- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,442
- Reaction score
- 10,497
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
do you know what the implications would be if the top one percent had not become wealthier?
I will tell you why I get wealthier-I don't spend as much as I make and I invest what I don't spend. IF I were not getting wealthier it would mean either
1) my costs of living dramatically increased
2) investments were losing money
so tell us what would that mean for the middle classes
your constant class envy nonsense is worthless. The guys who started google or someone like Jerry Bruckheimer are making what they have. they are creating wealth for others as well
3) You are paying enough in taxes to create a wealth equalibrium.
What does this mean to the middle class? Well if you stopped getting wealther, then they would have a shot at acquring the wealth that you used to acqure (like maybe they could get your high paying job), or at least they could pay less in taxes. don't take this personal, but you really arn't that special just because you were raised with a silver spoon. Now stop your class hatrid for those who you feel are less worthy than yourself. You could take the average middle class joe, give him the lifetime advantages that you had (the fancy private boarding school, Ivey League College, financial inheritance, social inheritance, etc) and he would likely be just as successful as you are.
It would actually be an interesting experiment. You could adopt a newborn child, and raise him as you were raised (including the inheritance), and see if he ends of being like the slackers that he was born from, or successful like yourself.
Last edited: