Jeff McCann wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:55:12 -0800, SoCalMike
wrote:
Sgt.Sausage wrote:
Anything else is simply theft -- rob from the rich
to feed the poor.
the rich get rich on the backs of the poor.
Well, the poor can always do what the rich did.
Start their own business, risk everything they own, and hope they
don't go belly up.
Or, they can sit around and whine and ask Uncle Sugar to save
them.
The vast majority of wealth in America in private hands is inherited
wealth. The above is typical of the Social-Darwinist myth put out by
the rich to the effect that that the rich are rich because they
deserve to be rich, because they earned their money by working for
it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For every self-made
multi-millionaire, there are probably hundreds of worthless, Paris
Hilton-like, trust fund brats out there. They don't even usually have
brains enough to manage their own investment portfolios and require
professional management to do it for them. Thus, their wealth may
grow while in their hands, but it is a rare occasion when the owner of
that wealth had anything to do with it.
Jeff
Jeff
Heh..simple response to the conservatives who tout that rich people are
that way because they are better/work harder....Ted Kennedy. That
usually ****es em off.
Reality of our economy is that the more cash you have, the greater the
rate of returns on that cash. As far as schemes go, it insures that the
hill climb is really steep when you start at the bottom and almost a
downhill run once you have enough in the bank to play in the big
leagues. Rich get richer at a far faster rate (and less hassle if you
take into account the tax structure) than those climbing the hill. It's
probably very similar to an exponential curve.
Sure it's every man's right to aspire to wealth and to have that wealth
if you win the prize, but the thing that needs to be flattened a bit is
the ease of returns on that wealth. The exponential curve should be
closer to a line. The rate at which Ted Kennedy's wealth insreases due
to the fact that he already has a pile of money (no work or real effort)
is so askew that redistribution to the rest of the society (which he so
highly benefits from) via social security taxes on ALL income would have
a near zero affect on his lifestyle. Too bad if he can't collect back
the riches he put in over the years under this scheme. He collects back
the riches by the sheer fact that the economy is skewed toward those
with existing wealth increasing their wealth at a much higher rate than
work/effort increasing wealth.
Koz