I set up many charities that were all below 10k (irs radar is 10k I think).

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Seriously... I could actually do that. A charitable organizations objective could be to donate to various charities and in fact many of them do (not to douches like my hypothetical self but to real charities). So it's not like this would be any kind of red flag to the IRS, especially if I set up many charities that were all below 10k (irs radar is 10k I think).
Yeah, good luck getting approval for a charity like that. Every 501c3 charity is carefully reviewed and approved by the IRS. More importantly, the 10k limit that you are talking about applies to currency transactions. :-\

http://www.501c3.org/frequently-asked-questions/what-form-is-is-require…

My dad's a tax attorney; he's handled this dozens of times and often it involves multiple meetings with the IRS over a period of months or years. Charities are carefully scrutinized, but if your organization meets the test, the IRS won't deny it:

http://www.501c3.org/frequently-asked-questions/what-does-it-mean-to-be…

Trust me. I've thought of this too as a convenient 401k plan with much higher contribution/deduction limits and tried to figure out a loophole that would allow me to take advantage of this. There are ways to abuse the tax code, but 501c3 status generally isn't one of them.

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/form-nonprofit-501c3-corporation…

Seems easy... Someone at my firm formed one and she didn't seem particularly brilliant or burdened by the IRS. Also this typically isn't a tax cheat because the rule you mentioned hasn't been enacted. The 403(b) idea wouldn't be tried on a large scale because rich people like to enjoy their money now, not when they're 59.5 and if they're already 59.5 years old (or close) it isn't tax deferred on the money coming out (only on the way in) so it wouldn't make a difference.

 

That's for forming a non-profit corporation, not a 501c3. There's a big difference- 501c3 status additionally allows for deductability of contributions- and the 501c3 process is more involved.

Look, if it's legit and passes IRS scrutiny, they'll allow it. But again, they're not going to let "Help Mike Out Charity" pass muster, and if it somehow does pass, you could be setting yourself up for fraud charges later on. Courts don't take too kindly to folks who abuse the charitable process.

I agree that we would have to step up 501c3 enforcement and auditing if we went this route. But why not let the people who earn the money set social policy rather than have government bureaucrats set it?

 

When I set up the charity and I'm working with the IRS I'm going to tell them that I plan to donate to the United Way and other that's geared towards my objectives. When I'm up and operating and filing 990s that the IRS DOES NOT look at (they really don't give a shit about 990s, maybe they care about the initial set up but not the 990, I'm a CPA and although I have no experience setting up a non-profit, I have some experience auditing charities and preparing the 990s) that's when I donate to charities like "a better future tomorrow, because today is almost over" (office joke). I wouldn't make it Michael's charity or something obvious like that.

 
When I set up the charity and I'm working with the IRS I'm going to tell them that I plan to donate to the United Way and other that's geared towards my objectives. When I'm up and operating and filing 990s that the IRS DOES NOT look at (they really don't give a shit about 990s, maybe they care about the initial set up but not the 990, I'm a CPA and although I have no experience setting up a non-profit, I have some experience auditing charities and preparing the 990s) that's when I donate to charities like "a better future tomorrow, because today is almost over" (office joke). I wouldn't make it Michael's charity or something obvious like that.
Part of the process involves setting up a charter outlining the charity's objectives and interests. Even if you are the founder of the charity, even if you are the sole contributor, if you violate those objectives and give yourself large buckets of cash, that constitutes defrauding the charity and can get you sent to jail for quite a while.
Anyway, tightening the 501c3 regulations seems like it might be penalizing the good charities and wasting my hard earned tax dollars (borrowing a line from the GOP, my apologies for the copyright infringement) on unnecessary audits.
Actually, it's pretty easy to flag this stuff. If your own charity is getting the vast majority of its contributions from a single person and it was started after the rule that required charitable contributions, something is probably up. And if we impose a 20-year prison sentence for defrauding charities, that will also serve as a decent deterrent.
 

Any laws punishing the rich like that would have one big pop in revenue and then a flat line decline. The rich would simply move or shut down their businesses. The UK tried jacking their already theft level taxation and saw no increase in revenue.

Unless you force me to work, which would be the next logical extension of socialism, tax revenues will decline.

 
TNA:
Any laws punishing the rich like that would have one big pop in revenue and then a flat line decline. The rich would simply move or shut down their businesses. The UK tried jacking their already theft level taxation and saw no increase in revenue.

Unless you force me to work, which would be the next logical extension of socialism, tax revenues will decline.

Don't forget that the UK started with a higher marginal tax rate than us. Another comparison is that we hiked rates during WWI and tax revenues went up.

Higher tax rates stunt economic growth. But don't forget that the promise back in the 80s was that we could always raise taxes in a bigger economy and pay off the debt being incurred to enjoy reduced tax rates. Well, maybe now it's time to pay the piper. Maybe we need to cut spending and raise taxes.

 

Alright. We've run through the scenario. Looks like IP has me checkmated (besides the prison deterrence thing, the last thing the US needs is more prisoners, maybe large financial penalties?). It was fun regardless...

However! On the flip side, having rich people determine our social policy... How is that different from how it is now? Also, I think you may be placing too much trust in our corps and rich folk. I distrust our government and our corporations equally, I'm apparently a very paranoid person :)

 

IP, you and I both know that the only way to balance the budget is for across the board tax hikes and a reduction in spending. Jacking taxes on the rich will not do it.

End of the day, eventually everyone is going to have to feel the pain.

 
TNA:
IP, you and I both know that the only way to balance the budget is for across the board tax hikes and a reduction in spending. Jacking taxes on the rich will not do it.

End of the day, eventually everyone is going to have to feel the pain.

So then why are you calling for tax cuts for the rich? We need EVERYONE to go back to the Clinton tax schedule, including the poor, middle class, and rich. And we need to cut spending.

Everyone here trusts Larry Kudlow too much. Larry Kudlow and Paul Krugman and Ron Paul all make good points. That doesn't mean they're always right or that they play 100% fair with the facts (ok, maybe Ron Paul does, but then he misinterprets them a little too often).

 

You, IP, me, every other sane person in the United States...

It's not like you invented some genius deficit reduction program that hasn't ever been thought of, TNA. It's a matter of political unity and willpower that is non-existent at the moment. Sure blame the dems, I'll blame the GOP and we can continue on this path towards mutual destruction.

 

Oh yeah, it is the GOP huh? I don't see Dems talking about broad based tax increases.

Republicans simply want to cut spending which only hurts those who don't pay Fed taxes, but receive benefits.

Dems want to symbolically increase taxes on the rich and increase social spending.

In reality, you need to eliminate deductions in the tax code and cut spending, which will fuck the poor and middle class, because they benefit from all types of deductions. The rich will still be rich.

Once you give something it is nearly impossible to take it back.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
Take a look at the other 70%, TNA. Were it not for that government, you wouldn't be able to keep that either.
To dovetail with your point - take away social security and medicare and the US becomes a banana republic that lets invalids sleep in the streets.

Not sure what the way out is. I would require higher percentages of employee withholding on lower income groups. That way the users of social security pay for it. Oh, and social security withholdings track worker:retiree ratio directly.

 
Unfortunately, politicians are liars and parasites and will take any increase and spend it. Therefore I support starving the system of money and forcing cuts to be made. Until I trust the government to do what is right it should be starved of funds to do wrong.
"Starving the system" really just means hyperinflation. Hint: poor people don't have much cash to hyperinflate.
 

[quote=killfrankgoreshead]I don't see the dems signing pledges never to increase taxes... Because THAT is the perfect way to come to the bargaining table, right TNA? AHHAHAHAHA sign a pledge that says taxes will not be increased! How have we not reached a compromise! (scratching my head)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57327816/the-pledge-grover-norqui…]

Bravo to them. Any increase will simply be spent. Until spending cuts are put in place tax increases should never be discussed.

Do not negotiate with terrorists.

 

Starve it. Reality will come soon enough. The Fed cannot keep the game going. Eventually the system will come back to reality, massive cuts will be implemented and taxes will increase. The people will riot, but the US has enough military and police elements to subdue anything. Liberty will be lost, but this is what the people want the most.

 

The point, might I add, was not to point fingers but to come together. When I said you should blame the Dems and I'll blame the GOP, you seemed to think that this was an attack on you and the GOP when really I was attacking the idea of a bipolar nation that doesn't get anything done (see two months of arguing whether to pay the govts electicity bill). If you treat politics like a team sport, you're part of the problem. Polarize America further! Do it. Watch what happens.

 

The point, might I add, was not to point fingers but to come together. When I said you should blame the Dems and I'll blame the GOP, you seemed to think that this was an attack on you and the GOP when really I was attacking the idea of a bipolar nation that doesn't get anything done (see two months of arguing whether to pay the govts electicity bill). If you treat politics like a team sport, you're part of the problem. Polarize America further! Do it. Watch what happens.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Yeah because the GOP never spends money, right? I can see this isn't getting anywhere. First you're for broad based tax hikes, then when I bring up how your team isn't for that, you're not for them.

My kumbaya sentiments are falling on deaf ears. Good luck with dividing up the country and destroying our unity. I can only hope that you fail.

When did I say my "team" doesn't spend money? When did I also say that I am a blind supporter? I want less government and am not a fan of any Republican that wants a larger government.

 

It is pretty obvious that this problem isn't going to get solved. We are going to come to a crisis and then drastic things will happen. Looking at 9/11, the government's response will be to get bigger and take more people. The people will support it and so goes the story.

So instead of caring, just realize the only people who are free are those with money and work to accumulate and acquire money.

 
Yeah because the GOP never spends money, right? I can see this isn't getting anywhere. First you're for broad based tax hikes, then when I bring up how your team isn't for that, you're not for them.
There are a lot of Dems like that, too. Probably more of them than Republicans. Hopefully you can talk some sense into them for us. I have been trying to work on ANT for years; if he were older he probably would have been part of the 25% that supported Nixon after the Watergate scandal broke. Sadly they're letting us more middle-grounders have way too much power by refusing to consider compromise.
My kumbaya sentiments are falling on deaf ears. Good luck with dividing up the country and destroying our unity. I can only hope that you fail.
For heaven sakes, the last thing any Republican wants to think about in a political discussion is singing, let alone a song usually sung by hippies in front of a campfire while smoking pot.

Talk about how you want to smile and shake hands beneath a big portrait of Reagan or Barry Goldwater happily looking down on you. That's a little creepy, but it will work better from our frame of mind.

Oh well, Goldwater was right. If he came back today with the policies he advocated back in 1964, he'd probably be seen as a liberal.

 

"It is pretty obvious that this problem isn't going to get solved."

That's the attitude that beat the Japanese! (Always Sunny in Philadelphia, damn I watch too much TV). In the end, you're probably right, but I think we should go down swinging instead of being a pussy about it. There's nothing that can't be solved without a little American competitive spirit mixed with some American ingenuity. I tell you what you tell the Republicans to raise taxes on everyone, I'll tell the Dems to deregulate a little and cut spending (see that, I gave you two things I'm willing to do, deregulate and cut spending). This should work. Ready, BREAK! (as in how sports teams say BREAK after the huddle, you know what I mean)...

 
killfrankgoreshead:
"It is pretty obvious that this problem isn't going to get solved."

That's the attitude that beat the Japanese! (Always Sunny in Philadelphia, damn I watch too much TV). In the end, you're probably right, but I think we should go down swinging instead of being a pussy about it. There's nothing that can't be solved without a little American competitive spirit mixed with some American ingenuity. I tell you what you tell the Republicans to raise taxes on everyone, I'll tell the Dems to deregulate a little and cut spending (see that, I gave you two things I'm willing to do, deregulate and cut spending). This should work. Ready, BREAK! (as in how sports teams say BREAK after the huddle, you know what I mean)...

Here is your logic break.

You and I are both worried about the deficit. I am fine with paying more to pay it down and you are fine with cutting spending to pay it down.

The problem is the people who OWS and who vote Dem don't understand or care about the deficit. They don't want to pay more and they don't want to see benefits cut. Hence why the Dems are fucked.

Republicans hate taxes, but had entitlements and deficit even more. You are giving them 2/3rs positive and 1/3rd negative. This would be a decent compromise for Republicans. Try explaining to the Hope and Change crowd why you are cutting their entitlements and increasing taxes on them. Landslide loss.

My stance is that the Dems have to be more inflexible simply because of their voting block. Republicans are super anti tax, but mainly because increased taxes will be redistributed. If you removed that possibility from the table a lot of middle ground Republicans would be fine with it.

 

I fail to see how anything I am saying is far right wing.

1) We need spending cuts and tax increases, across the board. How are Dems going to sell that? Honestly, it is an easier sell to Republicans (fiscal). Dems are for more spending and more taxes on people who aren't their voting block. Republicans are for less spending and less taxes. At least Republicans get half what they want.

Either way, neither party wants to come home and tell their votes a tax increase and spending decrease is happening.

2) Human nature. Politicians want to spend. Any increase in taxes without a law forcing it to go to the deficit will mean the increase will get spent. Why would I give more money knowing it won't go to pay down the debt.

Prove to me that it will and I will pay more. Until then I don't want to give any more to a wasteful government.

3) Increase taxes does not automatically mean higher revenue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/909…

Once again we only need to look at Europe for out answers on what not to do.

The reality is nothing will get done. Dems will protect their voters and Republicans will protect theirs. I suppose the thing maybe helping the Republicans is that the Dems really don't care about their voting block and just want to make a show of things. If you think Krugman cares about some trailer trash you are joking. This is about power and manipulation.

So in conclusion, both parties are controlled by the rich, the business class and the educated. So what should be the goal? To become rich and educated. Now you don't need to be a billionaire, but having a million in the bank is achievable and wields you power. Being a millionaire means you can afford a 20K plate dinner and means you can buddy up to your senator and representative. This should be all of our goals.

Money = power = freedom

 

OWS... Yup that's the entire dem voting block. You got us! The tea partiers are your entire voting block. Good luck explaining your fucking plans to Joe the fucking Plummer and Sarah Palin. I'm sure the chick that doesn't read will be very receptive to your plans.

No but seriously, Bill Clinton balanced shit! GW did not balance shit. Obviously there's a flaw somewhere in your argument. Dems love taxes and spending JUST as much as Republicans hate taxes and spending. It's equal. Democrats want a balanced budget JUST as much as Republicans do. It's equal. I swear, conservatives think they invented fiscal discipline. If you guys invented it, then WHY DO YOU SUCK SO BADLY AT IT? WHY SIGN A FUCKING PLEDGE NOT TO INCREASE TAXES? WHY GO TO WAR WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT? You know the pledge didn't say no tax hikes unless broad reform is on the table, it just said "no tax hikes".

 
The problem is the people who OWS and who vote Dem don't understand or care about the deficit. They don't want to pay more and they don't want to see benefits cut. Hence why the Dems are fucked.
Sure. They make up about 15% of the country, and about 15% of the country genuinely believes Pat Robertson when he claims Democrats engage in genocide. Throw in the welfare bums and unionistas along with the John Birch society + neocon partisans, and we've got about 20-25% on each side.

You don't want to be in either of those 25%s. They never get to make the decisions about how the country runs.

Most of the intelligent independent-minded folks find themselves in the middle. Maybe they agree with the principals of one party and agree with them 2/3 of the time, but then find some sense in stuff that the other side is pointing out. That's where the country's decisions tend to get made.

I think most folks in the middle think that the Ryan Plan for Medicare is a fair trade for the (full) Clinton tax schedule and guarantees that social spending won't increase faster than the lesser of CPI or economic growth.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
The problem is the people who OWS and who vote Dem don't understand or care about the deficit. They don't want to pay more and they don't want to see benefits cut. Hence why the Dems are fucked.
Sure. They make up about 15% of the country, and about 15% of the country genuinely believes Pat Robertson when he claims Democrats engage in genocide. Throw in the welfare bums and unionistas along with the John Birch society + neocon partisans, and we've got about 20-25% on each side.

You don't want to be in either of those 25%s. They never get to make the decisions about how the country runs.

Most of the intelligent independent-minded folks find themselves in the middle. Maybe they agree with the principals of one party and agree with them 2/3 of the time, but then find some sense in stuff that the other side is pointing out. That's where the country's decisions tend to get made.

I think most folks in the middle think that the Ryan Plan for Medicare is a fair trade for the (full) Clinton tax schedule and guarantees that social spending won't increase faster than the lesser of CPI or economic growth.

Here is where I think you are off.

Yes, 25% of the Dems are nuts and 25% of the Republicans are nuts. The problem is the Dem nuttiness is fiscal and social spending. The Republicans are religious nutty, but religious nutty will still pay more taxes to pay down the debt.

This is a fiscal conversation. I completely agree that both side has an equally crazy side, but in the framework of a fiscal conversation, the Democrats have the fiscally nutty people.

 

Listen, I've had this discussion before, with people who frankly know the subject more than you. No where did I say the entire Dem voting block was OWS. I was implying that the base of the Democratic voting block tends to be lower income and part of the 50% not paying Federal taxes. They also tend to be those who benefit from entitlement programs. Increasing their taxes and cutting their entitlements would be a double blow.

Bill Clinton was forced to the center and eventually started reforming welfare and balancing the budget. He also was not in the situation we are in now.

Thanks to Bush, Obama and both parties in Congress, we are now up to our ears in debt. Entitlements are going to have to be cut and taxes are going to have to be increased across the board. Both parties are trying to jockey for the best deal, but, IMO, Dems have the most to lose.

I am against increased taxes ONLY IF they are spend for more social programs. I will happily pay to pay down the debt. This is a stance many Republicans have. My belief is that the Democrats have a less flexible voting block.

FYI - Both parties went to war, both are to blame. Conservatives suck for losing their way, but both parties committed the over spending sin.

 

My belief is that Republicans have a less flexible voting block. The south is mainly republican right? They don't seem particularly rich and educated, I mean obviously some are, but the stereotype is, well... Not so much. Look up the average income by state (you may notice a pattern). I know, I know those states with lower income have lower cost of living, but that's because they have to attract workers somehow.

You see the Dems as poor and uneducated. Guess what? I see the Republicans the exact same way. We can't both be right. In all likelihood, we're both wrong.

I've discussed this with Harvard professors who write books about American politics and they agree with me (alright, I made this up, I just wanted to match your condescending tone with regards to the people you talk to). Hmm yes, my friends are very educated and proper. They whipe their asses with gold and such.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
My belief is that Republicans have a less flexible voting block. The south is mainly republican right? They don't seem particularly rich and educated, I mean obviously some are, but the stereotype is, well... Not so much. Look up the average income by state (you may notice a pattern). I know, I know those states with lower income have lower cost of living, but that's because they have to attract workers somehow.

You see the Dems as poor and uneducated. Guess what? I see the Republicans the exact same way. We can't both be right. In all likelihood, we're both wrong.

I've discussed this with Harvard professors who write books about American politics and they agree with me (alright, I made this up, I just wanted to match your condescending tone with regards to the people you talk to). Hmm yes, my friends are very educated and proper. They whipe their asses with gold and such.

Democrats have a more bimodal intelligence/educational distribution. Democrats dominate the 'no high school diploma' voting block.

Republicans are effectively monolithic. Republicans are not poor and uneducated. They are less well represented in graduate degrees (but not that bad).

 

Dude, Southern Republicans ARE poor and uneducated. Yet they still vote Republican.

The whole argument surrounding southern republicans is they vote against their best interests. Yet they keep doing so. Most likely racially motivated or anti Northern/liberal bias. Regardless. If the Republicans say more taxes, but cuts in entitlements, Jim Bob Hillbilly will go along with it.

 
TNA:
Dude, Southern Republicans ARE poor and uneducated. Yet they still vote Republican.

The whole argument surrounding southern republicans is they vote against their best interests. Yet they keep doing so. Most likely racially motivated or anti Northern/liberal bias. Regardless. If the Republicans say more taxes, but cuts in entitlements, Jim Bob Hillbilly will go along with it.

You said it very well southern repubs(hillbillys) vote repub strictly for social reasons.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee WSO is not your personal search function.
 
Here is where I think you are off.

Yes, 25% of the Dems are nuts and 25% of the Republicans are nuts. The problem is the Dem nuttiness is fiscal and social spending. The Republicans are religious nutty, but religious nutty will still pay more taxes to pay down the debt.

This is a fiscal conversation. I completely agree that both side has an equally crazy side, but in the framework of a fiscal conversation, the Democrats have the fiscally nutty people.

Look, Dems have got Maxine Waters and Ed Markey and a couple other kooks, but the Republican side is the one saying that lower taxes always mean higher revenues. If that were true, we would have no taxes and everything else, for that matter, would be free, because cutting prices means more revenue and more profits. The economists at the conservative Heritage Institute, btw, disagree. They argue that the Kennedy tax cuts (90% to 70%) probably boosted revenues but Reagan's (70% to 50%) were probably revenue-neutral at best and the Bush tax cuts almost certainly cut revenues.

Rs realize that the government can't live beyond its means and when it does, it's almost always more sensible to cut spending than boost revenue.

Ds realize that if you don't spend money educating our kids, civilization is doomed regardless of how much we cut spending.

And the Malthusians hiding in the shadows on both sides lose a lot of sleep at night about welfare allowing people who would normally starve to have seven kids with five other parents instead. We wonder how many people we'll really be able to feed from agriculture in the Great Plains and the Great Lakes with the Ogallala aquifer running out of water and the potential for global warming. We wonder what the modern industrial economy is putting into the environment that we're not yet aware of.

Oh well. I am a Barry Goldwater Republican when the government is effectively correcting negative externalities, Ginis are below 45, and folks are talking about wealth redistribution. I start becoming a neoliberal Malthusian when Ginis are approaching 55 and folks in the libertarian wing are saying income inequality is a good thing. Rich people are a blessing, but income inequality is a curse.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
Look, Dems have got Maxine Waters and Ed Markey and a couple other kooks, but the Republican side is the one saying that lower taxes always mean higher revenues. If that were true, we would have no taxes and everything else, for that matter, would be free, because cutting prices means more revenue and more profits. The economists at the conservative Heritage Institute, btw, disagree. They argue that the Kennedy tax cuts (90% to 70%) probably boosted revenues but Reagan's (70% to 50%) were probably revenue-neutral at best and the Bush tax cuts cut revenues.

Rs realize that the government can't live beyond its means and when it does, it's almost always easier to cut spending than boost revenue.

Ds realize that if you don't spend money educating kids, civilization is doomed regardless of how much we cut spending.

And the Malthusians hiding in the shadows on both sides lose a lot of sleep at night about welfare allowing people who would normally starve to have seven kids with five other parents instead. And then there's global warming.

Oh well. I am a Barry Goldwater Republican when the government is correcting negative externalities, Ginis are below 45, and folks are talking about wealth redistribution. I start becoming a neoliberal Malthusian when Ginis are approaching 55 and folks in the libertarian wing are saying it's a good thing. Rich people are a blessing, but income inequality is a curse.

And I am right there as a malthusian with you. If you honestly think that Dems wouldn't suffer more from a increase in taxes, decrease in entitlements and all excess fund go to pay down the debt, then fine, I support you.

I simply think that telling the people who vote because of social programs and entitlements that they will suffer because we have to pay down debt (a nebulous and fiscal thing which tends to be the Republicans bread and butter) you will lose votes.

Shit, I can see broke Republicans paying more taxes simply if that means less entitlements. The deliciousness to see the Dems sacrifice their prize calf would make increased taxes worth it.

 

Dude, the Democrat platform is not fiscal conservativeness. Why? Because in order to be fiscally conservative you need to not give a fuck about people in need.

So once you become the party about caring about people in need, you need to either take more from people who have it to give, or you run up a deficit. Well Dems have obviously not been good at increasing taxes, so they run up deficits.

 

You see my side as inflexible on this issue. I see your side as inflexible on the same issue. I have several examples of your sides inflexibility (is that a word?). The main ones being: GW SR raising taxes and getting fucked by voters. Also the pledge not to raise taxes. Honestly... I mean really! How can you say that Dems are more inflexible on this issue? Republicans signed a pledge not to raise taxes, how is that flexible? If you don't think Conservatives would get absolutely fucked by their voters if they voted to increase taxes... I mean I don't know. I think you're delusional. You think I'm delusional. Again, I hate repeating myself, but we're probably both wrong and we're definitely not getting any where. It's just a debate about how we feel about the others base.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
You see my side as inflexible on this issue. I see your side as inflexible on the same issue. I have several examples of your sides inflexibility (is that a word?). The main ones being: GW SR raising taxes and getting fucked by voters. Also the pledge not to raise taxes. Honestly... I mean really! How can you say that Dems are more inflexible on this issue? Republicans signed a pledge not to raise taxes, how is that flexible? If you don't think Conservatives would get absolutely fucked by their voters if they voted to increase taxes... I mean I don't know. I think you're delusional. You think I'm delusional. Again, I hate repeating myself, but we're probably both wrong and we're definitely not getting any where. It's just a debate about how we feel about the others base.

Tax increases are a 3rd rail for Republicans for a couple reasons. One, no one likes paying more. Two, it leads to big government and three, Republicans just don't like paying for social programs that have the reputation of going to help Democrat voters.

You tell a Republican yeah, taxes have to increase, BUTTT we are cutting entitlements, making the bum Democrats pay and we are using the cash to pay down debt, not increase welfare spending and I think you will gain more than you lose.

All I am saying is that in the framework of a fiscal argument, Republicans are more open to things than Democrats. Democrats are about social issues and that requires spending.

 

The tax rate should be equal for all types (income, capital gains, etc.). I also think the top marginal rate should be moved to ~28%, the same rate during the later Reagan years, because Obama could switch his "Buffet Rule" to the "Reagan Rule" because the right loves Reagan so much.

But the government in general wastes WAY too much money. So much cutting could be done by fixing the healthcare system so that it doesn't hand out taxpayer dollars to insurance companies and also by cutting the Department of Defense to a sensible level. And that's just the beginning.

 
Voltaire X:
The tax rate should be equal for all types (income, capital gains, etc.). I also think the top marginal rate should be moved to ~28%, the same rate during the later Reagan years, because Obama could switch his "Buffet Rule" to the "Reagan Rule" because the right loves Reagan so much.

But the government in general wastes WAY too much money. So much cutting could be done by fixing the healthcare system so that it doesn't hand out taxpayer dollars to insurance companies and also by cutting the Department of Defense to a sensible level. And that's just the beginning.

If we tax LTCG and ordinary income the same way, there should probably be inflation indexing and we should talk about reducing the corporate income tax rate.
 

This should be obvious, but the reason we have a progressive tax code is because of the diminishing marginal utility of money ($1 means a lot more to someone making $9/hr as opposed to $50/hr). For that reason, I don't see it as being unfair.

TNA: I know you think that social entitlement programs are the most horrific injustice ever, but you should look at it from this perspective if you haven't already: Although it might seem unfair to you that some 40 year old single mother making $12/hr is getting medicare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other benefits, if we took that stuff away, not only would she suffer, but her kid (our future) would suffer. A healthy child has a much better chance of going to college and amounting to something compared to a starving kid living in a rat-infested one-bedroom apartment who has to work 30/hr week starting at age 13 to help pay her mom's bills. So in this sense, entitlement programs could actually ultimately have a positive economic effect. Not everybody who gets benefits is a lazy selfish heroin-addicted welfare queen only interested in leeching from others.

I look forward to seeing how all these austerity measures (which some of you are advocating) turn out in Europe. So far it doesn't seem to be working...

 
JDawg:
This should be obvious, but the reason we have a progressive tax code is because of the diminishing marginal utility of money ($1 means a lot more to someone making $9/hr as opposed to $50/hr).

TNA: I know you think that social entitlement programs are the most horrific injustice ever, but you should look at it from this perspective if you haven't already: Although it might seem unfair to you that some 40 year old single mother making $12/hr is getting medicare, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other benefits, if we took that stuff away, not only would she suffer, but her kid (our future) would suffer. A healthy child has a much better chance of going to college and amounting to something compared to a starving kid living in a rat-infested one-bedroom apartment who has to work 30/hr week starting at age 13 to help pay her mom's bills. So in this sense, entitlement programs could actually ultimately have a positive economic effect. Not everybody who gets benefits is a lazy selfish heroin-addicted welfare queen only interested in leeching from others.

I look forward to seeing how all these austerity measures (which some of you are advocating) turn out in Europe. So far it doesn't seem to be working...

I actually do not want to eliminate all safety nets. My issue is simply that they are never enough. We always need more, better, etc. I am fine with keeping these basic social programs.

Also, you need to answer this for me. Why did she have kids when she can only make $12 bucks an hour? Why am I responsible for her decision to bring a life into this earth that she cannot afford? And now that I am guilted into paying for her for her bad decisions how come I am not entitled to some say in how she raises MY kid (I pay for it after all).

If you want my money, you get my control. If you cannot afford to be a parent, do not be one. Don't shit out a kid and think I want to pay for it.

FYI - it is doubtful that this child in this circumstance is our "future". More like a future prisoner or person that is not competitive in the new economy. Just another body that will feel entitled to my work and efforts.

 

@ JDawg, the problem is that 50 years ago, that kid would have never been born, because his idiot mother would have starved before she had a chance to give birth. Ultimately, welfare without at least mitigating the extra population growth is toying with nature and spitting in the face of Darwin.

It's human nature to be compassionate to the folks who are alive and the social injustice we see. But if the country is going to make it another three or four generations, we need self-sufficient parents raising kids to be self-sufficient, not a bunch of helpless mothers having eight kids with five different fathers before they hit 23.

If you or your child qualifies for welfare benefits, you should be required to get a vasectomy of mastectomy while you are receiving benefits.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Because you obviously didn't pay enough for her education. Since you skimped on her education and allowed "the ghetto" to exist instead of striving for equality you should have to pay for her bad decisions. Next time don't skimp on her education.

Na, that is cool. You can pay while I will not. I didn't skimp on shit, nor did anyone in my family own slaves so I feel no guilt.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Because you obviously didn't pay enough for her education. Since you skimped on her education and allowed "the ghetto" to exist instead of striving for equality you should have to pay for her bad decisions. Next time don't skimp on her education.
No, because her parenting and her genes were passed down to her by her parents.

Education can't replace parenting. And someone too stupid to wait until they're 18 to have kids probably doesn't benefit as much from education as the average person did 50 years ago.

 

Yup, typical liberal thinking. Either pay now or you will pay by gun point. So glad to know that if I don't subsidize someone elses bad choices I will be robbed or worse.

The cops will arrest them, put them in jail and disenfranchise them. Merry Xmas from Scrooge.

 

Illini: We (the US) don't have a population problem, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I agree that poor welfare-recipients shouldn't be having tons of babies. I was just trying to point out that even if you ignore the whole moral aspect of it, welfare may still be the smart thing to do from a purely economic standpoint. Making a child have to suffer for her parents' decisions not only seems wrong to me (since a child can't control who he/she was born to), but he'll be more likely to become a criminal or a non-productive member of society in the future.

I listened to a podcast the other day (link if you're interested) and it kinda made me see things from another perspective. Basically this single divorced immigrant mother in NYC makes $16k/year and has one child (not 5 kids, 1 kid). She's literally dependent on government aid for food, healthcare, housing, etc. Yea you can say "well she shouldn't have had a child, she's dumb, why should she get my tax dollars", but if you listen to her ~12 year old kid talk (I forget the exact age), he is an avid reader, sounds intelligent, and I bet will most likely go to college and contribute to society. If it weren't for the government subsidies, he'd prob be hungry, bitter, and grow up to be more of a strain on society.

I'm not saying we should just throw money at poor people, but welfare programs with the right incentives (eg. not "rewarding" you for having another baby) with limited forms of abuse are an investment in society that could make America better off in the long run. It's not just a moral issue.

 
JDawg:
Illini: We (the US) don't have a population problem, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
US population growth is about 1%/year. Land growth is 0%. Do the math.
I agree that poor welfare-recipients shouldn't be having tons of babies. I was just trying to point out that even if you ignore the whole moral aspect of it, welfare may still be the smart thing to do from a purely economic standpoint. Making a child have to suffer for her parents' decisions not only seems wrong to me (since a child can't control who he/she was born to), but he'll be more likely to become a criminal or a non-productive member of society in the future.
Bingo. My point simply is that we should be doing more to prevent that child from being born.
I listened to a podcast the other day (link if you're interested) and it kinda made me see things from another perspective. Basically this single divorced immigrant mother in NYC makes $16k/year and has one child (not 5 kids, 1 kid). She's literally dependent on government aid for food, healthcare, housing, etc. Yea you can say "well she shouldn't have had a child, she's dumb, why should she get my tax dollars", but if you listen to her ~12 year old kid talk (I forget the exact age), he is an avid reader, sounds intelligent, and I bet will most likely go to college and contribute to society. If it weren't for the government subsidies, he'd prob be hungry, bitter, and grow up to be more of a strain on society.
I think NPR actually does fairly balanced reporting (even if it's done by liberals),but to be honest, a typical kid on welfare is boring. So is a typical banker. So is a typical state school student. A journalist's job is to tell an interesting story, and a kid growing up in poverty who'd rather spend $10 on books than Nelly's or Eminem's latest album is interesting. You're not going to hear a news story about a student at UIUC who wants to be a teacher in Peru, IL like his Dad. You're not going to hear a news story about a banker who likes to spend money on himself. You're probably not going to find a news story about a kid growing up on welfare based around the fact that he thinks reading is boring. It's just not interesting.

I think a much better way to help kids like this is to reduce welfare spending and replace it, dollar for dollar, with private charity money to help the poor. Rather than Mom getting a check from the government every month, there's a food pantry. Rather than welfare, there's more free admission at local museums and after school programs.

Not sayiing we should just throw money at poor people, but welfare programs with the right incentives (eg. not "rewarding" you for having another baby) with limited forms of abuse are an investment in society that could make America better off in the long run. It's not just a moral issue.
It's a tricky question. I am all for giving people opportunities. My issue is that our current system takes people who are arguably economic failures (depending on the kindness of the government and strangers to survive) and then acts as though they will be successful parents.

I think there are smart, bright, capable folks everywhere. But I also think a lot of kids would benefit from better parenting, and that it is fundamentally irresponsible to bear children you cannot afford to raise. I think we can attack the problem of irresponsible parents without attacking the bridge that smart kids cross to exit poverty.

 

TNA!!!! You will pay for this!! The government will find you and they will make you pay and there is nothing you can do to stop them!!! I'm just kidding. The out of touch republican is one of my favorite characters! I love how they think they're the only ones that pay taxes. That has to be my favorite thing about them. It's like they invented money or something. Did you patent money TNA?

 

I have already stated that I am for welfare and a social safety net. This benefits all of us and is part of my taxes, fine. If you think something more is warranted, cool, pay for it. Do not take your personal opinion and expect me to pay for it.

Suppose I believe abortion is evil. How would you like me getting a law pass that increased your taxes to pay for my personal belief? In that case you would go ape shit.

If you care so much about the poor, volunteer, donate, be a spokesman. Do not project your beliefs on me because you sure as hell wouldn't like it if I did it to you.

 
JDawg:
There are some things the government should provide because the free markets won't. I understand your point though.

Yeah. I think my biggest hot button is the never enough crap. And it isn't poor peoples fault, it is politicians or educated liberals who use the poor. As usual, the poor get used and they get the hate directed at them.

I am all for helping people, but throwing money at them is not help and social programs do not teach personal responsibility. For every hard working immigrant you have someone who dropped out of high school and had kids they cant afford.

Oh well, world we live in.

 

Oh ip!! You don't see the irony of wanting a Darwinian approach to society when you're at or near the top? By all accounts you seem fairly educated and you clearly come from a good family that cares about your well being and has placed you in the best possible position to achieve your economic goals. Wow it must have been really difficult for you to come up with this survival of the fittest, you must be sacrificing a lot. Hold on while I choke on my vomit. If you really wanted that you'd be against all government altogether. No public police force (only the rich get protection), no public schools (only private or home), no nothing.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Oh ip!! You don't see the irony of wanting a Darwinian approach to society when you're at or near the top? By all accounts you seem fairly educated and you clearly come from a good family that cares about your well being and has placed you in the best possible position to achieve your economic goals. Wow it must have been really difficult for you to come up with this survival of the fittest, you must be sacrificing a lot. Hold on while I choke on my vomit. If you really wanted that you'd be against all government altogether. No public police force (only the rich get protection), no public schools (only private or home), no nothing.

Love how when someone succeeds it is always because they got lucky or their family handed it to them. I mean how hard is it for a family to make a kid go to school and tell them how important college it. We have people from 3rd world countries coming to the USA and doing this, but native born Americans can't understand this.

Keep making excuses. Most people just don't care anymore, count me as one of them.

Also, even if I was to believe your premise that those who fail do so because they don't have a solid family, what is the solution? I will more than happily pay increased taxes if the government is allowed to assume child raising responsibilities to those who are obviously failing at it.

Do not expect me to pay for something if I cannot control the outcome.

 
Oh ip!! You don't see the irony of wanting a Darwinian approach to society when you're at or near the top?
I don't want a darwinian approach. I'm simply saying that is how it has been for the past three billion years and that we're toying with nature if we encourage people who couldn't otherwise reproduce to reproduce.
By all accounts you seem fairly educated and you clearly come from a good family that cares about your well being and has placed you in the best possible position to achieve your economic goals.
State school kid here.
Wow it must have been really difficult for you to come up with this survival of the fittest, you must be sacrificing a lot. Hold on while I choke on my vomit. If you really wanted that you'd be against all government altogether. No public police force (only the rich get protection), no public schools (only private or home), no nothing.
I'm simply stating that as the US starts to approach its environmental carrying capacity, it is utterly unpragmatic to encourage population growth among people who can't take care of themselves, which is the case with welfare as it is currently run. Eventually the rich, middle-class, and working people will no longer be able to afford to take care of the exponentially growing population on welfare, and we will ultimately wind up with MORE suffering in aggregate than we would by asking people on welfare to stop having more children.

You're a liberal. You've probably taken an environmental science course and read about Easter Island and population carrying capacities. Rich people and middle-class people generally plan their pregnancies and children and are bounded by their resources and ability to pay for their children. Welfare recipients have no such bounds the way the system currently works.

Yes, economics is a dismal science; especially malthusian economics. And I practice what I preach; I'm not planning on having more than two kids.

Isn't it better to have one; maybe two children who can enjoy a nice country with freedoms and opportunities than five kids who all starve in a country that descends into anarchy? If we begin to approach or exceed our population carrying capacity, we ALL lose. And I think that, after factoring in 500-year famines and crop failures, that capacity is really only about 400 million for the US.

 

Listen tna I'm not some bitter jealous a-hole. My mom is a surgical pathologist (med school ucsf) and my dad is the CEO of a biotech firm (Stanford MBA) and I'd be more than happy to pm you my full name if you wanted to verify this info and befriend me on LinkedIn (although my Mom's not on it but you can just google her name). I know the head start I was given, I am extremely thankful for it and if I improve on my parents station I will not count myself as self made. I know that I have to work for my future success and that nothin will come easy but I'm not naive enough to think that if I grew up in Compton to a family not as well off that I would have the same opportunity that I do now. Public schools in crappy areas aren't very good. Even if I went everyday the chances that I would learn what I needed would be slim and I would in all likelihood be seen as an outcast and a nerd with no friends. How do you change that culture? Obviously throwing money at the school is not the answer but I do think that careful spending on the school and the family will give the child the opportunity to not only improve on his parent station but to surpass what you or myself could ever possibly dream of. He might not be a drain on society and he might be the next Steve jobs. When we give everybody a similar opportunity to succeed the society will be better for it.

 

Why are public schools in bad areas bad? Violence. Teachers are afraid to teach, kids cannot focus because of unruly classmates, businesses don't open in bad areas because of theft and crime, people don't walk around because of violence, money doesn't come in, no jobs, the cycle continues.

Bad parts of the USA is kind of like Afghanistan. Tribal areas that the government doesn't control. Spending money without fixing the security issue will result in nothing happening. This is why poor = bad. Violence = bad.

How do you fix the security issues then? So good teachers will feel safe, so people will feel safe volunteering, so businesses will open and not worry about being destroyed, so people will buy homes and fix them up. How do you do this?

Answer that and we will have a solution. Without the security nothing will happen. I avoid poor areas not because I hate poor people, but because I do not want to get robbed. Security is the key.

Now I have a solution, but I will let you think about it.

 

You start by legalizing drugs. All of them. A libertarian like yourself should be all for this. No drugs, no gangs, no Mexican violence spilling in to the wonderful state of California and that shit stain Arizona. Instead of just prison sentences, we focus on rehabilitation (the revenge culture that we have now in our prison system is clearly not working, see: 1% of Americans incarcerated). The money we save on drug enforcement and prison time can be used to reward the good teachers handsomely for taking on the added risk of teaching in the now less shitty neighborhood.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
You start by legalizing drugs. All of them. A libertarian like yourself should be all for this. No drugs, no gangs, no Mexican violence spilling in to the wonderful state of California and that shit stain Arizona. Instead of just prison sentences, we focus on rehabilitation (the revenge culture that we have now in our prison system is clearly not working, see: 1% of Americans incarcerated). The money we save on drug enforcement and prison time can be used to reward the good teachers handsomely for taking on the added risk of teaching in the now less shitty neighborhood.

1) I support legalizing drugs, but I simply don't care. They are legal for you and I.

2) This still doesn't make bad neighborhoods safer.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
IP you're confusing me for a hippy. See my previous post:

Food shortages? Our imminent demise is always greatly exagerrated. Remember the Simon-Ehrlich bet? (Simon won). Related article (not to Simon-Ehrlich but food shortages in general) https://pop.org/content/myth-of-world-food-shortages-1539

I don't believe in that bullshit.

The second-round bet isn't going very well for Simon, though. The MENA revolutions are really bread riots and wheat prices may breach the double-digits per bushel this summer. Great news for farmers; terrible news for the poor.

The poor can't manage their population on their own. I'm not saying that we should coerce them into having fewer kids, but I don't think there's anything unethical about making it very convenient for them to stick to 0, 1, or 2 children. If we offered people $2000 and a keg of bud light to get a (reversable but expensive) vasectomy, I think that would go a long way towards preventing people who shouldn't have kids from having them.

 

1) You're lack of caring is typical for an out of touch Republican. You should strive for the best in our society just as you strive for the best for yourself, these are not two mutually exclusive ideas. If legalizing drugs would improve the situation (ever seen "The Wire", fictional but still) you should care. Why not? It's not going to hurt you but it could potentially help many others.

2) You're confusing safe with safer. It wouldn't make them safe, but making prisons geared towards rehabing the inmate and not hardening the criminal most certainly would make them safer. As would legalizing drugs.

 

1) People who get arrested typically are low income and would vote Democrat. Many states disenfranchise felons. I really don't care about this enough to vote for it. If they get legalized awesome, but I don't care. As I have already stated, legal for me (I don't do drugs so I could careless also).

2) Safe is what we need. Simply because I pay taxes and demand safety (I also want castle doctrine laws and a lower threshold for justified homicide). We should make it easier for citizens to defend themselves.

I support what IP is proposing. I would enact a child tax also. Reduce the propensity for those who cannot educate and afford children from having them.

 

Oh well it was fun. We have two different ideologies. Typically Republicans will argue that their policies are better for everyone (an argument could be made effectively and I've heard them all, no unemployment help and more people will look for work, no welfare will force people to do stuff on their own, etc). Your tactic is entirely different and not something that I can really argue against. You want your team to win so making more felons is a good thing. I'm not even that big of bleeding heart but holy fuck you certainly bring it out of people don't you. I hope your team loses. I really do, I hope they get completely fucked in November and I hope that they make the highest marginal rate 97% and your forced to move to Canada because they're more conservative.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Oh well it was fun. We have two different ideologies. Typically Republicans will argue that their policies are better for everyone (an argument could be made effectively and I've heard them all, no unemployment help and more people will look for work, no welfare will force people to do stuff on their own, etc). Your tactic is entirely different and not something that I can really argue against. You want your team to win so making more felons is a good thing. I'm not even that big of bleeding heart but holy fuck you certainly bring it out of people don't you. I hope your team loses. I really do, I hope they get completely fucked in November and I hope that they make the highest marginal rate 97% and your forced to move to Canada because they're more conservative.

Please tell me a time where the poor actually won? Communist Russia was ruled by elites, maybe a different type, but the poor still got fucked. Entitlement programs are paid for by you and I, not by the poor or anyone else.

We all seek to benefit ourselves, just one side tends to have money to influence things or minimize exposure.

If you care so much stop trying to convince me and donate your own funds. Trying to sell me on forced donations (taxation) is a losing battle.

 
killfrankgoreshead:
Oh well it was fun. We have two different ideologies. Typically Republicans will argue that their policies are better for everyone (an argument could be made effectively and I've heard them all, no unemployment help and more people will look for work, no welfare will force people to do stuff on their own, etc). Your tactic is entirely different and not something that I can really argue against. You want your team to win so making more felons is a good thing. I'm not even that big of bleeding heart but holy fuck you certainly bring it out of people don't you. I hope your team loses. I really do, I hope they get completely fucked in November and I hope that they make the highest marginal rate 97% and your forced to move to Canada because they're more conservative.
You might not be that big of a bleeding heart, but you are a fucking idiot.
 

Denmark has the happiest people in the world with relatively little income inequality. They have high taxes but a very good functioning government (I'm Danish, can you tell). High GDP per capita. High level of education for most people (university is free and they pay you a stipend to study outside of the country). Some debt, but nothing compared to the US. AND!!! They didn't argue for 2 months about whether to pay their bills. I know that's weird to think. They actually just pay their bills and have a balanced budget... So weird.

 

Dude, if you honestly think Denmark can be applied to the USA, I will concede this argument to you.

I've said in past posts that socialism works on small scales because of cultural similarities and a bond among people. Small towns help each other, fire houses raise money, etc. Europe benefits from a tight culture and a lot of ethnic similarities. Countries are also smaller and people feel closer knit. The USA is vastly different.

Also, take a look at what is happening in Europe now. Negative birth rates and the need for immigration, the kind being Islamic and religious as compared to the relatively agnostic white Europe. And what is happening? Europeans don't want to pay for these immigrants and they are rejecting them. Socialism breaks down when the connections and bonds among people are gone.

And comparing Denmark to the USA is unfair. Compare all of Europe, fine, but you cannot cherry pick specific states.

 

What about all of Scandinavia (yeah, I wrote that, all of 20 people!!). You told me to pick a place that doesn't fuck the poor. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway (despite how dumb the Swedes and Norwegians are, they still do alright, I'll begrudgingly admit to this). Negative birth rate? Sounds good to IP! No, I know that's an issue as the population grows older, but that's the thing about rich well educated countries they know enough not get knocked up (am I right IP?). You have a point with the cultural similarities and that it's done on a much smaller scale. But I don't think that precludes us from trying to at least help out the poor.

 

Holy shit, I have not done any work. I will read your well thought out and educated response but I will not respond. Just know that I will never attribute your intelligence and your ability to formulate ideas and opinions to anything other than dumb luck. You got lucky that you were raised right. I don't hate you for this but just be thankful. Don't make Thanksgiving the only time of year that you thank your lucky stars that you did not grow up in Compton.

 

And we don't help the poor?

Welfare Food Stamps Medicare/Caid Heating Subsidies Free K-12 School lunch and breakfast programs No Federal taxes for 50% of the country State Universities and college aid for the poor Section 8

This is a small section. Yes, we are not like Europe, but lets not make it seem like the USA has nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/21/sweden-democrats-el…

Xenophobic block holding power

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0914/Denmark-s-election-a-li…

Danish anti islamic and far right

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2075/finland-muslim-immigration

Finnish Islamic immigration issues

So yes, Northern European nations are doing just fine, but for how long? Europe is just getting a taste of what the US has to deal with. When you have entitlement programs you must regulate immigration. Imagine being a Swede, paying high taxes but doing so without issue because you are helping your fellow Swede, someone who shares your culture, your beliefs, the social equality. Now all of a sudden you are working day and night and paying taxes not to help your countryman, but to help someone who doesn't share your values, etc.

This is how socialism breaks down.

So yes, if we are going to have a conversation on Europe lets do so with full disclosure.

 

Honestly, America is culturally fucked in the lower quartile of households, which makes it hard to find comparable countries. I wasn't raised from wealth, but we weren't dirt poor either. Both my parents were immigrants. They both worked hard to provide a better life for me in addition to America's safety nets. I had free lunch, food stamps, free medical care, and subsidies for college that allow me to attend a private university and I'm grateful for that. I do want to see a better future. But at the same time, I feel like the people who need help the most often put themselves in a bad spot. It's a vicious cycle of poor family upbringing. Those who take it for granted hurt the people who really do need the help.

 

I agree. They are culturally fucked and there is nothing that can be done to save the entire impoverished future generation from the terrible position they are about to put themselves in. Despite this frustrating cultural cycle, we still need to try to give them the best opportunity to succeed so that in the end we can in good conscience say "we tried our best to give them a level playing field so that they could make it out of the gutter but they failed." Your success is a testament to why giving them the best possible starting point is important.

 

Vitae fugiat omnis sint quisquam dolores voluptatem debitis illo. Nam aut tempora officiis tempora nihil. Nulla et voluptatum doloribus repudiandae harum quia ut.

 

Odit consequuntur optio molestiae quidem incidunt. Dolores autem nemo itaque qui qui repudiandae. Ut accusamus minus magnam aut. Enim labore voluptates eos nisi aut. Dolor eos sit quod facere.

Maiores accusantium non distinctio itaque odit praesentium similique. Est atque beatae cum eius ab et quos consequatur. Qui aut dicta officia iusto autem culpa delectus odio.

Aliquid autem temporibus atque asperiores natus eaque dignissimos est. Vero quia possimus quisquam recusandae. In provident fuga incidunt voluptatem itaque. Aut blanditiis consequatur consequuntur reiciendis dolores facilis est odio.

 

Accusamus ipsa doloremque est temporibus laboriosam ut earum omnis. Illum non quidem at provident consequatur nesciunt. Omnis aspernatur consequatur voluptatem veritatis eaque eum qui. Aut deleniti velit ad sed omnis aperiam.

Consequatur minima aperiam officia dolores consequuntur voluptate. Error saepe illum omnis ad omnis molestiae. Architecto animi amet dolor omnis.

Dignissimos aut et quo fuga consequatur. Vel quis atque laudantium aut eaque voluptas. Molestias aut debitis delectus aut. Autem quasi sunt nihil laboriosam eligendi.

 

Quaerat blanditiis et eum ut consequatur. Error ab totam quidem expedita reiciendis facere tenetur. Voluptatum veritatis aut ea nisi. Omnis eum et molestiae culpa aspernatur fuga excepturi. Temporibus est aut et consequatur minima recusandae accusantium.

Omnis explicabo quod ab facere delectus accusantium quia eveniet. Voluptas esse iste quo quo quia officiis vel. Commodi laborum nisi iste similique eligendi expedita est. Qui accusantium nulla distinctio et et ut.

Culpa omnis qui corporis non debitis. Modi dolorum est veritatis perferendis nemo inventore ad. Qui architecto eaque perspiciatis et itaque sunt aspernatur incidunt.

Dicta laboriosam fuga eum beatae expedita ipsam. Quis vitae minus fuga ad possimus aut.

 

Incidunt recusandae consequatur qui illum. Maiores necessitatibus qui sit nihil enim maiores eius. Sit nulla eum deleniti. Quibusdam ut dolorem dolor temporibus.

Unde dignissimos expedita ipsum aut. Commodi facilis quibusdam veritatis et sint assumenda incidunt. Facilis enim et excepturi placeat consequatur ea blanditiis aut. Quidem soluta ad modi architecto. Nemo voluptatibus et totam et nihil tempore.

Aut sed quia et sunt sint officia. Nihil itaque aut animi praesentium.

Aut voluptatem ut ut enim hic. Dolorem dolorem et est quibusdam sint esse dicta unde. Delectus autem aut aut debitis et. Voluptate rerum consequatur odio magni quasi autem ut. Sed nam eum cumque sapiente minus. Illum quod enim qui sint. Laborum corporis nulla molestiae rerum cumque consectetur.

 

Dicta doloremque possimus et molestiae autem reprehenderit. Sint excepturi placeat qui facilis dolorum animi magni dolorem. Consectetur rerum ut sequi esse asperiores ut.

Placeat architecto sunt aut quidem voluptas. Voluptate dolore sed soluta tempore. Est nulla cum facilis iste dolores itaque. Quae minima natus sint reiciendis quisquam. Est eveniet est consequatur id deleniti consequuntur. Et hic rerum est sunt exercitationem tempore veritatis consequatur.

Dolorem et magnam iure illo. Et tempore autem praesentium autem quis vero eligendi eaque. Voluptatibus sapiente sint molestiae itaque esse.

 

Tempore ullam est unde ex et. Et praesentium commodi assumenda accusamus ut occaecati dolore. Est corporis iure natus adipisci. Nulla est quis deleniti non corrupti sunt sapiente odit. Nisi fugit tempora placeat architecto ad.

Consequatur autem omnis in ex. Quia accusamus qui sunt impedit eaque qui. Quia blanditiis vero rerum vitae eos eligendi quia. Repellendus blanditiis corporis quo aperiam dolor vitae. Sed corrupti et ut cum natus rerum facilis ducimus.

Id magnam dignissimos rerum sunt ut molestias quo. Aut enim suscipit quia autem aspernatur eos ullam.

Et voluptatem debitis accusantium consequatur alias saepe. Alias placeat tenetur eveniet officia omnis. Nostrum beatae dolorem quo doloremque non vel.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”