Define Middle Class

[Khendraja'aro]

So it's 40% luck?

This gets us nowhere. We can both pull numbers out of our asses on how the evil rich get their money.

Still sounds like envy to me.

Geeze, man, that analogy clearly went over your head. I'll come back when you switch on your brain, okay?

[Veldan Rath]

Geeze, man, that analogy clearly went over your head. I'll come back when you switch on your brain, okay?

I got your point, I just found it as useless as the majority of your posts. But you obviously missed mine. Come back when you find a brain.

[Nessus]

Still sounds like envy to me.

Really? Are you making a statistical argument, or is it impossible to have pro wealth distribution (substitute pinko librl if it helps) views while non-rich without envy being the motive? Also, it seems like a case of the rock and the hard place; if you're not rich and criticize rich people, you're envious, and if you're rich and criticize rich people you're a champagne socialist.

[Loki]

How is criticizing rich people on the sole ground that they rich any better than attacking poor people for being poor?

[Nessus]

The poor aren't sitting on resources, so criticizing them is pointless, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

[Loki]

The poor aren't sitting on resources, so criticizing them is pointless, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

So anyone who's rich should promptly give away their money? Or people shouldn't strive to be rich in the first place?

[Nessus]

So anyone who's rich should promptly give away their money? Or people shouldn't strive to be rich in the first place?

Loki, Loki, Loki.

I am not very interested in answering loaded, biased questions you pose in order to create an appearance that your position is correct by virtue of you setting up straw-men for me to pummel. We both know it isn't as simple as that and I don't really see your angle here.

[Loki]

Loki, Loki, Loki.

I am not very interested in answering loaded, biased questions you pose in order to create an appearance that your position is correct by virtue of you setting up straw-men for me to pummel. We both know it isn't as simple as that and I don't really see your angle here.

We both know that you're attacking people for purely having wealth. You're not attacking them for misusing that wealth. I'm trying to understand why someone would take that position.

[Nessus]

I must protest; I do not know that. Perhaps you can dissolve some of this infernal opaqueness hindering the flow of conversation?

[']['ear]

So...EARNING a million a year is just being LUCKY?

Loki alt identity? Intentionally distorting somebody's post is pretty dickish, y'know. For exaample:

So anyone who's rich should promptly give away their money? Or people shouldn't strive to be rich in the first place?

[earthJoker]

Nor can it be all explained with luck.

No? Luck as in, things you couldn't influence yourself? So it's all just one's own decisions and actions. We have to ask ourselves how much self-decision there is anyway.

I also wouldn't call a 1 million a year to be ultra rich.

Explain how someone works 10-50 times harder than someone that already is in the upper middle class. (~150% of the median).

[']['ear]

Explain how corporate CEOs in the 50s could make at most 10-20 times the salary of their lowest paid employee, and now can make over a thousand times as much. It's not a matter of due reward for more talent and hard work (50s), but the game being rigged (00s).

[earthJoker]

Do you ask me? Because it seems that you actually supporting my point...

[Nessus]

He is. I think we need red and white badges in this joint.

[GGT]

Well WTF happened to this thread? If you guys are gonna fight about wealth, the least you could do is define THAT.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I think we all agree that poor is going to be anyone that has to financially live day to day and below. Middle class are people that have resources beyond necessity all the way up to gaining special social privileges. Upper class is all VIP's and up. Is that the best definition no... We could go by percentile of left over annual income area by area to determine what percent cuts offs reasonably qualify for each bracket (that's best for tax purposes), if the areas are similar enough we could treat them as one area. How much above you live beyond neccessity is really where we have to determine cut offs.

[Nessus]

Well WTF happened to this thread? If you guys are gonna fight about wealth, the least you could do is define THAT.

But that gets in the way of all the emotional arguments from the fucking right; everyone is envious and greedy and if they don't wanna be where they are then WORK or FUCK YOU and so forth. Definitions are for ivory tower elitist lubrl ass-holes. That's nowhere near true Americana!

[GGT]

So this thread was a bad idea, huh. People really wanted to fight about what middle class means, in other threads, but not really define it?

[Veldan Rath]

But that gets in the way of all the emotional arguments from the fucking right; everyone is envious and greedy and if they don't wanna be where they are then WORK or FUCK YOU and so forth. Definitions are for ivory tower elitist lubrl ass-holes. That's nowhere near true Americana!

Oh jesus...yes there only emotional emotional arguments from the other side that does not agree with you. You are just as an emotional juvenile as those you accuse of being such. And I'm sure you will then retreat to the No One Should Take Ness Seriously posts...if that was the case then why do the fuck do you bother posting in D&D?

Wealth Redistribution is at it's heart a form of envy (even if only by proxy). A has something, B does not. So either B wants it or C decides he knows best and petitions Government D to take A's stuff. In the name of fairness. Really? And the way they justify this 'logic' is that the wealthy were just lucky, so the should have it anyway. Tear is actually one of sane ones in that he keeps referencing that when he looks at the figures that it appears that they are paying less in percentage than the 'middle class' and that is a rational argument.

I understand that there is a need for taxes, everyone does, no mater how much crazy some posters here want to paint on us for being anarchists.

[Veldan Rath]

So this thread was a bad idea, huh. People really wanted to fight about what middle class means, in other threads, but not really define it?

I tried to...but then got caught up in the other...stuff.

[Nessus]

...if that was the case then why do the fuck do you bother posting in D&D?

There's a question for the fucking ages, isn't it

Maybe because ostensibly sane people looking down on the loonie-bin-candidates make proud proclamations about everyone left hating on the rich out of envy isn't conductive to a reasonable discussion? No, that's not it, must be poor behaviour and oh let's reference recent forum drama to spice up the argument. You're congress material and no doubts

[GGT]

I tried to...but then got caught up in the other...stuff.

And I asked a couple of questions to your definitions.

(and what's YMMV mean?)

[Veldan Rath]

And I asked a couple of questions to your definitions.

(and what's YMMV mean?)

Dang it, Post Monster ate my answer.

Your Mileage May Vary.

You really didn't ask about my definitions, but about how cant he fed deal with COL etc.

And my short answer is that it can't. The Fed is one big honking monster and it has trouble dealing with these details as you have 538 morons fucking with it every chance they get.

My answer has been for several years...a consumption tax.

[GGT]

My answer has been for several years...a consumption tax.

On everything, including food? We've discussed that before, too. That kind of tax hurts the poor and lower middle class. Back to definitions of categories.....


edit: I also don't think taxes necessarily means 'wealth redistribution' in a negative sense, or even 'wealth envy by proxy'.

As Nessie said, you can't bleed a stone, but we still have to pay for roads, police, fire, schools, and people who work those sectors. In our society we don't withhold those things from the poor because they can't pay. That's why we end up in arguments about privatization vs public. There's a reason why a large number of Americans don't pay federal income taxes.....they are either poor or barely lower middle class.

[Veldan Rath]

On everything, including food? We've discussed that before, too. That kind of tax hurts the poor and lower middle class. Back to definitions of categories.....


edit: I also don't think taxes necessarily means 'wealth redistribution' in a negative sense, or even 'wealth envy by proxy'.

As Nessie said, you can't bleed a stone, but we still have to pay for roads, police, fire, schools, and people who work those sectors. In our society we don't withhold those things from the poor because they can't pay. That's why we end up in arguments about privatization vs public. There's a reason why a large number of Americans don't pay federal income taxes.....they are either poor or barely lower middle class.

Yes on everything including food. And there were already provisions discussed on how to make the tax not regressive. (Prebates)

I never said taxes were wealth redistribution. I said that Wealth Redistribution is at it's heart, envy. We need taxes. And everyone should pay (and of course those that don't have $$$ can't pay) that can. But just because Bill makes gobs more money than I do does not mean he should pay a higher percentage of his income just because some mooyak thinks it 'fair' or because he doesn't deserve his $$$ becasue he got it because he was lucky.

GGT, when someone says that, how does that NOT sound like envy?

[GGT]

I think he meant 'fortunate' when using the word 'lucky'. And we always go 'round and 'round with whose paying a higher % of their income in taxes, because our tax system does benefit the wealthy (Buffet for example).

Assuming we had this federal consumption tax on everything, including food....we'd still have to decide who'd get those prebates. Any way we look at it, there have to be definitions of poor / middle class / affluent. 25% qualifying as poor would mean a lot of prebates.

[Lewkowski]

Yes, that argument also works for Poker. "It's 60% skill and 40% luck!"

Yeah, right. Something which is largely defined by luck (and 40% is a large percentage) is still a game of luck. Unlike, for example, chess.

Yes but to succeed over and over again making it to the final tables after tournament after tournament you start to see that the game is of skill. Sure any one hand can be decided by luck but the game is ultimately one of skill.

[earthJoker]

So this thread was a bad idea, huh. People really wanted to fight about what middle class means, in other threads, but not really define it?

I am happy with my definition

[Veldan Rath]

I think he meant 'fortunate' when using the word 'lucky'. And we always go 'round and 'round with whose paying a higher % of their income in taxes, because our tax system does benefit the wealthy (Buffet for example).

Assuming we had this federal consumption tax on everything, including food....we'd still have to decide who'd get those prebates. Any way we look at it, there have to be definitions of poor / middle class / affluent. 25% qualifying as poor would mean a lot of prebates.

Every head of household gets the prebates. Read the Fair Tax book. The prebates are to cover the basic nessities of life... a family of 4 gets around $559.00 a month.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/2009FairT...teSchedule.pdf

[earthJoker]

Wealth Redistribution is at it's heart a form of envy (even if only by proxy).

You make it very easy for yourself this way. You simply only accept one reason for your opponents claim, and then just argue against that. I tell you that this simply wont work, people have other reasons and you those reasons and arguments won't go away by simply ignoring them.
But of course, if it makes you sleep better at night, believe what you want.