Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2012, 11:34 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
Whats possible and what is probable are two different things.

Why do you break up all those sentences like that? You can't comprehend more than one sentence at a time?
I would make a reply, but then I would have to write out a list like you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:37 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:34 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  Whats possible and what is probable are two different things.

Why do you break up all those sentences like that? You can't comprehend more than one sentence at a time?
Wow, that wasn't totally uncalled for or anything.

Maybe it's because he wants to respond to the points individually instead of in one go, ever think of that?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 10:22 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  A descent roommate? Just how pathetic have we become as a country? We now have to live in groups inside small apartments just to manage to scrap by?!? All it would take is the roommate to leave 1 month, and you would be struggling to pay the next months rent alone. That is pretty pathetic. Is this how low we have sunk as a nation? Why is it so hard to see the real problem is the disparity of wealth? Does someone really need a dozen homes and a garage full of cars, while you peddle to work, eat ramen noodles, and share one cramp apartment.

This country has been brainwashed with the idea that greed if great, no matter how extreme. The country is divided into the 'haves', and the 'have not''. Yet they would have you believe that you are not a 'have not', but a soon to have. The premise is absolutely laughable, yet every election year they turn out in droves to vote republican. It's as if they feel they are signing up for the lottery when they vote.

(29-03-2012 08:05 AM)germanyt Wrote:  So what? You find yourself in a pickle you dig yourself back out. In the last 2 years I've gone from a 70K/year to like 30K/year. My credit score has gone from 740 to 470. I've had to let my buddy take over the payments on my 2010 F-150 because I couldn't afford them anymore. I now drive a fucking Sentra. A damn Sentra. Thanks 0 for 60. I payed my rent and car payment late for nearly a year. But working 2 jobs I managed to catch up and soon my wife will be working and I won't be making tuition payments anymore. When she's working I'm going back to school so that I can be comfortable one day. Have nice things and retire at an early age are a couple goals of mine. I'm also workin on my game so maybe I'll get invited to Q school. PGA here I come. It's like you feel you should have been plopped into a 6 figure job straight outta high school. The world doesn't work that way and I can tell you that spending your entire life being mad at what other people have will only leave you with nothing. You'll never have anything of your own because you don't understand the value.


Socialism breeds apathy and entitlement. Ever see the movie V for Vendetta? That is not at all out of the realm of possibility when you start letting the government control everything in your life.
You are the people we are trying to help. Stop buying into the lies, you will never likely never be rich, no matter how the country develops. However, you might just be able to make a livable wage with one job, have a decent paid vacation each year, and get some descent health coverage. However, first you have to stop buying into the lies and voting for these douchebag republicans who only care about tax breaks for themselves and their friends, no matter what the harm to the country and its citizens may be.
You sound like you think everyone should be rich or deserves to be rich. Not every person will end up rich. Whatever your definition may be. I can jump back into selling cars once my wife graduates. There is a potential 6 figure income there. I've not done better than 70K but I'm still new in the biz. A few years go by and I could get sent to F&I school. Finance guys are making 150K or more in many cases and they don't even have to scour the lot for customers. Stick with it long enough and if I'm lucky I might be a GM one day. God forbid someone work their way up the corporate ladder to a quarter million dollar salary. But even if I don't make it that far by working hard and sticking with it I might end up with 100K a year driving a very nice BMW and retiring in a very expensive riverfront home with one of these out back.

[Image: 42%20cigarette.jpg]
Yes, that is a 200,000 dollar boat. I grew up on the Tickfaw and know dozens of people who started from nothing and now have boat houses and camps with these sitting out back. It can be done. You just don't want to work for it.

Too busy whining about being a 'have not'.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 11:43 AM by Antirepublican.)
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:37 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 11:34 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  Whats possible and what is probable are two different things.

Why do you break up all those sentences like that? You can't comprehend more than one sentence at a time?
Wow, that wasn't totally uncalled for or anything.

Maybe it's because he wants to respond to the points individually instead of in one go, ever think of that?
He even misquoted. I don't see the point in that style, sorry.
Whats wrong with making a lucid paragraph that addresses the issue, rather than a dozen snide remarks to a dozen sentences?


(29-03-2012 11:39 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 10:22 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  A descent roommate? Just how pathetic have we become as a country? We now have to live in groups inside small apartments just to manage to scrap by?!? All it would take is the roommate to leave 1 month, and you would be struggling to pay the next months rent alone. That is pretty pathetic. Is this how low we have sunk as a nation? Why is it so hard to see the real problem is the disparity of wealth? Does someone really need a dozen homes and a garage full of cars, while you peddle to work, eat ramen noodles, and share one cramp apartment.

This country has been brainwashed with the idea that greed if great, no matter how extreme. The country is divided into the 'haves', and the 'have not''. Yet they would have you believe that you are not a 'have not', but a soon to have. The premise is absolutely laughable, yet every election year they turn out in droves to vote republican. It's as if they feel they are signing up for the lottery when they vote.

You are the people we are trying to help. Stop buying into the lies, you will never likely never be rich, no matter how the country develops. However, you might just be able to make a livable wage with one job, have a decent paid vacation each year, and get some descent health coverage. However, first you have to stop buying into the lies and voting for these douchebag republicans who only care about tax breaks for themselves and their friends, no matter what the harm to the country and its citizens may be.
You sound like you think everyone should be rich or deserves to be rich. Not every person will end up rich. Whatever your definition may be. I can jump back into selling cars once my wife graduates. There is a potential 6 figure income there. I've not done better than 70K but I'm still new in the biz. A few years go by and I could get sent to F&I school. Finance guys are making 150K or more in many cases and they don't even have to scour the lot for customers. Stick with it long enough and if I'm lucky I might be a GM one day. God forbid someone work their way up the corporate ladder to a quarter million dollar salary. But even if I don't make it that far by working hard and sticking with it I might end up with 100K a year driving a very nice BMW and retiring in a very expensive riverfront home with one of these out back.

[Image: 42%20cigarette.jpg]
Yes, that is a 200,000 dollar boat. I grew up on the Tickfaw and know dozens of people who started from nothing and now have boat houses and camps with these sitting out back. It can be done. You just don't want to work for it.
What? I clearly said you likely won't be rich, and most people won't be rich. People are brainwashed into thinking they will become rich, but only if they vote for republicans.
I was extremely clear on this issue. How could you possibly misconstrue it to that degree? The American dream shouldn't be about getting rich, most people don't really want that, they just want to live a descent life, get a vacation each year, have health care, send their kids to college, and have money to retire on.

Most people, including me, don't want that ridiculous boat. They could care less. The people who buy it do so because they have money to waste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:43 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:39 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 11:37 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  Wow, that wasn't totally uncalled for or anything.

Maybe it's because he wants to respond to the points individually instead of in one go, ever think of that?
He even misquoted. I don't see the point in that style, sorry.
Whats wrong with making a lucid paragraph that addresses the issue, rather than a dozen snide remarks to a dozen sentences?


(29-03-2012 11:39 AM)germanyt Wrote:  You sound like you think everyone should be rich or deserves to be rich. Not every person will end up rich. Whatever your definition may be. I can jump back into selling cars once my wife graduates. There is a potential 6 figure income there. I've not done better than 70K but I'm still new in the biz. A few years go by and I could get sent to F&I school. Finance guys are making 150K or more in many cases and they don't even have to scour the lot for customers. Stick with it long enough and if I'm lucky I might be a GM one day. God forbid someone work their way up the corporate ladder to a quarter million dollar salary. But even if I don't make it that far by working hard and sticking with it I might end up with 100K a year driving a very nice BMW and retiring in a very expensive riverfront home with one of these out back.

[Image: 42%20cigarette.jpg]
Yes, that is a 200,000 dollar boat. I grew up on the Tickfaw and know dozens of people who started from nothing and now have boat houses and camps with these sitting out back. It can be done. You just don't want to work for it.
What? I clearly said you likely won't be rich, and most people won't be rich. People are brainwashed into thinking they will become rich, but only if they vote for republicans.
I was extremely clear on this issue. How could you possibly misconstrue it to that degree? The American dream shouldn't be about getting rich, most people don't really want that, they just want to live a descent life, get a vacation each year, have health care, send their kids to college, and have money to retire on.
So because not everyone will become rich we should redistribute wealth?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:53 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:43 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 11:39 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  He even misquoted. I don't see the point in that style, sorry.
Whats wrong with making a lucid paragraph that addresses the issue, rather than a dozen snide remarks to a dozen sentences?


What? I clearly said you likely won't be rich, and most people won't be rich. People are brainwashed into thinking they will become rich, but only if they vote for republicans.
I was extremely clear on this issue. How could you possibly misconstrue it to that degree? The American dream shouldn't be about getting rich, most people don't really want that, they just want to live a descent life, get a vacation each year, have health care, send their kids to college, and have money to retire on.
So because not everyone will become rich we should redistribute wealth?
You can't even comprehend what I am saying can you? Assuming you even completely read anything anyone writes, you just read into it whatever you BS propaganda you think at the time. Your mind is so warped that you no longer see a differing position, and just reply with whatever meaningless rebuttal statement you heard that week on Fox News. I guess this is no shock giving your view on global warming and Ron Paul.

I kind of feel bad for you to tell you the truth. Then again, gullible brain-dead delinquents like you are what is fucking up this country, so actually I don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 11:57 AM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:53 AM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(29-03-2012 11:43 AM)germanyt Wrote:  So because not everyone will become rich we should redistribute wealth?
You can't even comprehend what I am saying can you? Assuming you even completely read anything anyone writes, you just read into it whatever you BS propaganda you think at the time. Your mind is so warped that you no longer see a differing position, and just reply with whatever meaningless rebuttal statement you heard that week on Fox News. I guess this is no shock giving your view on global warming and Ron Paul.

I kind of feel bad for you to tell you the truth.
sigh... Are you or are you not in favor of taxing the wealthy to the point that income disparity is reduced and things are easier on the poor? Isn't that what this thread is all about? You bitching about what other people have and what you don't have? Pushing you socialist agenda so one day you can work at McDonalds and get paid $20/hour while also having a big screen TV, health care, and your own lavish apartment? That's pretty much what I'm addressing and if you claim that isn't what you want then you are a liar. You want it easy because you think it's too hard to make it on your own. You want mommy government to hand you things you didn't earn because you think you are entitled to them.

You and mystic should get fast food jobs and be roomies. If your lucky you'll qualify for section 8, food stamps, and medicaid.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 12:49 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
Having a conversation with you is like talking to my TV while Faux News is on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 12:58 PM
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 12:49 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  Having a conversation with you is like talking to my TV while Faux News is on.
And listening to you is like being at an OWS protest. Why don't you call me from your iPhone and tell me how much you hate corporations.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2012, 01:21 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2012 01:37 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: Limited capitalism: a "you're too rich" cap on income
(29-03-2012 11:15 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  According to the active-duty pay scale on the Army website, Privates with no prior experience receive around $1,400 per month. And that's just basic salary; the Army also provides you with allowances to pay for food, housing, clothing, and the like. So I'm really not sure what it is that you're talking about when you say that you got paid less overall working for the Army than you did when working in the dairy department. Were you including the allowances, or not? I'm not saying you were lying, just trying to get an idea of what it is that you're talking about here because it doesn't fit what I know about the armed forces.

The army does this thing called "lying" to people. That's how they get you to sign up. I was Specialist rank for about 2 years and made 620 dollars every 2 weeks. That's it. The allowances to pay for food are given to you in the form of a "chow hall" card, a cafeteria-like place on base that most people don't eat at because you have to be in uniform and have no beard stubble and all that jazz (and only open for 4 hours a day). The housing allowances simply don't exist. 75% of soldiers live in on-base Barracks, which is like the college dorm from hell (lots of drunk soldiers running up and down the hallways pounding on your door, random "cleanliness checks" by the soldier posted at the door for the night). If you want to move off base and get a house, you either have to have significant rank or have a wife and family. Single soldiers do NOT receive any additional housing funds. And the clothing allowance is about 120 bucks every 6 months, when realistically you spend 200 dollars a month on uniforms, pins, patches, dry cleaning, etc. 620 every 2 weeks, nothing more. About 15k a year.

So yes I was technically given housing payments in the form of free housing, but no self-respecting adult wants to live in the hellish conditions of a barracks (our base in Germany was a captured WW2 prisoner camp that still had faded swastika symbols on the sides of buildings, so you can imagine how accommodating the sleeping quarters were).

You hear people defend athletes by claiming they "dedicate their lives" to training and honing their craft. But what exactly do you think the military is? It's a 24/7 job where you live where you work. Soldiers overseas sleep, eat, and breathe their jobs until it isn't a job, it's their lives. Athletes aren't sleeping out on the field or in the locker room, going months without seeing their families. The problem is that war isn't a spectator sport yet. Once we get better coverage, get a few commentators, and put it on pay-per-view, maybe soldiers will get the pay they deserve. And this isn't a flag waving patriotic speech thing, I'm saying being soldier is much more demanding and in most cases, more skilled than playing a game professionally.


Quote:As for auto-tuned one-hit-wonders, I assume you're talking about Rebecca Black. She is, thankfully, one in a million; none of the other people who submitted songs to the company that produced that song for her got anywhere near as popular, and she only got as famous as she did because she was so bad.

Other musicians don't use auto-tune. They write their music, they practice their playing, and they work hard. You may not like what they're doing. You might think they're bad. But they put effort into maintaining their image and writing music that they think will sell. And even then, most musicians make far, far less than the huge-name rock stars, since they have to split the profits with record labels and the like. They work just as hard for anyone else. It's just not the same kind of work.

I'm talking about the mass musicians to come out of the Disney generation. The Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpsons, and Keshas who literally have people who write their music for them and sound so terrible in real life that they either don't do live performances or lipsync the songs. (Youtube "Kesha without autotune") These people have zero talent, have all the work done for them, and just reap the benefits.


Quote:
(28-03-2012 08:56 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  2nd string players who ride the bench for a profession make more than the president of the United States.

As has been explained before, the President's salary is set by Congress, not by supply and demand, so that's not really a fair comparison. As for second-stringers, they're still highly-skilled athletes who put a lot of work into their chosen profession in order to get where they are. Even if they never play, they're still well above the vast, vast majority of people who play sports in terms of skill. There's a very, very high demand for skilled sportsmen and a very, very low supply of the same. And they still have to keep in shape, keep their skills up to date, et cetera, even if they never actually get to set foot on the field. They're not getting paid for nothing.

My problem is that supply and demand only rewards talent. The jobs that greatly benefit society receive laughable wages, while the biggest and shiniest of the trained monkeys are rewarded with a fortune. Pitching a baseball 110 mph and hitting 100 home runs a season are hard to do and have a high demand, but at the end of the day, nothing you have done as a baseball player has helped the economy or benefited society. Don't try and argue that athletes and actors inspire us and give us hope, because if you need Tom Cruise or Kobe Bryant to motivate you to achieve greatness, then our definition of greatness is terribly skewed.

As for the rest of the posts in the thread, I'm not (I don't know about AntiR) advocating wealth or luxury for the poor. I'm advocating a small step up to keep up with the inflating world. I don't want 20 dollars an hour to work at McDonalds, but would 10-11 dollars be so bad?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: