When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Aug 8, 2019.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,788
    Your comment about me asking you to give tax avoidance advice to rich people makes no sense so I can't address that.

    You are talking about short term and long term capital gains. Short term gains are taxed at your normal rate. Long term gains are taxed at about 18%. Your income from your job is taxed at your normal rate.


    Up above you are implying that only the rich have stock gains or housing gains but now you are arguing that the middle class had their saving wiped out by the dot-com crash.

    That's not true plus it makes no sense given your comments above.

    The rest of this is a mostly unintelligible rant.

    I didn't say or imply that the wealthy shouldn't pay a slightly higher burden.

    The rest of your rant about "the government" is just that, a rant. Vote and get the government that you want.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,455
    How slight is slightly higher, as compared to the not-so-slightly higher standard of living, access to services, personal and financial security - and how slowly does that slightly higher tax revenue trickle down to the desperate?
    Very, very cute!
    Steal enough, and you can buy the government you want.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,883
    Kinda hard to avoid stating the obvious here, but--what about those who simply can't afford to set aside money in such a manner? I don't recall the numbers, but the stats are readily available: something like 60 percent of Americans would have to put off whatever monthly payments for a time if faced with a 500 dollar emergency? I'm reasonably certain that if that be the case, then it's also most unlikely they're able to set aside money into savings.

    (Apologies for weird diction--head is fuzzy)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,455
    They must have made "poor" life choices.
     
    parmalee and RainbowSingularity like this.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    yes i was aware this was where you were heading.
    my point is, what does that equate to for those whom do not earn enough to save money and so rely on government funded health care & government funded education ?

    i am pro the idea that taxation on retirement savings compounding profit should be almost nothing, maybe even 0
    but they should be wholly contained retirement savings that pay out at retirement or are used partially to fund a 1st new home deposit.

    not some lumbering massive fund of millions for someone to dodge capital gains tax as their primary income for to avoid paying income tax like all the lower income workers are forced to pay.
    i am also pro the idea of somehow lowering the gift tax for inheritance purposes so direct funds being passed on to another person are not taxed like income or gift tax when that income is going to be used as a form of income to sustain the person like an investment portfolio that operates just like a business to fund the beneficiary like any company would fund an an employer.

    there is a great deal of people who seek to exploit such ideas to avoid income tax.
     
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,729
    show me
    prove what you just said by posting some data

    whos ranting ?

    the dot com bubble wiped out middle class investment portfolios which woudl have gone to retirement savings

    i notice you conveniently avoid addressing the sub prime mortgage issue & the global credit collapse it caused.
    why is that ?
    glaringly obvious by your deliberate omission that you had a hand in it somehow and wish to avoid the subject and the massive social and global carnage it did to middle class people and those seeking to make a better life for themselves and their children.

    the way you avoid talking about certain things is quite a tell
    "Mr _anker i know how it all works..."

    yet you dont show how it works.
    you avoid that at all costs.

    your soft trolling to push my comments into your desired frame of suppositions is a bit thick with dogma.
    please oppose my comments by posting some data to show i am wrong or something to support what you have said instead of going into your normal "emotional" straw-man excuse" to avoid getting technical.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,513
    Exactly... an i owe my success to makin good life choices.!!!

    First off... an prolly the most important... i had good parents an good health... an besides that... i was always surrounded by just enuff good influences to keep me on the strate an narrow.!!!

    Concluson:::

    I guess you coud say that i pulled myself up by my own boot straps.!!!

    However... i try not to look down on the bad-seeds who Pizzed ther life away an turned into goverment-moochers/crybabies... an that alone gives me a feelin of superiority... so for people like me its all a Win-Win.!!!
     
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,883
    Yeah, I'm just not buying that people who come across, at least, as reasonably intelligent and educated can be so blind to economic realities. Or, for that matter, being oblivious to the fact that the privileges of being born into wealth extend way beyond simply having a considerable safety net and the ability to purchase the "best" education. The initial query seems more like trolling to me.

    Meh... I just can't be usin' wordses today.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,891
    Yep. A straight white male from the US, born into even a middle class family*, with no serious deformities or handicaps, has such a tremendous level of privilege that it's hard for them to really grasp what it's like for someone who doesn't have those advantages. I've spoken to a lot of them and they often get really mad, because they think that by describing those privileges it takes away from their accomplishments or something; that it suggests they're not as independent and hardworking than they think they are.

    And that's not the point. Many of those people did work really hard and earned everything they got. It's just that a black woman could work every bit as hard and not earn the same level of success.

    (* - which is hugely rich to 90% of the world.)
     
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,788
    That's true. That's why you don't just focus on stocks or capital gains. Focus on that upper tier that you are really interested in and not on middle class people who manage to save a little whether that's with stocks or real estate.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,788
    Enough with the "please post data" bit. You haven't posted any data. Stock prices did go down. People didn't lose all their saving. Many of those same stocks went back up as well. You claim was that the middle class couldn't afford stocks and that it was only the rich.

    If it was only the rich then how could the dot com bubble affect the middle class savings? I don't need "data" for that.

    Most people were thrown out of their houses with sub-prime mortgages (I had no more involvement in that than you do by the way). People who "lost" money there didn't have it to began with. The banks were the losers there.

    You rant is that you take a news story and try to make it apply to everyone, make it bigger than it actually was. You are just looking for excuses.

    I saved some money when I had almost no money. People without savings are generally not people with no money. They are people who don't have. I have a friend who had a job for 21 years with the same company, had a house, good salary and he never took advantage of a 401k company plan where they match any money (up to a point) that he put in. He didn't put in anything.

    He did go out and spend money socializing, newer car, etc. It's usually a choice.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,891
    There were people who lost their homes - and ended up with tens of thousands in debt. So I'd call that losing money.
    The banks got the bailouts. Almost a trillion dollars, as I recall.
     
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,455
    Every cloud has a silver lining - on the top. The same clouds look pretty damn dark from underneath. (So do boots!)

    I guess you're not one of the privileged.
    But that doesn't mean they can't be conned/pushed into borrowing or bullied into paying and paying and paying and paying...
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,788
    The banks were the losers in that they lost money as opposed to making money. Yes, the government largely bailed them out. I'm probably for the bailout if it was necessary for financial system stability. I'm not for the situation that lead to it.

    You can't set up a situation where there is no risk for the banks and then be surprised when they take too much risk. That's a regulation problem. My point is still the same, the banks didn't profit from that situation. They largely were made whole however.

    People who should have had houses, for the most part, didn't lose houses. People who could affords houses in the first place are the ones who lost those houses.

    I'm not defending a bad policy. I'm just saying that Rainbows claim that "the middle classes savings were wiped out" is not correct.
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,788
    That's true. So what? Who is defending that? We were talking about the middle class having all their saving wiped out...which was not an accurate assessment of the facts.
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,788
    That's like saying most Americans are fat and therefore can't be fit. They can be fit if they want to be.

    Someone with a house, a car, a job can have $500 or more in savings if they really want to.

    How many lower middle class people, who do have a house, have unmowed lawns? If it's a lot, is that because they can't mowed their lawns or is it because they don't care to mow their lawns?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,891
    No, it's not like that at all. It's more like saying that a paraplegic can't be fit. Sure, they _can_ be, to some degree - but it is nothing like a fit person trying the same thing. And for some, they simply can't.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,891
    In the end, yes. But during the heyday of the mortgage backed security, they were making a ton of money. The market in credit default swaps alone was over 60 _trillion_ dollars - and banks were making a lot of money off that money stream. (Note that in 2007, the GDP of the entire world was only 57 trillion.)
    Did you mean "couldn't?"
    Some of them were. Most were not.
     
  22. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,513
    I know its not PC to say... but youv'e just given a clear example of flawed character.!!!
    They dont... but i bet they have 200 channels of cable TV an the latest phone.!!!
    Clearly... they Just Dont Care.!!!
     
  23. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,455
    No, I'm defending the people who "had no money to lose" --- or to invest or to save - and never will have, because they're bled dry by the money-lenders.
    I'm advocating a tax structure that reflects the real economoc relationship of individuals to their society.
    So what? You were talking about a "middle class" that's undefined. It could include or exclude very large numbers of people by interpretation. Middle between what and which? "Middle" in terms of income, education, occupation, self-designation, property..?
    As for banks losing money... Ohhh - the poor dears!
    How many top bank executives lost their homes?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019

Share This Page