If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because I was not wealthy...come to think of it, I actually lost the little bit of wealth I had to those rich guys. So they basically saved me. Thank you, oppressed billionaires   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 105
    More: Interesting, First they came..., President Obama, Sam Zell, wealths, Tom Perkins  
•       •       •

3846 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 6:51 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-07 06:17:41 PM
9 votes:
the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.
2014-02-07 07:22:00 PM
8 votes:
A few thoughts:

It may be true that 'Anybody' could succeed at that level.  It is not at all true that 'everybody' can succeed at that level.  To quote a cracked article, you can put 12 alchoholic hobos in a room with a bottle of whiskey, and give each of them a knife.  Any one of them could have that bottle, but in the end, only one will have it.

Being successful at the level of someone who earns their way into the 1% (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc) does require an extraordinary amount of hard work, vision, and drive.  However, it also requires a non trivial amount of luck.  It is also very possible to do all the hard work, have a relentless drive to succeed, and a great vision for what you want to accomplish, and still fail spectacularly.

It is ok to be rich and have great wealth, but at our current state of civilization, there is a limited amount of wealth / resources to go around.  The only reason that the 1%stay wealthy is because the 99% are not sufficiently desperate yet to kill the 1% and take their shiat.  If 99 people are hungry and 1 guy has all the food, the 99 people with no food are not going to quietly starve and let that 1 guy keep all the damn food.

END COMMUNICATION
2014-02-07 07:38:05 PM
6 votes:
Got another one:

How the 1% sees themselves:

fourthdayuniverse.com

How everyone else sees them:

static3.wikia.nocookie.net
2014-02-07 07:19:29 PM
6 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.


That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.
2014-02-07 06:46:15 PM
6 votes:
These people have forgotten what wealth is for.  It's only useful for you to use to enjoy more of the world on your own terms.

If you have to be shuttled from rich person haven to rich person haven in a bulletproof unmarked van with round the clock guards, congratulations.  You've worked really hard your entire life to get into a prison with slightly better food.
2014-02-08 07:29:02 PM
5 votes:

Sammichless: We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.

Supply and demand is what sets workers wages, and we have innovated so much, and made worker productivity so high, that workers are no longer worth hardly anything. With our technology, one worker can produce far more than they were able to years ago. We have way more workers than we need, and hence, low wages.

This is not necessarily greed. This is a feature of Capitalism..... paying workers more than you have to simply means that your competition will put you out of business. With or without greed, we still wind up with the same result.

If our factories are automated, our warehouses are automated, our shipping is automated, our office work is done by computers automatically, and stores are self-checkout..... We will be able to keep up "supply" of all the goods that people want, but, unemployment will be so high that most of us will be starving.

The question really is how can we transition our economy to something that works, even with our gains in productivity? Is there a solution that doesn't transition us to heavy-handed government Marxism?


minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..
2014-02-07 08:48:11 PM
5 votes:

meyerkev: And if you raise that, that means that they don't invest in my company (or any companies), which means that I don't have a job


Oh boy, people are still peddling trickle-down bullshiat. Investors don't create jobs. People with extra cash to spend on goods and services create jobs.
2014-02-07 08:17:30 PM
5 votes:
if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.
2014-02-07 07:56:42 PM
5 votes:
The 1% do not work harder. In my almost 25 years in business the percentage of CEOs who actually work to begin with is maybe 30%, and those that actually work hard around 10%. I've seen more CEOs that have hurt their company with their idiocy than helped it. I'm in a C level position now, and I do not work nearly as hard as I did early in my career. Do I stress more because I have huge responsibilities? Yes, absolutely. Do I work harder? Hardly. The hardest I've ever worked was when I was a mid level employee who had to pick up the slack for my utterly incompetent manager.
2014-02-07 06:54:59 PM
5 votes:
wow, i've never before encountered a group of people who so desperately need to kill themselves
2014-02-07 06:53:36 PM
5 votes:
www.zerohedge.com
\
2014-02-07 06:22:02 PM
5 votes:
In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.
2014-02-07 09:21:50 PM
4 votes:

DamnYankees: TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.

It depends where you live. The math is pretty simple to do. I make 210K, and 50% of that goes to taxes, so that gets me $8,750 per month for spending. I've lived in NY and SF, so a big chunk of it goes to rent (about 3K per month). Then there's student loans, which take another 1K. That leaves me with $4,750 per month for food, clothing, toys and charity, basically.

I'm extremely lucky - I've chosen to live in big cities where its expensive but I enjoy it, my wife and I can pretty much buy whatever we want on a micro-scale (iPads, a new computer every 18 months or so), and I can build up some savings.

I think anyone who complains about making even a decent amount of money is out of their farking minds. And I work with a lot of them - people who think we are farked by the government, that we don't make enough money. I have colleagues who are pissed as hell that they *only* have 5K of spending money every month. Why? They compare themselves to their clients, who make more. They don't think about people like you. It honestly makes me a little sick when I hear them talk like that. People who make even a decent living in this country have no farking idea how good they have it.


I clock in at 60/hr for my job. I get paid really well for the work I do. Company I work for is awesome and I love my work. My wife and I live modestly. We definitely don't hurt for anything. If we want something and it's ~$100, we can do that in a month without really thinking about it. At the same time, both cars are paid off, home loan isn't too bad, and student loans aren't too outrageous, but I've got to cover my own health insurance. If we had to afford two car payments, etc., we'd be hurting a bit.

That being said, I don't biatch about "the damn govt is taking my money!" because I know I have it good. I don't have to worry about where my next meal comes from. We can afford small niceties. I have very little sympathy for people that make more than I do and complain about the government taking all their money. Our household, on a single income, is in the top 10%. I look around, and I don't feel like I'm in the top 10%. It feels like I'm decidedly middle-class, but I know I'm actually in a place of privilege compared to the bottom 90%. I honestly have no idea how anyone with a household income of $50K can keep food on the table, a roof over their heads, and a couple of used cars in the driveway. God forbid if they have kids and have to take care of daycare, clothing, diapers, etc. Pay for a kids college, completely out of the question for them. Those people are all seriously farked and will NEVER be able to retire because they have next to nothing that they can actually put away. We've got a serious crisis coming in 20-30 years.
2014-02-07 07:28:50 PM
4 votes:

WraithSama: That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.


I do actuall think there's a corrolation between salary and hard work to some extent. For example, doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. all work extremely long hours, and even when they aren't working they are always on call. There's no such thing as clocking out - your life is about being available 100% of the time. That is actually very hard work.

The problem is in thinking that that form of hard work somehow justifies all inequality. I'm a corporate lawyer, and I work pretty hard. Does that hard work justify my current salary? Maybe, maybe not. How about if we doubled the salary? Tripled it? Still worth it?

That's the issue. There's no appreciation that hard work does not mean "complete right to infinite wealth". So deploying hard work as some sort of panacaea is complete bullshiat.
2014-02-07 06:58:15 PM
4 votes:
Don't you just love how these assholes have been feasting off of the corpse of the former middle class for years, but yet constantly find the time to piss and moan about "oh woe is me, the plebs just don't understand why I had to suck away all their money and create a hereditary aristocractic dynasty for my heirs".

fark you and the solid gold palanquin you have your oiled up slaves carry you in on.
2014-02-07 06:54:44 PM
4 votes:
static6.businessinsider.com
2014-02-07 08:16:55 PM
3 votes:
What amazed me about capitalists is that almost all of them seem to have absolutely no understand of how capitalism works.

The whole basis of capitalism is the reason people get a return on capital is that there's risk - if you own stock, you get a return since your investment may tank. If you buy debt, same deal. The people who are in the top 1% are there because they made good bets with their capital investments. That's how people make billions of dollars.

You want a system where people are rewarded for hard work? OK - you're a Marxist. Seriously, that's Marxist. "To each according to his labor" is a Marxist maxim, the transitionary phase from capitalism to communism.

I mean, this is basic shiat.
2014-02-07 07:42:40 PM
3 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-07 07:42:16 PM
3 votes:
"They are frightened to death - frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them," Marcus said.  "In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration."

What a bunch of pussies
2014-02-07 07:09:53 PM
3 votes:
Some days Jon Stewart has the easiest job in the world.
2014-02-07 07:08:31 PM
3 votes:
First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because I was not wealthy...come to think of it, I actually lost the little bit of wealth I had to those rich guys. So they basically saved me. Thank you, oppressed billionaires they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.
2014-02-07 06:55:51 PM
3 votes:
lh4.googleusercontent.com
2014-02-08 07:32:03 PM
2 votes:

Sammichless: We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.


We witnessed the fall of capitalism in the early-to-mid 1900s. What we're witnessing now is the fall of crony capitalism.
2014-02-08 07:30:46 AM
2 votes:
"The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they are holding too much money," he added. "You know, we haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody is afraid of the government and there is no need soft-pedaling it. It is the truth. It is the truth."

They are scoffing it and calling it "socialism", but that doesn't obfuscate the fact that it is true. The whole purpose of the "supply side economic theory" was rather than the government to redistribute the wealth, that taxes would be cut and private industry would redistribute it. Theory being they knew better how to do it and the lower taxes would lead to massive hiring an economic growth.

Well none of that happened. The buck stopped at their bank accounts. While their income rose exponentially, the pay to the masses has remained stagnant. Supply side economics basically sucks all the money out of the economy and sticks it in the hands of a few who hoard it while playing a millionaire pissing contest over who hoards the most. The end effect is a crippled economy that cannot grow or create "wealth" through production because the lack of consumer demand.

Heck it's happening right now. Look at how Christmas profits have been going down year after year. It's because each year the working class can afford less and less. It's not just the "poor" families. Now it is families who are thought of as middle class and fueled the Christmas buying of the past. Now Christmas celebration is being able to afford to buy the food for Christmas dinner and still pay the regular bills like utilities and rent/mortgages.
2014-02-08 02:34:28 AM
2 votes:

meyerkev: Obama just raised the capital gains rate from 15% to ~23.8% (You need to include the extra taxes from Obamacare) which then combines with CA's extra stuff to get you to ~37%.


There's some serious omissions in your statement. The capital gains rate did not go from 15% to 24.8%.

Capital gains taxes are progressive like income tax brackets.

0% if taxable income falls in the 10% or 15% marginal tax brackets
15% if taxable income falls in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% marginal tax brackets
20% if taxable income falls in the 39.6% marginal tax bracket (which starts at $432,201 of adjusted income, i.e. after deductions)

There's an additional 3.8% tax from the ACA on income over 200k (250k for families, adjusted income).

CA's new tax brackets higher are also for people making large incomes, starting at a quarter million dollars.

The ~37% number you mention is for capital gains for individual making making more than half a million dollars a year or for families making more than a million dollars (again, adjusted income).
2014-02-07 11:02:12 PM
2 votes:
We're here to make life easier on ourselves and each other, because we're smart enough to.  We are not, according to history, honest enough to.  Because every time we come up with something that could make life easier, longer and better for everybody, we put up and admission turnstile and take the one thing we demand of each other, our little dime store god, money, home in droves for whatever it is we make better.  And your marvelous new idea sits on a high shelf and does nothing.  And that's the lie of corporate capitalism.

Money works two ways and two ways only.


It either flows freely where value and remuneration reflect skill and effort and it goes to where it's needed most, because that's what its for, or, It doesn't work at all.


Skill and effort, by the way, aren't measured in conniving chops or getting your ass out of bed at 10:00 to have your broker move another 20 bn to Upmyassistan.  It's measured in how much better the world is when you hang up the phone.  Stop pretending that the dump gutted, gold  festooned, drawn butter dribbling fat ass you see in the mirror is immortal and maybe they wont install a urinal and a dance floor on your three acre marble tomb.  Cause you're the problem, thief man.  And you are, at the end of the day, by any worthwhile metric, useless to the world.
2014-02-07 10:58:13 PM
2 votes:

parasol: DamnYankees: DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.

I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.

I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,


You have to move through third to get to home, so I believe the expression you're looking for is 'born on third base and thinks he hit a triple'.

How much stress is there at the top executive positions?  There may be some, but it isn't the same type of stress that someone working at barely above (or below) the subsistence level faces.  Unless they're completely irresponsible with their money no CEO has to worry about making their next mortgage payment, whether or not they can put off replacing their bald tires for another month until money frees up, or being able to put food on the table for their kids every night.

They also don't have to worry about becoming homeless should they lose their job - if they fark up they'll get a golden parachute and move onto the next highly paid executive position before the money ever gets tight.

As far as workplace stress goes, there are plenty of jobs that pay far less that come with much more stress, like teaching, nursing, or even commissioned sales.
2014-02-07 10:56:38 PM
2 votes:

DamnYankees: Heads will roll.


You know what? The guillotine is a bit too old-fashioned and inefficient to deal with today's type of plutocrats.

Time for us to bring out the wood-chippers!!!

Charles Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

David Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

Tom Perkins. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!
2014-02-07 10:09:19 PM
2 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.


This is all well and good, but you've just made our argument for us. They don't make money because they work hard. They make money because they 'add value'.

Those are 2 different things. The problem is, its laughably obvious that its not true that these people are making this money because they are adding value. They can't even make this argument with a straight face; you will never hear a CEO say their job is more valuable than that of brain surgeon. This is for two reasons. One, it's just laughably stupid and wrong. When someone like Dick Fuld keeps his millions depiste destroying the economy, its a ridiculous argument they know isn't true. Seconly, even when it is true (for example, Jeff Bezoz has a good argument), it doesn't actually explain anything. Rich people today make twice as much today as they did 30 years ago, as a share of national income. Have rich people doubled in value in 30 years? Not really.

The reason rich people are getting rich has fark-all to do with any actual effort on the part of those people. It's all structural.
2014-02-07 09:08:30 PM
2 votes:
Kind of reminds me of some conversations I've had with a few conservatives sometime back.  Two different people, living in different states, separately used the same yacht construction company example in their arguments, so I can only guess they were trying to parrot something they heard Rush Limbaugh say, as I know they're both rabid listeners of his.  Anyhow, it went something like this:

They both claimed that America is the largest yacht constructing country in the world, and that it's fair that the owners of the companies that make the yachts get all the money because they built and run the companies, and that the workers who build the yachts get a "fair" pay from the owners for their work (trickle-down, yay).  If those workers were to unionize, the increased pay and benefits would destroy the company's bottom line and the owners would likely take their companies to a different country with cheaper labor, and America would lose it's apparently-vaunted status as the world's largest yacht builder, so unions are bad and reasons and therefore.

One of those two conservatives was my father, so now it's CSB time:

When I was young, I was obsessed with baseball, and when the players went on strike demanding more money, I became thoroughly disenchanted because I knew they were getting paid millions to play a game.  My father, the same one who said the above about yachts, explained to young-me that the ticket sales, consessions, and merchandise produce billions of dollars, and that if the players didn't get paid as much as they do, the owners would get ALL of it even though the players generate that revenue, and that wouldn't be fair, would it?  I know, crazy huh?  Apparently he's a wealth-redistributing commie when it comes to sports, but it doesn't apply to non-sport businesses, I guess.  That is, except the business where he works at, where he complains that the owner is a greedy asshole who doesn't pay him what he's worth.  To be fair to him, my dad is a genuis technician in a small company that repairs medical technology, and he is their biggest money-earner.  But he loses any sympathy I might have had by voting solidly republican.  Then I just want to shake him and remind him that he should be well-pleased with the trickle he receives from his holy and sacred Job Creator (tax cuts be upon him).
2014-02-07 09:03:15 PM
2 votes:
fark these people.  fark the nameable very very rich.  And SUPER fark them if they just sit on their mountain of gold, the farkers.  THAT shiat is what is killing the American economy.  No one would begrudge them their wealth if they farkING WORKED!
2014-02-07 08:57:15 PM
2 votes:
A very small segment of our population has access to far more resources than they would ever need in a hundred thousand lifetimes.

I would challenge that this current state of affairs isn't doing anyone, including the "1%" any good. For what use is mountains and mountains of money if it's logistically impossible for you to spend it all?

I actually think that most of these super rich people are mentally ill because their actions don't make any sense. If you have more than you could ever possibly need, then what you have becomes more or less worthless. Yet they don't act like this: If the mere mention (not action!) of phrases like "income redistribution" invokes feelings of terror, well, I don't see how any normal rational person would act this way. It's almost a self-defeating sort of behavioural pattern as it means that unless you have a feeling of 100% security and control, then despite how much you have, it will never be enough. I can't see how that's actually a pleasant way for anyone to live...
2014-02-07 08:39:12 PM
2 votes:

Captain Dan: DamnYankees: A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.

The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.


Kind of. There's a pretty big difference between "I lost the vote on what the taxes should be" and "I don't get to vote on what the taxes should be".
2014-02-07 08:32:14 PM
2 votes:
I got one, Bith Set Me Up

How the Rich see themselves:

static2.wikia.nocookie.net

How everybody else sees them:

www.buzzle.com
2014-02-07 08:27:50 PM
2 votes:

TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.


It depends where you live. The math is pretty simple to do. I make 210K, and 50% of that goes to taxes, so that gets me $8,750 per month for spending. I've lived in NY and SF, so a big chunk of it goes to rent (about 3K per month). Then there's student loans, which take another 1K. That leaves me with $4,750 per month for food, clothing, toys and charity, basically.

I'm extremely lucky - I've chosen to live in big cities where its expensive but I enjoy it, my wife and I can pretty much buy whatever we want on a micro-scale (iPads, a new computer every 18 months or so), and I can build up some savings.

I think anyone who complains about making even a decent amount of money is out of their farking minds. And I work with a lot of them - people who think we are farked by the government, that we don't make enough money. I have colleagues who are pissed as hell that they *only* have 5K of spending money every month. Why? They compare themselves to their clients, who make more. They don't think about people like you. It honestly makes me a little sick when I hear them talk like that. People who make even a decent living in this country have no farking idea how good they have it.
2014-02-07 08:25:32 PM
2 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.


So they're at that point where between income, payroll, state income, and all the extra shiat they pile on on the state level, that the 1% are at about 55-60% marginal income taxes, which means that they're between 120-150% of their take-home going to taxes.  Even with capital gains, they're at 50-60%.

And at this point, the BIG deal is "How high do we raise their taxes?".  Seriously, it's worse than smokers.  Obama just raised the capital gains rate from 15% to ~23.8% (You need to include the extra taxes from Obamacare) which then combines with CA's extra stuff to get you to ~37%.  (which from skimming Wiki, is pretty high.  Belgium's at 0% if you meet certain conditions, Canada's at 21.5%, Finland's at 32%, even Denmark's only at 42% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax).

And if you raise that, that means that they don't invest in my company (or any companies), which means that I don't have a job, no one in my industry has a job outside of the big incredibly dysfunctional corps, the odds of replacing the giant corporations (albeit with newer, different corporations doing exciting new things) go WAY down, the rate of technical innovation in the USA drops by a factor of 15, we lose our lead in technical development and become another Europe, and we get another dot-com crash.  Remember that REALLY nasty recession right at the beginning of Bush's term?  Yeah.

So in that world, the rich are merely rich instead of even richer, and I'm dirt-poor instead of merely broke with a chance of getting to well-off if I'm in the right place at the right time.  Oh, and you just killed ANY hope of richest dude turnover (or corporate turnover because every company was a start-up at some point).  Because the founders have 20%, and the VC's also have 20%, but they have 20% of 99 other companies that blew up in their faces.  So their rate of return is a lot less than the lucky founders, and the founders get to be richer than the VC's (and then become the next group of VC's).

Mind you, it really sucks to be uneducated in this world (since tech is getting increasingly good at replacing unskilled, poorly skilled, and just plain stupid people), and if you have a culture that doesn't value education you're completely farked, but that's been coming since freaking ENIAC.  And raising taxes to push even harder on the inequality string won't fix the problem*.

/Silicon Valley = Nerds + Rich People wanting and able to be richer + time.
//Though seriously, the pain of income taxes is NOT linear.  It's 1/(1-x). Going to 50 hurts less than going from 50 to 75.  (unless of course, the average return on investment is less than 2:1 at which point you're equally totally farked).

*There's actually a bunch of these, but the main ones are:
a) That smart/hard-working/lucky people are NOTABLY more productive and just do a better job on average, that the degree of this difference increases on the average as we shift from physical to knowledge work, and that because I can put my cool thing on the internet and ship it to a billion people, that the best (or at least most popular) product is going to win out and be used by a billion people turning the people behind it on every level into super-billionaires while everyone else gets screwed (or goes into a really tight job market and makes $150K/year plus stock or gets acquired for a few million).

a2) That because of this difference, unions are f*cked.  Seriously.  Google is NEVER going to unionize.  Software engineers worth hiring generally hate them because of their pro-seniority, pro-worst-worker.

a3) That because of this difference, income equality is f*cked.  (Rip out the $1.5 Trillion in welfare, combine it with Social Security, and turn it into a $15K/year GMI for everyone above the age of 21, and then stop farking biatching about the inequality.  The inequality is going to happen.  Letting it happen gets you cool toys on the low end, extra wealth on the high end, and higher incomes in the middle, and global cultural and technical dominance with the brain drain in your favor from the rest of the world that comes with both).

b) That increasingly cheap tech is killing entire industries and replacing them with entire new industries that by and large depend on employees being WAY smarter than the old industries (but pay accordingly), marginalizing an increasingly large subset of the population that either is unable to acquire or culturally prevented from acquiring a decent education.

c) That destroying the ability to acquire wealth by doing cool shiat (as opposed to being an African warlord and just stealing it) FARKS societal wealth long-term.  "At various times and places in history, whether you could accumulate a fortune by creating wealth has been turned on and off. Northern Italy in 800, off (warlords would steal it). Northern Italy in 1100, on. Central France in 1100, off (still feudal). England in 1800, on. England in 1974, off (98% tax on investment income). United States in 1974, on. We've even had a twin study: West Germany, on; East Germany, off. In every case, the creation of wealth seems to appear and disappear like the noise of a fan as you switch on and off the prospect of keeping it." And that won us the Cold War.  Because Reagan was spending 6% of GDP against 15-20% of Soviet GDP (keeping in mind that no one really knows what Soviet GDP or military spending actually were, I've heard of estimates as high as 40%, and the Politburo was probably less informed than most because of the whole "bad news = Gulag" thing (and since the CIA were reading the Politburo's mail, we were just as clueless)).  And you can't do that forever.

/Mind you, if you've got a no-loopholes way of taxing inheritances, go nuts.
//Even the Koch Brothers, whatever they may be doing now,  initially came from a guy doing cool shiat.
2014-02-07 08:22:06 PM
2 votes:

DirkValentine: DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?

I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.

What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.


*chokes*

Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.
2014-02-07 08:21:17 PM
2 votes:
You can only shove the whole cake in your pants and run out of the party laughing so many times until the other kids stop inviting you back, you whiny, delusional, doltish pigs.
2014-02-07 08:19:38 PM
2 votes:
I don't think a single person, rich or poor, actually believes that hard work is sufficient for becoming/staying rich.  Most rich people only argue that it's necessary.
2014-02-07 08:14:39 PM
2 votes:

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.

Not at all - I think its good that people get a sense of what these jobs are like.

I'm an M&A attorney, so my weeks are highly variable. I do deals (i.e. companies buying and selling each other), so when a client comes to us and says "we want to buy/sell X", then the work gets very busy. 90 hour weeks very common. But if there's nothing happening? I sort of do nothing - get in the office at 10, leave at 5, watching Netflix during the day. So the work is binary - I'm either busy and the week is packed, or I do nothing. And part of the reason they pay me is that I can switch back and forth without going crazy - lots of people flame out of this job because the lifestyle isn't for them.

Also, the thing to remember about lawyers is that when you ask us how many hours we worked, we only tell you billable hours - so when I say 2200 hours, that means I billed 2200 hours. I was probably in the office closer to 2800 hours or so, hard to say (I don't keep track of the hours I don't bill).


My point is this:

Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.
2014-02-07 07:57:53 PM
2 votes:

DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?


I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.
2014-02-07 07:55:02 PM
2 votes:

SnakeLee: "They are frightened to death - frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them," Marcus said.  "In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration."

What a bunch of pussies


Just because nobody called them on their culture of unimaginable greed or filed charges for recklessly abusing the system until recently doesn't mean it wasn't always wrong. And I agree with you: what a bunch of vaginas.
2014-02-07 07:28:06 PM
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.


In some alternate quantum universe. No f*cking way ever is it true in real life. The primary criteria of success are all either met or failed before most people are even old enough to develop a theory of mind.
2014-02-07 07:18:13 PM
2 votes:
Time to sharpen up the old pitchfork, get the torches ready and dust off the gallows.
2014-02-07 06:55:52 PM
2 votes:
Man, what I wouldn't give for one of these:
storeonanimeonline.com
2014-02-07 06:53:59 PM
2 votes:

fusillade762: So once the hyper-rich suck the rest of us dry how long do they think they can survive just selling stuff to each other?


Some of them are already realizing it.
2014-02-07 06:21:23 PM
2 votes:
Aww, poor babies

cry me a farking river with your "oh woe is me" crap
2014-02-07 06:10:50 PM
2 votes:
Heads will roll.
2014-02-08 09:09:28 PM
1 votes:

sobriquet by any other name: when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.


Right now, somebody owns those resources, Somebody owns those factory robots, etc. Right now, they can use these things however they want to, and if they choose to use them to produce things..... then they own the things they produce as well.

Transitioning to an economy that we all own makes sense, but, doing so means taking away peoples property and rights. That is a really messy, typically bloody, dangerous thing to do. It generally comes with far reaching consequences that weren't intended. It also stifles innovation greatly, as opposed to the renaissance some people expect to come with it.

/I'm not sure what I'm arguing for...... I don't know what a good answer to our economic problems would be.
2014-02-08 07:30:47 PM
1 votes:
(of course, the powers that be are terrified of unrestrained innovation - you can't maintain obscene Pharaoh-squared wealth if the system changes.. and THAT is why the current system enslaves you against threat of starvation - you have no time to change anything for the better)
2014-02-08 07:23:22 PM
1 votes:
What a "hard-worker" might look like in the 21st century:
Factory worker.....
img.fark.net
Warehouse worker.....
img.fark.net
Truck driver......
img.fark.net
Store clerk.......
img.fark.net
I think I may have found the problem.
2014-02-08 07:07:48 PM
1 votes:
We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.

Supply and demand is what sets workers wages, and we have innovated so much, and made worker productivity so high, that workers are no longer worth hardly anything. With our technology, one worker can produce far more than they were able to years ago. We have way more workers than we need, and hence, low wages.

This is not necessarily greed. This is a feature of Capitalism..... paying workers more than you have to simply means that your competition will put you out of business. With or without greed, we still wind up with the same result.

If our factories are automated, our warehouses are automated, our shipping is automated, our office work is done by computers automatically, and stores are self-checkout..... We will be able to keep up "supply" of all the goods that people want, but, unemployment will be so high that most of us will be starving.

The question really is how can we transition our economy to something that works, even with our gains in productivity? Is there a solution that doesn't transition us to heavy-handed government Marxism?
2014-02-08 03:03:27 AM
1 votes:
I used to own a business - a motorcycle dealership.  Okay it was a fun industry, but the hours were insane - 6-7 days a week, 8-10 hour days, and I didn't get paid until everyone else got paid, so I made about $50k a year (plus the business paid nearly all my travel and lifestyle bills).  I shut that down in 2009 when it was clear this wasn't a normal recession.  The stress before that was pretty awful, keeping it running and then shutting it down.

Now I work in real estate, and made $241k in 2013, it says here, and will fairly easily continue to do so.  I work from home, have maybe 1 site visit or meeting a week at best, and put in maybe 15 hours a week total.  I sleep late, get lots of down time, and get to set my own schedules.

I worked exceptionally hard at the dealership and it paid squat.  Granted, I did work exceptionally hard getting the real estate thing going, but now it's on cruise control.  Point is, there is zero connection between work performed and wages earned.  It's all what you do, where and when.  Not how hard you work.

The extra fun part is, due to legit tax rules (the ones these aristocrats are complaining about) I don't have to pay anything but modest payroll taxes (on a stated personal income of $35k), because I'm carrying a large tax loss from the last few years of the dealership.  Ooh, I hate tax laws to pieces!
2014-02-08 02:36:43 AM
1 votes:
Wow. Just wow.

The article, the apologists... I just can't process it.

The pathological obsession with exponential wealth is a horrifying enough prospect to deal with without the 'woe-is-us' bullshiat.

Jump, you farkers.
2014-02-07 11:26:11 PM
1 votes:
(pardon me, i meant, honest work. I don't really care how hard someone works at a dishonest outcome)
2014-02-07 11:10:47 PM
1 votes:

gaspode: Given how many very rich people spends months of the year on their yachts, on holiday skiing, involved in expensive sports, doing all kinds of things that are time consuming as well as expensive.. Im going to go ahead and say they dont work harder than everyone else at all.


Apparently occasionally having to take a phone call on the golf course or change your plans to have a Town Car or private jet pick you up and take you to a well-catered board meeting is now considered working hard.
2014-02-07 11:06:46 PM
1 votes:
Given how many very rich people spends months of the year on their yachts, on holiday skiing, involved in expensive sports, doing all kinds of things that are time consuming as well as expensive.. Im going to go ahead and say they dont work harder than everyone else at all.
2014-02-07 10:47:08 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.

I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.


I think there should be more discussion about "hard work" and "stressful work"

There are people who work hard  - long physical hours - and to say they aren't working hard and thus deserve a life of bare minimal pay is an insult
There are people who have stressful hours requiring executive skills- and to say they don't earn higher pay is incorrect

Then there are people who, as the farkism goes, move from 3rd to home plate and insist they are worth a king's ransom because they deserve it - this is a falsehood and has nothing to do with work - it is egoism

In the debate over jobs/pay/worth it would be helpful to recognize the 99% can't reconcile "wall street" type pay with what that hard work produces any more than the 1% seem to understand what a "living wage" for long physical labor really means per hour

One outcome of the shrinking of the middle class - the divide between the top and bottom wage earners - is a twisting of the meaning of "hard work", "skills" and a lack of respect for both.,
2014-02-07 10:43:20 PM
1 votes:

FailOut08: My stupid opinion: $1Billion is enough money for any person to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and for their families and descendents for generations to come). Above $1Billion, tax rate should be 99%. It's arbitrary, of course, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.


A maximum wage is indeed an interesting idea.
2014-02-07 10:40:24 PM
1 votes:
Just for fun:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

-some commie
2014-02-07 10:38:23 PM
1 votes:
My stupid opinion: $1Billion is enough money for any person to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and for their families and descendents for generations to come). Above $1Billion, tax rate should be 99%. It's arbitrary, of course, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
2014-02-07 10:36:31 PM
1 votes:

LectertheChef: Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.

Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.


I am not anywhere near rich, but I worked a lot harder when I made 20k a year than I do now at six figures.
2014-02-07 10:23:11 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.


Your middleman CEO may add value, but not tens of thousands of times more than the fruit picker. I agree that all work is not of equal value and thus "But I w-work so hard" is not going to cut it as an excuse.


Let's work it out from the other end.

What sort of person would benefit the most from any economic system? The kind of person who has figured out how to maximize the output they get from the system and minimize the input they need to add to the system to get their output. The smart work that they do is directed towards that; it is not directed towards growing the system. Basically, a king (or leach if you prefer).

What sort of person would benefit the least? Someone who's input to the system is maximized and who's output from the system is minimized. Basically, a slave.

Those are the two extremes. Most people, even millionaires, fall in the middle somewhere. Some who may fall far towards the king side also have the prescience of mind to add some input to the system to grow it.  Ford is the example that comes to mind for me. Ford paid his workers a minimum wage so that they'd have enough money to buy the cars he was making.

Now, if such people exist who excel at being extremely king-like ( or leach like ), over time they will amass ridiculous concentrations of money. They may even be investing it all the while taking money from the economy and putting it into tax havens. The economy will start to tank when the amount that they invest grows at a slower rate than the amount they are socking away.

They are not job creators; only the consumers who create demand can be. They are at best catalysts for job creation.  Do they ad value? Yes. Is it anywhere near the amount that they claim it is? _Absolutely Not_
2014-02-07 10:19:21 PM
1 votes:

DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.


Lawyers are the henchmen of the 1%.
2014-02-07 10:10:12 PM
1 votes:

InmanRoshi: bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.

I'll take the value a fruit picker brings any day over the value a stock trader or most middle managers brings, regardless of his alleged unique ability to cross leverage synergies across platforms.


Stock traders add no value.  Middle managers do if they directly impact production or delivery.  Interestingly enough doctors add no value.  they only make people back to were they were originally.  No actual gain.  If you are a banker or a person who employs "rent like" behavior you add no value.  The sooner people understand Adam Smith the better.
2014-02-07 10:08:00 PM
1 votes:

meyerkev: So $17K/year equivalent in discretionary income + sitting in a kind of janky apartment, and almost never being able to afford a decent house on your own.  That's what having a career gets you.


But compare that to somebody working 40 hours a week at a little over $8/hr - that'll get you $17K/year in TOTAL income. That's most of the jobs I've had, after graduating college.

/ now I'm being bootstrappy and working for myself. Still making tiny amounts of money, but doing what I like instead of crummy retail jobs
2014-02-07 10:05:59 PM
1 votes:

meyerkev: Bith Set Me Up: First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.

So they're at that point where between income, payroll, state income, and all the extra shiat they pile on on the state level, that the 1% are at about 55-60% marginal income taxes, which means that they're between 120-150% of their take-home going to taxes.  Even with capital gains, they're at 50-60%.

And at this point, the BIG deal is "How high do we raise their taxes?".  Seriously, it's worse than smokers.  Obama just raised the capital gains rate from 15% to ~23.8% (You need to include the extra taxes from Obamacare) which then combines with CA's extra stuff to get you to ~37%.  (which from skimming Wiki, is pretty high.  Belgium's at 0% if you meet certain conditions, Canada's at 21.5%, Finland's at 32%, even Denmark's only at 42% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax).


You seem confused about how income tax works.  Let's take a guy making $250,000 salary:

His first $8,925 is taxed at 10% - $895 tax
His next $27,324 is taxed at 15% - $4,098 tax
His next $51,599 is taxed at 25% - $12,900 tax
His next $95,299 is taxed at 28% - $26,684 tax
His last $66,749 is taxed at 33% - $22,027 tax

His total income tax liability (before any deductions) is $66,604.

Let's add the federal payroll taxes in -

Social Security is capped at $113,700 for 2013, so at 6.2% that's $7,049

Medicare taxes aren't capped, so at 1.45% that's an additional $3,625

So, for someone making $250,000 the total federal tax liability (before any deductions) is $77,278

That comes out to a total tax rate of 30.9%, but again, that's before any deductions, so the actual tax collected would end up being considerably less.

That also doesn't take into account any state or municipality taxes, but those vary so much (if they even exist where you are, FL for example has no state income tax, and my city doesn't charge any tax either) that they're beyond the scope of this particular point.

For a 1%er their actual tax rate never gets close to 60%.  The top federal income tax bracket is 39.6%, Medicare tax is 1.45%, so that's only 41.05% on payroll income over $400,000 per year.  Capital gains taxes are even less, and those in the 1% who earn the majority of their income through capital gains end up paying an effective tax rate on total income of only around 20.6%.  The richest 400 Americans pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%.

While they're paying more tax in total dollar amounts, the wealthiest Americans pay a smaller percentage of their income in total taxation than their secretaries.
2014-02-07 10:04:44 PM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: if hard work made billionaires, the fruit pickers would be running the planet.

OK.  Enough with this particular stupidity.  Money is supposed to be about added value.  A fruit picker does indeed add value.  He is compensated for that value.  He took something worth zero; and made it worth a few $ a pound.  The CEO of the fruit company added far more value as without his efforts the picker and the end user would never meet.  In the 14 hour day the picker picks he may add a few hundred dollars worth of value and be compensated tens of dollars.  During the same 14 hour period the CEO may only work for 2 hours but added hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and be compensated  tens of thousands of dollars.

All work is not of equal vale idiots.

I hate the 1 % too but not the ones that work for it the ones who bought both parties to keep it without adding value.


I'll take the value a fruit picker brings any day over the value a stock trader or most middle managers brings, regardless of his alleged unique ability to cross leverage synergies across platforms.
2014-02-07 09:58:17 PM
1 votes:

SnakeLee: "They are frightened to death - frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them," Marcus said.  "In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration."

What a bunch of pussies



These people have small armies of CPAs and lawyers to make sure all of their i's are dotted and their t's are crossed.  If they're that frightened of the SEC, it's because of one of two reasons ...

a) They know they're doing something that fringes on illegal

b)  They're know they're doing something that is outright illegal.
2014-02-07 09:42:50 PM
1 votes:

RockofAges: So yea, privilege is your health and how much money you have in the bank.


Which, oddly, tends to disappear up the ass of a health care CEO when one's health needs attention.
2014-02-07 09:41:29 PM
1 votes:
I weep for this country.

/earning 14 an hour
//highest income in my household until cousin in law finds job for his degree
///anyone hireing a BA in linguistics in Socal?
2014-02-07 09:36:13 PM
1 votes:

Delta1212: Work smarter, not harder.


Define that.  Precisely.  Vis a vis any sort of non-self directed occupation and it's potential remuneration.  I'll make popcorn.  (Pssst, that's a platitude.)
2014-02-07 09:15:20 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: It's also worth pointing out that the Stamp Act and the other taxes that the British imposed on the US (which ignited the revolution) do seem to be incredibly reasonable. It's very hard to understand in retrospect how they made people so upset.


Because the US had no representation in the British government in return for the taxes levied on them.
2014-02-07 09:00:09 PM
1 votes:

meyerkev: TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.

FWIW:

1) Taxes suck ass.  Depending on state, he's bringing home between $80-90K.  Some cities tack on an extra 2-3% because city is expensive.  After taxes, insurance, and 401K, if he's bringing home more than $70K, he's doing it wrong (Albeit, he has medical insurance and a retirement fund)
2) Big city.  Average rent in SF is $2875 for a 1 BR (AKA: $35K of that $70K.  God forbid you have kids, and need more than 1BR), and everything's 1.5-3x* more expensive because of it.
2b) You also get big city problems like traffic, farked-up mass transit (Interestingly, those 2 things are independent of each other), homeless dudes, slums being right there, etc, etc.

So you get $35K/year to throw around, which actually is probably worth half of that because of COL (though you see a lot of Porsches in the parking lots of outright *shiatty* apartments).

So $17K/year equivalent in discretionary income + sitting in a kind of janky apartment, and almost never being able to afford a decent house on your own.  That's what having a career gets you.  And even in SF, that's late-20's career**

/Note: I don't know where he is.  FWIW, Cleveland is paying about 80% of SF, while also letting you buy an OK house in an up-and-coming neighborhood for $40K.  Those are the peop ...


Yeah, I know. I'd be happy if I could get $15/hr and a 40 hour work week. Oh, and not be treated like an interchangeable cog. With a $600-700 bring-home per week, plus what the wife makes, we'd be doing just damned fine, TYVM. I mean, as long as I don't plan on paying for the kid's college or retiring or anything stupid like that. The wife does get pretty good insurance, but her generous pension plan is already being stolen from her as we speak. I fully expect that by the time she retires--ten years later than she was eligible to when she started--her pension will be paid in cat food.

Her first year of teaching, the deal was that she could retire at 50% pay, average of the top three years pay, at 20 years service, and 100% at 30 years service. As of now, she can't retire at all until 28 years or something, and to get 100% average of the top five years, she has to work something like 40 years.
2014-02-07 08:49:47 PM
1 votes:

Weatherkiss: The colonies were heavily criticised for a revolution based on something that didn't exist for anyone, not just the colonies. Noone in England were represented fairly either, but they didn't revolt over it.


Not sure I buy this. People in the UK may not have had perfect representation, but they had some representation. There was a House of Commons which held the power, and they did have MPs from each district. The US had zero representation in that body.

Democracy isn't binary, it's a sliding scale. So if we put the current US House of Representatives is 90% democratic (lop off 10% for gerrymandering and campaign finance issues), then the 1776 House of Commons was 40% democratic from the perspective of people who lived in England, and basically 0% democratic from the perspective of people in the US.

That's not nothing.
2014-02-07 08:48:55 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.

It depends where you live. The math is pretty simple to do. I make 210K, and 50% of that goes to taxes, so that gets me $8,750 per month for spending. I've lived in NY and SF, so a big chunk of it goes to rent (about 3K per month). Then there's student loans, which take another 1K. That leaves me with $4,750 per month for food, clothing, toys and charity, basically.

I'm extremely lucky - I've chosen to live in big cities where its expensive but I enjoy it, my wife and I can pretty much buy whatever we want on a micro-scale (iPads, a new computer every 18 months or so), and I can build up some savings.

I think anyone who complains about making even a decent amount of money is out of their farking minds. And I work with a lot of them - people who think we are farked by the government, that we don't make enough money. I have colleagues who are pissed as hell that they *only* have 5K of spending money every month. Why? They compare themselves to their clients, who make more. They don't think about people like you. It honestly makes me a little sick when I hear them talk like that. People who make even a decent living in this country have no farking idea how good they have it.


Right. I pay $550 in mortgage, and in 12 years, I'll own my 1890's, extensively remodeled, four bedroom house in a nice little village outright. That's a big benefit to living where I live. My wife is a teacher, and she gets paid a decent wage for our area. After all our bills, which include such luxuries as smartphones but no landline, high speed internet but no cable, car payments on two new cars--both of which together add up to $500/month, she has about $600 disposable income, and I have about $30. What the hell she spends her money on I don't know, but I've learned that not asking questions is far cheaper than a divorce. Still, we lead a fairly good life and don't have to worry about whether we can pay the electric bill or buy food. I have to rob Peter to buy extravagances like new pants or shoes, but the wife does no such thing.

What kills me, though, is trying to imagine life on straight minimum wage. In Ohio it's $7.95 this year, and there are very few minimum wage jobs that will give you forty hours these days. My job caps me at thirty. That means if both of us worked McJobs, we'd have a bring-home of about $440 a week. How in the hell does someone raise a family with that kind of income?
2014-02-07 08:46:11 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Captain Dan: DamnYankees: A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.

The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.

Kind of. There's a pretty big difference between "I lost the vote on what the taxes should be" and "I don't get to vote on what the taxes should be".


To be fair, noone else did either. In school I learned the colonies were oppressed and not given a vote on things.

As an adult I learned that "No Taxation without Representation!" was the equivelant of today's "Get the Government's hands off my Medicare!"

The colonies were heavily criticised for a revolution based on something that didn't exist for anyone, not just the colonies. Noone in England were represented fairly either, but they didn't revolt over it.

Things like the Boston Massacre got the ball rolling, but the actual 'morals' and 'ethics' of the Revolutionary War were based on propaganda. Britain didn't ignore it, either. There were plenty of cartoons lampooning the American colonies as being hypocrits, "All men are created equal" while pointing out that the blacks at the time were still enslaved (literally).

It was a ploy for power, nothing more.
2014-02-07 08:44:46 PM
1 votes:
"Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich,'" [Tom Perkins] wrote.

I'll tell you what, Tom, If people come after the billionaires like the Nazis came after the Jews we'll come to help you!

...we'll first just have to fund the infrastructure to pave a way toward you and yours, manned by a well-schooled, working populace that isn't starving.
2014-02-07 08:43:03 PM
1 votes:

TopoGigo: Damn. I know people with "careers" make real money. I also know that out in the real world (as opposed to my little corner of Appalachia) things cost more and salaries reflect that. But to just see it dropped in a casual conversation...it hurts. I'm a delivery driver, and I make $6/hr plus tips, minus fuel and car maintenance. The most I've ever made is $16/hr as a restaurant manager, and with copious overtime, I felt rich. I can't even begin to imagine what I'd do with a $140k salary. I mean, I know what I'd do with a billion dollars, but I sort of suspect that if I made $140k I'd have much nicer toys and less disposable income than I do now. Oh, and I'd be phenomenally fat from all the steak dinners I ate.


FWIW:

1) Taxes suck ass.  Depending on state, he's bringing home between $80-90K.  Some cities tack on an extra 2-3% because city is expensive.  After taxes, insurance, and 401K, if he's bringing home more than $70K, he's doing it wrong (Albeit, he has medical insurance and a retirement fund)
2) Big city.  Average rent in SF is $2875 for a 1 BR (AKA: $35K of that $70K.  God forbid you have kids, and need more than 1BR), and everything's 1.5-3x* more expensive because of it.
2b) You also get big city problems like traffic, farked-up mass transit (Interestingly, those 2 things are independent of each other), homeless dudes, slums being right there, etc, etc.

So you get $35K/year to throw around, which actually is probably worth half of that because of COL (though you see a lot of Porsches in the parking lots of outright *shiatty* apartments).

So $17K/year equivalent in discretionary income + sitting in a kind of janky apartment, and almost never being able to afford a decent house on your own.  That's what having a career gets you.  And even in SF, that's late-20's career**

/Note: I don't know where he is.  FWIW, Cleveland is paying about 80% of SF, while also letting you buy an OK house in an up-and-coming neighborhood for $40K.  Those are the people who make you cry.

*Don't ask how much eating out costs.  You'll cry.  I'm about to spend $30-40/person at an OK restaurant in downtown Mountain View.   The nice Burmese place where we had the company Christmas dinner was $100/person (though a lot of that was booze).
**Further note: I have seen exactly 2 software engineers older than 40 (and very few above 35).  So your career starts at 22, you become "experienced" in 5 years because the industry changes that fast doubling your initial salary in the process (which is probably 80% of your total salary increases), and then duck out to do your own thing or fall behind due to knowledge lacking (or get super-rich via startup and become a VC).
2014-02-07 08:39:54 PM
1 votes:
To me it's strange that the wealthy are so very concerned about socialism and taxes but if you look historically at wealth disparity, socialism has only gotten traction when 1% of the population have 99% of the assets. Otherwise people are pretty happy with their rich neighbors.
2014-02-07 08:38:08 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.


The American Revolution was as much a right-wing tax revolt as anything that Fark's socialists would like to see it as.
2014-02-07 08:32:44 PM
1 votes:

ongbok: Captain Dan: T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.

Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.

Never heard of the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie?


That's actually a bad example - the French Revolution was done by poor people who were being oppressed.

A better example is, actually, the American Revolution, which was spearheaded by the American aristocracy and was undertaken not as a result of poverty or oppression, but theoretical injustice.
2014-02-07 08:31:16 PM
1 votes:

Captain Dan: T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.

Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.


Never heard of the French Revolution and the bourgeoisie?
2014-02-07 08:24:50 PM
1 votes:
How the 1% sees themselves:

1.bp.blogspot.com

How everyone else sees them:

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
2014-02-07 08:24:43 PM
1 votes:
These guys are about as oppressed as American Christians.
2014-02-07 08:19:01 PM
1 votes:

DirkValentine: Lawyers typically work long hours, climb obstacles that they wouldn't be able to without school, and - In my opinion - are generally worth the money they get paid.

THese guys that have so much don't deserve it.  Period.  They have gamed the system .   They are not like you and I.  They are pure farking evil.


I'm not sure I buy that. They aren't evil so much as deluded. For example, most of my work has been done for Private Equity - these are the people who make 8 figures a year. The real 0.01%. And most of them honestly work insanely hard. They do - they probably work harder than us lawyers. Not a LOT harder, but harder. Maybe 10% harder. But of course they don't make 10% more, they make 1000% more.

The question is how you justify that (or if you justify that). And anyone who tries to justify this based on the marginally extra amount of work they do is deluded. On that you and I would probably agree.
2014-02-07 08:12:07 PM
1 votes:

T-Servo: There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.


Revolutions are started by people who are starving to death, not middle-class dorks whose greatest complaint is the price of microwavable "Dinner for one" meals.
2014-02-07 08:10:56 PM
1 votes:

DirkValentine: What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.


Not at all - I think its good that people get a sense of what these jobs are like.

I'm an M&A attorney, so my weeks are highly variable. I do deals (i.e. companies buying and selling each other), so when a client comes to us and says "we want to buy/sell X", then the work gets very busy. 90 hour weeks very common. But if there's nothing happening? I sort of do nothing - get in the office at 10, leave at 5, watching Netflix during the day. So the work is binary - I'm either busy and the week is packed, or I do nothing. And part of the reason they pay me is that I can switch back and forth without going crazy - lots of people flame out of this job because the lifestyle isn't for them.

Also, the thing to remember about lawyers is that when you ask us how many hours we worked, we only tell you billable hours - so when I say 2200 hours, that means I billed 2200 hours. I was probably in the office closer to 2800 hours or so, hard to say (I don't keep track of the hours I don't bill).
2014-02-07 08:06:49 PM
1 votes:
"The one percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said

www-deadline-com.vimg.net 

    "Errr, Doc?  Thats not it!"
2014-02-07 08:06:38 PM
1 votes:

Captain Dan: Obviously deluded rich people: "We're being scapegoated by envious liberals."

Fark Liberals: "Self-pity?  Off with their heads!"


There is some well-established historical precedent for the Fark position.
2014-02-07 08:06:35 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: What is your salary and hours?

I'm a 4th year, so I make $215K (before bonuses), which is industry standard. My hours are high, but not insane - in the 2200 range billable.


What would you say your average work week is?

I'm really not farking with you.  I like contextual stuff.  I've got all you farkers farkied by what i've gathered about you.   Hell, I remember when you were in law school.

I'm a software developer, i make 70/hr.   I'll divulge, too.  It's only fair.
2014-02-07 07:58:21 PM
1 votes:
www.dimensionsinfo.com

Here, let me play a song to ease their suffering.
2014-02-07 07:56:35 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Heads will roll.


And how do you expect this to happen without the factories to make the guillotines?  The workers to sharpen the blades?  The children to take the heads away?  EVEN WHEN YOU WANT TO KILL ME, YOU NEED ME.  AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
2014-02-07 07:52:09 PM
1 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com

I love paranoid rich white people.
2014-02-07 07:50:32 PM
1 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because I was not wealthy...come to think of it, I actually lost the little bit of wealth I had to those rich guys. So they basically saved me. Thank you, oppressed billionaires they weren't coming for the wealthy

There, fixed that for you, subby.


What needs fixing is your sense of humor.
2014-02-07 07:48:59 PM
1 votes:
Real estate investor Sam Zell echoed his fellow one percenter's lament earlier this week.

"The one percent are getting pummeled because it's politically convenient to do so," Zell said, adding that the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" talkingpointsmemo.com="" livewire="" sam-zell-one-percent"="" target="_blank">
To be fair, he did work hard at trying to run the Chicago Tribune into the ground.
2014-02-07 07:45:09 PM
1 votes:
When Jeff Immelt pays the same effective tax rate I do I will start to believe that Obama and his misguided supporters are for the poor and middle class.  Until then I laugh at anyone who blames the GOP alone.
2014-02-07 07:38:12 PM
1 votes:
Either set them up as God or tax them. Most things are shades of gray but somethings aren't.
2014-02-07 07:33:30 PM
1 votes:
How the 1% sees themselves:

static4.businessinsider.com

How everyone else sees them:

blogs.suntimes.com
2014-02-07 07:22:40 PM
1 votes:

WraithSama: Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.

That is the single argument of the rich that pisses me off the most.  If some rich asshole tells me he's rich simply because he "works harder" than the poor, it would take a not-insignificant amount of effort to not throat punch him on the spot.  It does (usually) take hard work to become rich, but it takes an equal measure of opportunity (plus the random factor of luck), and opportunity is not something everyone has.  That's kind of the point.

Besides, I've heard it said before that if all it took to be wealthy was hard work, then unwed single mothers would among the world's richest.  I don't doubt it.


NO, you see, rich people work 2000x times harder than even unwed mothers, and that's why CEO's make 2000x the amount you do.

Doesn't that sound reasonable, kemosabe?
2014-02-07 07:22:06 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: the one percent simply "work harder" than everyone else.

That may be generally true...but they don't work many thousands X harder than everyone else, you farksticks.

And it all depends on what you mean by "hard work."  One day in the fields with farm workers would probably kill you shiatheads.


Aside from doctors, many of whom work their asses off, rich people generally don't work any harder than anybody else.
2014-02-07 06:58:03 PM
1 votes:

StopLurkListen: [lh4.googleusercontent.com image 850x515]


That is a truly, truly terrible piece of graphic design.
2014-02-07 06:37:41 PM
1 votes:
So once the hyper-rich suck the rest of us dry how long do they think they can survive just selling stuff to each other?


somedude210: DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.

in the same vein, I suggest "The Psychopath Test" to understand the mindset of these people. Also it's pretty funny and depressing take on the psychology industry.

/by the same dude who wrote Men Who Stare At Goats
//he's a pretty great writer


Loves me some Jon Ronson.  His piece about sneaking into Bohemian Grove with Alex Jones is GOLD.
2014-02-07 06:26:52 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: In all seriousness, I highly recommend reading Twilight of the Elites, a great book by Chris Hayes (which I read before I'd ever heard of him or seen him on TV). It's all about how our elite structures have convinced themselves of their own worthiness, and have (for now) gotten people to buy in, but why that's now starting to break down.


in the same vein, I suggest "The Psychopath Test" to understand the mindset of these people. Also it's pretty funny and depressing take on the psychology industry.

/by the same dude who wrote Men Who Stare At Goats
//he's a pretty great writer
2014-02-07 06:20:36 PM
1 votes:
www.holyturf.com
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report