The Cellar - We're all in this together!

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - We're all in this together! (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27267)

YW - PhD eh .... We'll have to call you Dr. soon enough.

Your timing sounds perfect too - the job market should start picking up in 4-6 years too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 809587)

Cool, define it. TO date no one can do it.

???

Of course no one can define 'wealthy' because it is entirely subjective. It means something completely different to a middle class American, lower class American, and piss poor Somali. Yet, you can't just use that to justify throwing away tax brackets all together (or whatever point you are trying to make).

What is your overall point BTW?

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

YW - PhD eh .... We'll have to call you Dr. soon enough.

I've already "allowed" my friends and family to call me Doctor. None have taken up on the offer yet. Not sure why.... :(

Quote:

Your timing sounds perfect too - the job market should start picking up in 4-6 years too.

Yeah. It largely depends on the field. I wasn't in a good position two years ago (Structural engineering was shit) but my goal is to make myself marketable enough that I will get a job no matter how bad the economy is doing.

We're all in this together!

this totally reminds me of someone... someone... hm...

Attachment 38529

Rich/Wealthy, is making/having enough money to take advantage of the myriad of loopholes and shelters in the tax code.

That cartoon is brillliant V :)

merc, I don't know exactly how wealthy and poor should be defined. But in the UK we have a recognised 'poverty line'. If you're income is at or below that line, you are officially 'poor'.

This is the official definition of poor:

Quote:

Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities, and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong

Quote:

The UK government recognises the importance of a relative approach to poverty. It currently uses a variety of proxies as measures. The most commonly used measure (the ‘headline’ measure usually reported) treats poverty incomes as a percentage of median disposable income.

Quote:

The UK government’s poverty line is where household income is below 60 per cent of the median UK household income, before and after housing costs have been paid. [source]

The median household income is the amount where half of all households have incomes more than this and half have less. The main poverty measure counts the number of people living in low-income households, below 60% of the median. Below this amount a household and its members are described as living in income poverty. The poverty line is adjusted to take into account how expenditure needs differ between people and types of households (equivalisation).

Quote:

This is not the only poverty measure the government uses. The Child Poverty Act 2010 requires the government to report to Parliament on progress towards child poverty reduction targets for 2020. The Act states that the number of children living in households in poverty should be measured in four different ways
■ Income poverty alone: households with incomes below 60% median household incomes;
■ A combined measure of low income and deprivation: household income poverty below 70% median household incomes, combined with a measure of material deprivation;
■ A constant measure holding the purchasing power of incomes constant: households with incomes below the cash value in real terms of the 60% median level in 2010.
■ A persistent measure of income poverty: households whose income was below the 60% median level in three of the previous four years.

This then is what qualifies as 'poor' in my country:

Quote:

Single person, no children household weekly income of £124

Couple with no children - £214

Lone parent with two children (aged 5 and 14) - £256

Couple with two children (aged 5 and 14) - £346

http://www.cpag.org.uk/povertyfacts/index.htm

So, what is 'wealthy'?

Well, in our tax codes, those with earnings above £150,000 per annum are in the highest tax bracket. For tax purposes they are wealthy. There are, however, gradations of wealth, and we also recognise the 'superwealthy'.

Personally, I don't consider £150k per anum 'wealthy' unless is is coupled with a personal 'fortune' and valuable property.

But that's one of the problems really. because the 'wealthy' seldom count their wealth by earnings alone. Unlike the 'poor'. their annual earnings represent only a portion of their actual income/wealth. For the poor, there are only wages. And those wages are taxed as they are earned, and again as they are spent.

For the affluent, with property, investments, shares and a bank balance with lots of zeros, tax works very differently. The money they earn and which is taxed when they earn and when they spend is not the whole of their finances. And the bulk of their wealth is taxed very differently from annual income.

The tax codes recognise poor and rich. My government has cut taxes to the highest earners, whilst stripping away benefits from people living below, on, and just above the official poverty line.

An interesting documentary following the lives of four children living below the poverty line in modern Britain. As the voice over tells us, they speak for the 3.5 million children living in poverty here today.

One of the things that angers me is the disparity in cost of living on basic needs. It isn't just that the poor can only afford the worst of everything, and sometimes not even that. It's the fact that everything is less value for money. The damp in t he house that wrecks your clothes, and means you have to replace them sooner. The cost of electricity and gas for your home costs more if you are so poor that you pay through metering. You pay more, for less. You don't get any of the savings that come from being able to py regularly, upfront through direct debit. You don't get the savings that come from being able to invest, up front, the purchase cost for your television, your friedge or your washing machine. These things are only available on credit, and the only credit that will touch these people with a ten foot barge pole, is the high interest variety.

Everywhich way.

The rich have loopholes, the poor have potholes.

I think the attitude of, "Fuck you, I don't care if you live or die, I got mine" borders on sociopathic.

It's not just greed and it's not jealousy.

It's the utter lack of empathy and appreciation for the community within which we live. It's the narrow minded view that the wealthy person got where they did without a lick of help from anyone, that they don't owe anyone anything, and that the less fortunate are not their problem. It's arrogance and snobbishness (amazingly, many of the poor have this same pathetic attitude).

I wrote the above, then found the below article, which says what I was trying to say, but better:

Quote:

A fat, smug bastard friend of mine (that’s his chosen nickname, The FSB) pointed out to me some time ago that pretty much ALL conservative politics are selfish at their core. Take any conservative position on a social or economic issue and boil away all the rhetoric and what you are left with is “I got mine, screw you.”

I thought about that for a while. I suppose its simplicity struck me as being a little too easy, a little too sound bitey. So I sat down and made a list:

•No gay marriage – Homosexuality makes me uncomfortable (due to misguided religious influence or poor upbringing or both) so gay people should be punished because of my beliefs. Stoopid homos…
•No welfare, food stamps or Medicaid – I’m not poor enough to qualify for these programs so my tax dollars shouldn’t pay for it. Stoopid poor people and by poor I really mean black…
•No health care reform – Why should I help pay for other people who are sick when I’m not? Stoopid sick people…
•No environmental protection – Environmental laws makes things more expensive for me and that’s bad. I also don’t understand the concept of long term impact; I want cheap gas and gadgets now! Stoopid…ah, you get the idea…
•Don’t raise my taxes – EVER. The government can find its own money to pay for stuff.
•Medicare – Young conservatives: Why should I help pay for old people and the disabled? Older conservatives: Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
•Social Security – Young conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made, people should take care of themselves, not depend on handouts from people like me. Older conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made BUT DON’T YOU TOUCH MY SOCIAL SECURITY!
•No abortion – The government should tell women what to do with their bodies because I don’t like abortion.
•No prayer in school? – GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!! I like The Jesus™ so everyone should have to listen to my prayers. No Muslim prayers, though. That’s indoctrination.

~~

Dictionary.com defines a sociopath as: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

~~

Ayn Rand’s specific worldview was that “The pursuit of his (man’s) own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”[i] This is in direct opposition to a functional humane society where the whole must be cohesive in order to provide for its weakest and most vulnerable. You’ll notice my inclusion of the word “humane”. You can have a perfectly functional society without a shred of humanity in it.

~~

As wealth and power becomes ever more concentrated, the rest of us suffer. Any attempts to remedy the situation by imposing restrictions on the rich and powerful to keep them from fleecing the country is met with howls of class warfare, Socialism and government overreach. Any attempts to remove any of the sweetheart deals in place allowing those same anti-government rich and powerful to pay less taxes (or no taxes at all) or to reap billions in unnecessary subsidies are also met with howls of unfair treatment.

Now that’s what I call having your cake and eating it, too.

These people are sociopaths, pure and simple. As long as they get what they “deserve”, it doesn’t matter what happens to anyone else. Homeless families are not their problem. Malnourished children are not their problem. Uninsured sick people are not their problem. The elderly reduced to abject poverty (as they were before the advent of Social Security) are not their problem.

~~

Mahatma Ghandi said a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable.

~~

Based on that last sentence, our society is immoral and sociopathic. And becoming more so by the day.

Note: ~~ = sections of article removed for brevity.

Sciopathic society

Also, who decides what wealth is? I think that people who are truly rich know that they are wealthy.

Personally, I find it immeasurably insulting and enraging that the wealthy continue to stack the deck in their favor at the expense of those who are not wealthy. I'm all for doing the best you can, and living with what you've accomplished, just as long as we are all playing by the same fucking rules.

Maybe they aren't sociopathic and you just don't understand their positions?

Oh, I think we understand where they stand.

Oh yes. I understand perfectly where they stand.

Are we talking about the top 1% or conservatives in general? Either way, calling them all sociopaths is a clear lack of understanding.

I remember very clearly, Margeret Thatcher, the doyenne of British conservative politics, and still the beating heart of the party in terms of its political views, telling us that: 'There is no such thing as society'

That is a sociopathic political stance.

What I actually said was that this attitude "borders on sociopathic"...the, I got mine, screw you, attitude.

Yeah. Trying to argue that they're literally all sociopaths is obviously false. Arguing that their worldview and policy positions take a stance that fundamentally sociopathically disregards the suffering of others - strangers - is one that, whether you agree or not, is logically sound.

Right, and we weren't talking about the Joe Bob with a Job family down the street who have an inground pool.

At least I wasn't: I mean the "have to get more more more more more and don't care about your less less less less less." It's a sickness, and it's detrimental to more than just the sickie.

But those who consider themselves 1% (though really only the 40 or 50%, which is pretty funny) love to twist it around that we're all envious of Joe Bob with a Job for having that pool.

How's that twisty-turny Thing working Out for you, merc?