The rental prices around here are not $800 a month, not anywhere close.
My townhouse, before I bought this house, was in a nice neighborhood and I paid $625 for it, that was high for my area.
This is literally one of the best times in history to purchase a home, $800 a month is not the gold standard.
My phone is $50 a month, I use a cell instead of a wired line, much more economical.
Tv and internet is $50-60 a month.
Electricity fluctuates but averages to around $150 or so.
The cost of living here is lower than the area you are quoting as average.
If you live in an area where you find it to costly to make ends meet, it may be time to move to an area where you can.
That's just basic common sense.
Some of those distinctions are ridiculous and shouldn't have been included.
Luck is based on some quasi religious belief in mystical forces.
Chance is randomness in the universe.
I'm not taking credit for any of those, but your likely to find, as I pointed out with that chart, that most people have problems with money because they handle money like idiots.
These programs are not creating any incentive for people to have personal financial soundness.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
This misses the point entirely, for two reasons:Originally Posted by fredmertz
1) If I'm one of the landowners, I'll just agree with the others like me to pay wages such that no one, or hardly anyone, ever has an opportunity in reality to buy any land (land, here, just meaning anything that allows someone to become wealthy purely on their own labor). The opportunity exists, but only on paper. In reality, the opportunity is quite slim.
I happen to know, because I was once one of those who was a "landowner" in this context, and such collusion was commonplace, and completely untraceable. I quit and gave up much of my wealth to do something that would actually help people.
2) In this society, even if someone could buy land, they'd very likely not be solely responsible for whatever we produced from it. We're simply too intertwined and interconnected to think otherwise.
Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think your reply is really just a red herring. The question isn't whether someone has the opportunity to become wealthy themselves (though certainly, my earlier remarks would still apply to that question). The question is whether those who currently are really owe their wealth to their own labor, or to the support system of society. I think both conceptually, and empirically, we could easily say it's rather more to the latter than the former. Just one simple point ought to suffice to show this: are the wealthy people of today any wealthier than the wealthy people of, say, one thousand years ago? I think the clear answer is that they are. The average king in Europe or the Middle East or North Africa lived a lifestyle that would be considered horrid by today's standards. The wealth of someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett couldn't even have been conceived by such as William the First or Ivan the Terrible (who were surely the wealthiest of men for their time).Originally Posted by fredmertz
Now, is it the case that the wealthy have become personally that much better at extracting wealth? If we were to transport Bill Gates or Warren Buffett back to 1000 A.D. would they still enjoy the lifestyle they enjoy today? Obviously not. Why not? Clearly, because the social support systems which enable their lifestyles today weren't present at that time.
We should all pay a flat tax on goods and services period. That way even gangsters will be paying their fair share and illegals as well. Just add 10% to any sale in the country on any item or service for the federal government and abolish the IRS. We would save billions a year by eliminating the IRS and the federal government would have to learn to live within a budget. We have to maintain a budget, they should have to as well. It's common sense.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
The rich tend to be rich because they do stuff others value. In fact the rich benefit society greatly. They also don't use near as many government services as they pay in federal taxes.
Warren is scum. another rich elitist power hungry turd who panders to people like you and engages in class warfare so she can become even richer. She seduces suckers who think she really cares about the untalented.
It's funny to me, the idea of "they deserve" vs. "they're lucky" or whatever. I think we should start considering taking people's kids if they have extra to give to those who don't have any. Maybe we could cut some height off of anyone who's over 5'10" and give it to people who are 5'6" or less. How about limit the amount of time "the rich" can spend outdoors? Afterall, they have money, why should they have sunlight, too? I think if you live too long, someone should injure you severely - I mean, what's the deal with being soooo healthy when I've been sick a lot in my life? I'd like to limit the amount of time people can exercise because I'm out of shape and it makes me feel bad.
The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.
Taxed more in quantity? Yes. Taxes at a higher rate? No.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates