Irrational 1% Jealousy

[J603]

Long quote

It's true that all of those people did have a lot to give away, but if you had billions of dollars, would you want to part with it? Also, if I remember correctly, Bill Gates convinced dozens of the richest people in the world to give away half of their fortunes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

Would you give away half of your money? No, of course not. Not all of the 1% are greedy money hoarders. 50% is much more than anyone would agree to be taxed... And this was 50% of their total wealth.

In all honesty, it's hard for me to think in terms of having or giving away billions -- i never had that much money, and don't personally know anyone worth more than ~45 mil.  What's more, i'm not even sure that i'm a nice guy -- certainly not an ideal for others to aspire to  So the answer is a definite "maybe."

I'm betting that when you say "of course not," you're simply not scaling correctly.  To put things into terms plebes like us could comprehend, imagine sitting at a diner with a crate of 100 toasted English muffins next to your cup of coffee when 50 starving people walk in.  Would you give up half of those hot buttery English muffins to feed 50 total strangers?  I would, though i like English muffins

If those English muffins were the only food I had, then no, I would probably not give away half of them. Maybe 25%, and even then that's a stretch if that was the food I had. Maybe they could have my coffee though, since I don't like coffee anyways.

But you don't have to think in terms of billions, millions, or muffins. Take whatever you have now, and imagine giving away half of it. Whether you have one thousand or one million dollars you can now only afford half of the things you could before. Your house can only be half as big, you can only buy half as much gas, half as much groceries, etc. You don't have to make up analogies because you can contribute the exact same amount as Gates: he didn't ask for 1 billion dollars, he asked for 50%. If you donate 50% of what you have right now, then you're equal to Gates in terms of charity.

Now, for you me and me, this is a big thing to do because I doubt either one of us could "afford" to give away our money. But much like Bill Gates isn't going to go hungry after donating, you and I wouldn't either. There are plenty of people who live on far less than you or I and make it along fine. Technically, we could survive, even if our lives are half as good. I think that it's still very generous of the people mentioned in that fund to give away half of their money, regardless of how much they have.

[crumbs]

I see some people are still making the mistake of thinking that when someone has $10billion, they have that as just bags of money sitting in a pile somewhere.

Ahh, the ever-popular "some people" defence.  Who?  I certainly don't think of it in terms of piles.  Learn to logic.

A better analogy would be you sitting at a diner with a machine that is worth 100 muffins that makes English muffins at a rate of 18 an hour (3 every ten minute), and which only you know how to operate.

ORLY?  My analogy is fine by me, your analogy is some weird furlogic.  

If you had 50 starving people walk in, you could only feed 18 of them every hour. If you just give them your machine, then you have nothing, and they have no muffins because they don't know how to operate the machine.

There is no machine.  There is a crate of delicious muffins.  Work with what i gave you, or don't bother replying.

Owning lots of money (even if just cash) is also similar to owning a machine:

To a blind horse.

if you don't know how to operate that money, all you'll have is that money (like having a muffin machine without knowing how to use it), which you can at most just keep trading for something until it's gone. On the other hand, someone who knows how to operate the money will be able to keep making (creating) more and more. That's really the main difference between rich and poor - rich know how to operate the money to make more of it, while poor only know how to spend it.

In that case, the FED sure knows how to operate money.  Long live the printing press.
And the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of money held by each.  Stop being stupid.

Good example of this is the so-called "Millionaire's Curse," where lottery winners who win millions of dollars often soon find themselves even more broke, destitute, and in debt than they were before they won the lottery.

If you ever win the lottery, send the $$ to me.  Problem solved.

[NewLiberty]

Matched by Warren Buffet (who is leaving less than 1/10000th of his wealth to his heirs and the rest to charity).

You don't know how inheritance works, do you?     No matter, help me with my math:  Would 1/10000th of 60 billion dollars make me a pauper?

I do.  The Buffet endowment is premortem.  Is your goal that all ought be paupers?  
He paid for his kid's educations, + they get about US$1mil.
So if they are going to be jet-set, they have to earn that on their own.
He lives a relatively modest life himself as well.

No matter how many times i hear this argument, it never loses its freshness or fails to entertain.  If your logic works for the rich, it works equally well for taxes:  let the government tax the shit out of you, and in return you'll get some of it back in "charities" like better roads, schools, libraries & aht mooseums.

You are entertaining me as well.  Visit a library yourself, and you might have learned that most of the libraries in the US are not from taxes, but from private donation (Carnegie did the most there).  Most of the best Museums also bear the names of their endowing patron.  (Getty, Ahmanson, Smithsonian, etc).

Your Government tax and spend preference is the more wasteful means of redistribution and creates the most corruption, the difference is not small.  It is not "equally well" at all.
They can't take it with them anyhow, and most of the US super-rich prefer to use a more reasoned method of redistribution rather than shift the decision-making to politicians that must seek re-election through special interest funded advertising spending.  They skip your middlemen and end up doing more good, voluntarily.
The US does not have the tradition of honoring the Aristocracy in the same way as other geographies.  The Marx model and class jealousy is a poor match for contemporary US.  It was born in the industrial revolution and tied closely to that historical period's particularly odd changes.

[crumbs]

Long quote

It's true that all of those people did have a lot to give away, but if you had billions of dollars, would you want to part with it? Also, if I remember correctly, Bill Gates convinced dozens of the richest people in the world to give away half of their fortunes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

Would you give away half of your money? No, of course not. Not all of the 1% are greedy money hoarders. 50% is much more than anyone would agree to be taxed... And this was 50% of their total wealth.

In all honesty, it's hard for me to think in terms of having or giving away billions -- i never had that much money, and don't personally know anyone worth more than ~45 mil.  What's more, i'm not even sure that i'm a nice guy -- certainly not an ideal for others to aspire to  So the answer is a definite "maybe."

I'm betting that when you say "of course not," you're simply not scaling correctly.  To put things into terms plebes like us could comprehend, imagine sitting at a diner with a crate of 100 toasted English muffins next to your cup of coffee when 50 starving people walk in.  Would you give up half of those hot buttery English muffins to feed 50 total strangers?  I would, though i like English muffins

If those English muffins were the only food I had, then no, I would probably not give away half of them. Maybe 25%, and even then that's a stretch if that was the food I had. Maybe they could have my coffee though, since I don't like coffee anyways.

I won't call you greedy, but you may not be cautious or wise.  The 50 hungry guys might do more than simply look longingly at your delicious English muffins.

But you don't have to think in terms of billions, millions, or muffins. Take whatever you have now, and imagine giving away half of it. Whether you have one thousand or one million dollars you can now only afford half of the things you could before.

That's why i said that your problem is scaling -- assuming that having $1 Trillion is just like having a dollar, only better  It's not, and that's why i offered the muffin example.
The law of diminishing returns applies to money, too.  When you have $100k to play with, and you gave away half of it, you can no longer buy the car you want, for instance.  When you have billions of dollars, that's no longer the case -- you can no more spend all your money than eat all the muffins before they spoil.  Sure, you may not be able to afford as many islands or corporations, but that's like arguing that you may want to gorge yourself on the muffins & throw up at the vomitorium.  Things don't scale well

Your house can only be half as big, you can only buy half as much gas, half as much groceries, etc. You don't have to make up analogies because you can contribute the exact same amount as Gates: he didn't ask for 1 billion dollars, he asked for 50%. If you donate 50% of what you have right now, then you're equal to Gates in terms of charity.

If a woman making minimum wage gives 50% to charity, she and her child starve to death.  If Bill gives half of his wealth to charity, only his accountant will know the difference.  See?

Now, for you me and me, this is a big thing to do because I doubt either one of us could "afford" to give away our money. But much like Bill Gates isn't going to go hungry after donating, you and I wouldn't either. There are plenty of people who live on far less than you or I and make it along fine. Technically, we could survive, even if our lives are half as good. I think that it's still very generous of the people mentioned in that fund to give away half of their money, regardless of how much they have.

As i said, i'm not an ideal to aspire to, though please understand that ... see the mother example above.

[crumbs]

Matched by Warren Buffet (who is leaving less than 1/10000th of his wealth to his heirs and the rest to charity).

You don't know how inheritance works, do you?    No matter, help me with my math:  Would 1/10000th of 60 billion dollars make me a pauper?

I do.  The Buffet endowment is premortem.  Is your goal that all ought be paupers?

No.  According to you, that was Andrew Carnegie's goal.  He failed.  A great man, nonetheless.  B+ for trying.

 
He paid for his kid's educations, + they get about US$1mil.
So if they are going to be jet-set, they have to earn that on their own.
He lives a relatively modest life himself as well.

Either you do not know how inheritance works, or you assume that i do not.  The goal, my friend, is to pass on much while, on paper, appearing to pass on nothing.  In his case, nothing is not plausible, so he *claims* that he's *planning* to leave the minimum creditable amount.

No matter how many times i hear this argument, it never loses its freshness or fails to entertain.  If your logic works for the rich, it works equally well for taxes:  let the government tax the shit out of you, and in return you'll get some of it back in "charities" like better roads, schools, libraries & aht mooseums.

You are entertaining me as well.  Visit a library yourself, and you might have learned that most of the libraries in the US are not from taxes, but from private donation (Carnegie did the most there).  Most of the best Museums also bear the names of their endowing patron.  (Getty, Ahmanson, Smithsonian, etc).

Your Government tax and spend preference is the more wasteful means of redistribution and creates the most corruption, the difference is not small.  It is not "equally well" at all.
They can't take it with them anyhow, and most of the US super-rich prefer to use a more reasoned method of redistribution rather than shift the decision-making to politicians that must seek re-election through special interest funded advertising spending.  They skip your middlemen and end up doing more good, voluntarily.
The US does not have the tradition of honoring the Aristocracy in the same way as other geographies.  The Marx model and class jealousy is a poor match for contemporary US.  It was born in the industrial revolution and tied closely to that historical period's particularly odd changes.

I'm sorry, but i'm not interested in having the same discussion for the Nth time -- i'm sure you'll regale me with tales of kindly, wise & charitable rich, and stupid & wastefull governments, amirite?

[Anon136]

Andrew Carnegie's ... A great man

hey we agree on something

[crumbs]

Andrew Carnegie's ... A great man

hey we agree on something

Yaaay!

[J603]

I won't call you greedy, but you may not be cautious or wise.  The 50 hungry guys might do more than simply look longingly at your delicious English muffins.

I doubt Bill Gates has much to fear from the muffin-hungry masses. After all, he chose to start this fund. No one forced him to, and if they tried I doubt they would have a very easy time.

That's why i said that your problem is scaling -- assuming that having $1 Trillion is just like having a dollar, only better  It's not, and that's why i offered the muffin example.
The law of diminishing returns applies to money, too.  When you have $100k to play with, and you gave away half of it, you can no longer buy the car you want, for instance.  When you have billions of dollars, that's no longer the case -- you can no more spend all your money than eat all the muffins before they spoil.  Sure, you may not be able to afford as many islands or corporations, but that's like arguing that you may want to gorge yourself on the muffins & throw up at the vomitorium.  Things don't scale well

If a woman making minimum wage gives 50% to charity, she and her child starve to death.  If Bill gives half of his wealth to charity, only his accountant will know the difference.  See?

While it's true that Gates could just decide to live a "normal" life, that's some high expectations for anyone. I'm sure that there was a drastic change when he got rid of half of his money, even if to us it seems like he would be incredibly happy either way. If I had billions of dollars I wouldn't want to give it away, at least while I was alive.

And also, I make almost minimum wage and I would still be able to live even if I cut my money in half. Even those who live paycheck to paycheck would still be fine, as even if they have one dollar saved up all they have to give is 50 cents. It's all about using your money wisely, and investing in the right things (bitcoins for example).

As i said, i'm not an ideal to aspire to, though please understand that ... see the mother example above.

You can say that but it isn't much of an excuse. You can't criticize people for doing something that you yourself aren't willing to do. Although maybe you didn't criticize them, because we've gone back and forth for a while and I forgot the original post that was quoted.

[crumbs]

I won't call you greedy, but you may not be cautious or wise.  The 50 hungry guys might do more than simply look longingly at your delicious English muffins.

I doubt Bill Gates has much to fear from the muffin-hungry masses. After all, he chose to start this fund. No one forced him to, and if they tried I doubt they would have a very easy time.

You could be right, and Bill could be a genuinely nice guy.  I do not know him personally, and figuring out why or what he has donated would require a team of accountants & business law experts.

That's why i said that your problem is scaling -- assuming that having $1 Trillion is just like having a dollar, only better  It's not, and that's why i offered the muffin example.
The law of diminishing returns applies to money, too.  When you have $100k to play with, and you gave away half of it, you can no longer buy the car you want, for instance.  When you have billions of dollars, that's no longer the case -- you can no more spend all your money than eat all the muffins before they spoil.  Sure, you may not be able to afford as many islands or corporations, but that's like arguing that you may want to gorge yourself on the muffins & throw up at the vomitorium.  Things don't scale well

If a woman making minimum wage gives 50% to charity, she and her child starve to death.  If Bill gives half of his wealth to charity, only his accountant will know the difference.  See?

While it's true that Gates could just decide to live a "normal" life, that's some high expectations for anyone. I'm sure that there was a drastic change when he got rid of half of his money, even if to us it seems like he would be incredibly happy either way. If I had billions of dollars I wouldn't want to give it away, at least while I was alive.

Other than showing that it's possible that Bill is a nicer guy than you, what else are you trying to show?  Certainly not that giving away half of one's money is the same hardship to minimum-wage mom (Death) & Bill (having to look at less pleasant financials)?

And also, I make almost minimum wage and I would still be able to live even if I cut my money in half.

Are you going to try?  You understand that's not the (realistic & plausible) scenario i've presented, right?

Even those who live paycheck to paycheck would still be fine, as even if they have one dollar saved up all they have to give is 50 cents. It's all about using your money wisely, and investing in the right things (bitcoins for example).

I'm not suggesting that surviving at 50% of US minimal wage is a metaphysical impossibility -- though forget about 1 dollar saved up:  Those losers are neck-deep in debt.  If only they could give half of it away, i'm sure they would

As i said, i'm not an ideal to aspire to, though please understand that ... see the mother example above.

You can say that but it isn't much of an excuse. You can't criticize people for doing something that you yourself aren't willing to do. Although maybe you didn't criticize them, because we've gone back and forth for a while and I forgot the original post that was quoted.

I'm not criticizing anyone -- i'm simply not lionizing them, either.  They're people, just like the poor.  Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them.  The worst i've said about the rich is Christian-style saints are not among them -- if that sort of a saint ever became rich through luck or chance, he would give away *all* of his wealth.  That's all.  If it logically follows that saints could be found only amongst the poor, that's just dumb logic, not i.

[NewLiberty]

Matched by Warren Buffet (who is leaving less than 1/10000th of his wealth to his heirs and the rest to charity).

You don't know how inheritance works, do you?    No matter, help me with my math:  Would 1/10000th of 60 billion dollars make me a pauper?

I do.  The Buffet endowment is premortem.  Is your goal that all ought be paupers?

No.  According to you, that was Andrew Carnegie's goal.  He failed.  A great man, nonetheless.  B+ for trying.

Non-sequitor?  Apropos of nothing.  (Unless you are imagining that I am saying Carnegie was trying to impoverish the nation by endowing libraries Hint:I am not saying that)

He paid for his kid's educations, + they get about US$1mil.
So if they are going to be jet-set, they have to earn that on their own.
He lives a relatively modest life himself as well.

Either you do not know how inheritance works, or you assume that i do not.  The goal, my friend, is to pass on much while, on paper, appearing to pass on nothing.  In his case, nothing is not plausible, so he *claims* that he's *planning* to leave the minimum creditable amount.

Much lower than the minimum creditable amount according to current tax law, in fact.
Your assumption that your goals and his are the same is your error here, you assume invidious motives in him which are not in evidence other than your imagination about how people with more money than you *must* think.
Instead he is less evil than you are, apparently, as it appears were all of these .00001%ers under discussion.  Fascinating.  Have you checked out the Bill and Mel Gates fund and their work?  The same ruthlessness and business acumen that brought his wealth being used to target some of the biggest problems worldwide is a marvel to behold.  As an NGO, they do far more than any government could on these matters.  He is doing it with his own money and his time and energy.  This is how he spends his life, giving and making a difference. 

You keep comparing these people that gained wealth by doing things that the world craved, and then giving back what they made...with people that are less innovative and less energetic and less creative as if they merit the same decision making power (money).   Some folks might image that people who make really good decisions over and over and over, might be better than average at doing that.  Why not let them spend it on doing good... rather than take it at gunpoint, and have the highest bidder for government favor make that decision instead?

[crumbs]

Matched by Warren Buffet (who is leaving less than 1/10000th of his wealth to his heirs and the rest to charity).

You don't know how inheritance works, do you?    No matter, help me with my math:  Would 1/10000th of 60 billion dollars make me a pauper?

I do.  The Buffet endowment is premortem.  Is your goal that all ought be paupers?

No.  According to you, that was Andrew Carnegie's goal.  He failed.  A great man, nonetheless.  B+ for trying.

Non-sequitor?  Apropos of nothing.  (Unless you are imagining that I am saying Carnegie was trying to impoverish the nation by endowing libraries Hint:I am not saying that)

Non-sequiturs are always apropos of nothing, redundant.  This, OTOH, was not a non-sequitur.  Allow me to quote your earlier post:
"Andrew Carnegie, a century ago, declared it disgraceful to die rich."  Unless you're suggesting he was poor (a pauper) when he died, he has died in disgrace.  By his own standards.  I thought it was cruel of you to speak ill of the dead, and called him "a great man nonetheless."

He paid for his kid's educations, + they get about US$1mil.
So if they are going to be jet-set, they have to earn that on their own.
He lives a relatively modest life himself as well.

Either you do not know how inheritance works, or you assume that i do not.  The goal, my friend, is to pass on much while, on paper, appearing to pass on nothing.  In his case, nothing is not plausible, so he *claims* that he's *planning* to leave the minimum creditable amount.

Much lower than the minimum creditable amount according to current tax law, in fact.

I meant credible to humans.  I didn't realize you couldn't legally disinherit your kinfolk

Your assumption that your goals and his are the same is your error here, you assume invidious motives in him which are not in evidence other than your imagination about how people with more money than you *must* think.

Beg your pardon?  I simply pointed out that motives can not be determined from claims that you plan to leave next to nothing to your kin.  He may wish to only leave a mil ea, or he doesn't want the tax man's grubby paws on his monyz.  That's all.  Stop reading bad stuff into everything people say, it's unbecoming.

Instead he is less evil than you are, apparently, as it appears were all of these .00001%ers under discussion.  Fascinating.

I still find the "got your nose" trick more fascinating, but that's just me.

  Have you checked out the Bill and Mel Gates fund and their work?

No, but i have a feeling you'll tell me about it & i'm in for a big surprise.

The same ruthlessness and business acumen that brought his wealth being used to target some of the biggest problems worldwide is a marvel to behold.  As an NGO, they do far more than any government could on these matters.  He is doing it with his own money and his time and energy.  This is how he spends his life, giving and making a difference.

I'll be darned...  Doing more with his money than any government could.  Color me impressed.  You should write to Bill & Mel and see if they could do something about all the taxes you have to pay on your minimum wage.  I'm sure if he finds you a worthwhile cause, he'll help out.
 

You keep comparing these people that gained wealth by doing things that the world craved,

In Bill's case, you're confusing IBM with the world.  IBM wanted a 16-bit OS in a hurry, the world didn't even ask

and then giving back what they made...with people that are less innovative and less energetic and less creative as if they merit the same decision making power (money).

Not quite following, but if you're suggesting that Bill is smarter than minimum-wage mom, i agree 100%.  I just don't think minimum-wage mom should give 50% of what she makes to charity & starve to death.  You obviously think that she should.  To each his own, i suppose.  One less dumb bitch & one less hungry brat -- they didn't support major charities anyhow.

   Some folks might image that people who make really good decisions over and over and over, might be better than average at doing that.  Why not let them spend it on doing good... rather than take it at gunpoint, and have the highest bidder for government favor make that decision instead?

Unless you personally practiced your gun-fu on Bill, i doubt he had many guns pointed at him in his life.  Further, i never heard him bitch about taxation -- that's your gig, stop projecting.

[Rassah]

And the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of money held by each.

They're [the rich] people, just like the poor.  Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them.

God damn you're an idiot...

Did you know that Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, and Sergey Brin started out with approximately the same amount of money as you? Why are they rich and you are poor? And do you honestly think that if you were to take away all their money so that they are as poor as you, that you all will have the same equal chance of becoming rich? Man you're deluded...

[NewLiberty]

Non-sequiturs are always apropos of nothing, redundant.  This, OTOH, was not a non-sequitur.  Allow me to quote your earlier post:
"Andrew Carnegie, a century ago, declared it disgraceful to die rich."  Unless you're suggesting he was poor (a pauper) when he died, he has died in disgrace.  By his own standards.  I thought it was cruel of you to speak ill of the dead, and called him "a great man nonetheless."

I wouldn't call it a failure (nor did I, you did).  He was the richest man on the planet and managed to give away about 95% before sickness over trying to prevent WWI took his life.  He founded over 2500 free libraries, and spent many millions trying to prevent the war.  It was only in this last effort to which he gave his life that he could have been said to have failed, and there are few more noble efforts one could consider.

I meant credible to humans.  I didn't realize you couldn't legally disinherit your kinfolk

I haven't been able to parse this for any meaning.  
What is it you don't realize?  A million isn't enough to keep a fool well fed for their life, but a wise person can do much with it.

I'll be darned...  Doing more with his money than any government could.  Color me impressed.  You should write to Bill & Mel and see if they could do something about all the taxes you have to pay on your minimum wage.  I'm sure if he finds you a worthwhile cause, he'll help out.

People on minimum wage pay tax?  Not income.  You mean sales tax or all the random fees and such?  Minimum wagers get more in EBT than they pay in tax, so probably not high on the crisis list.

Not quite following, but if you're suggesting that Bill is smarter than minimum-wage mom, i agree 100%.  I just don't think minimum-wage mom should give 50% of what she makes to charity & starve to death.  You obviously think that she should.  To each his own, i suppose.  One less dumb bitch & one less hungry brat -- they didn't support major charities anyhow.

You are right about one thing.  You are not following at all.  You keep comparing these people.  Equating them.  I am not.  Min-wage mom vs Billionaire?  They are not the same.  At the risk of redundancy: They do not expect the same of themselves.  Further I am not asking anyone to donate anything or even suggesting that anyone "should", much less the hungry, (though some do anyway).  
All I am doing here is pointing out your ignorance about the generosity of the ultra-rich.  Your stereotypes don't match history.  These people all tell the same story about how after making their money, the second chapter of their life, the philanthropic chapter, is the more rewarding.  Why should it be so surprising that those that can do so much more to help humanity, often do just that?

[crumbs]

Non-sequiturs are always apropos of nothing, redundant.  This, OTOH, was not a non-sequitur.  Allow me to quote your earlier post:
"Andrew Carnegie, a century ago, declared it disgraceful to die rich."  Unless you're suggesting he was poor (a pauper) when he died, he has died in disgrace.  By his own standards.  I thought it was cruel of you to speak ill of the dead, and called him "a great man nonetheless."

I wouldn't call it a failure (nor did I, you did).  He was the richest man on the planet and managed to give away about 95% before sickness over trying to prevent WWI took his life.  He founded over 2500 free libraries, and spent many millions trying to prevent the war.  It was only in this last effort to which he gave his life that he could have been said to have failed, and there are few more noble efforts one could consider.

He's a disgrace by his own standards, what part of "[it is] a disgrace to die rich" don't you understand?  When quoting from "Lives of the Saints Rich" leads to an untenable position, you break into a silly tap dance, in hopes that your fail gets lost in all the commotion.  It doesn't.
"One can consider" many things, though i carefully stick to the edifying factoids you give me.  As far as stereotyping, nowhere in this thread have I stated "All rich are X," while you... I have to quote.  The line is too hideously appalling to type it myself:

"Min-wage mom vs Billionaire?  They are not the same.  At the risk of redundancy: They do not expect the same of themselves."

                         Slaves, too, are not the same as the slaver.  At the risk of redundancy: They do not expect the same of themselves.  

Congrats.  Your reasoning justifies so much more than you have bargained for.  U are winrar!

[crumbs]

And the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of money held by each.

They're [the rich] people, just like the poor.  Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them.

God damn you're an idiot...

Did you know that Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, and Sergey Brin started out with approximately the same amount of money as you? Why are they rich and you are poor? And do you honestly think that if you were to take away all their money so that they are as poor as you, that you all will have the same equal chance of becoming rich? Man you're deluded...

I am not poor by any standards, furfag.  In my entire adult life, i haven't lived on $500 a month you claim your poor parents live on ($1000 jointly)

[NewLiberty]

Congrats.  Your reasoning justifies so much more than you have bargained for.  U are winrar!

You seem to think that you have a point. 
Would you like to attempt to make it?

[crumbs]

Congrats.  Your reasoning justifies so much more than you have bargained for.  U are winrar!

You seem to think that you have a point. 
Would you like to attempt to make it?

The point has been made.  If you are unable/unwilling to see it, i'm afraid we've reached an impasse.  I suspect my cat is far more educable than you.  He's also more pleasant & full of win. No hard feelings, bro -- it's all good.

[Rassah]

And the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of money held by each.

They're [the rich] people, just like the poor.  Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them.

God damn you're an idiot...

Did you know that Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, and Sergey Brin started out with approximately the same amount of money as you? Why are they rich and you are poor? And do you honestly think that if you were to take away all their money so that they are as poor as you, that you all will have the same equal chance of becoming rich? Man you're deluded...

I am not poor by any standards, furfag.  In my entire adult life, i haven't lived on $500 a month you claim your poor parents live on ($1000 jointly)

My parentsv aren't poor, either. They earn a combined ~$25,000 a month. It's just that all but $1,000 of it goes to support their various properties and investments (just as all but ~$450 of mine goes to investments) - things that give people a place to live and a place to work. You have one again missed my point entirely, which is that rich people that make a lot of money, such as my parents, aren't just sitting on bags of money, and can't just give up half their wealth without doing some serious harm to other people (one of their tenants is on government assisted housing, so hurting them directly hurts the poor, too).
As I said, you're too much of an idiot to recognize these things, even when I spell them out for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247874.msg2802864#msg2802864

[crumbs]

And the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of money held by each.

They're [the rich] people, just like the poor.  Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them.

God damn you're an idiot...

Did you know that Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, and Sergey Brin started out with approximately the same amount of money as you? Why are they rich and you are poor? And do you honestly think that if you were to take away all their money so that they are as poor as you, that you all will have the same equal chance of becoming rich? Man you're deluded...

I am not poor by any standards, furfag.  In my entire adult life, i haven't lived on $500 a month you claim your poor parents live on ($1000 jointly)

My parentsv aren't poor, either. They earn a combined ~$25,000 a month. It's just that all but $1,000 of it goes to support their various properties and investments (just as all but ~$450 of mine goes to investments) - things that give people a place to live and a place to work. You have one again missed my point entirely, which is that rich people that make a lot of money, such as my parents, aren't just sitting on bags of money, and can't just give up half their wealth without doing some serious harm to other people (one of their tenants is on government assisted housing, so hurting them directly hurts the poor, too).
As I said, you're too much of an idiot to recognize these things, even when I spell them out for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247874.msg2802864#msg2802864

You're either a troll or you haven't left the basement since early 90s.  Your parents, who make 25k, live on 1k a month?  500 bucks ea?  Out of that, they pay taxes (assuming they own a house & not living out of cardboard boxen), heat, maintenance, electricity, gasoline & auto insurance (or do they thriftily bus it?), car expenses, cable, phone, medical (or do they sneak in through the emergency room?), toiletries, clothes (or do they rifle through the boxes left for Good Will?), and -gasp- food?  Just how wretchedly do you live?  

*To bystanders:  This is all happening in US of A, folks!  These people are living on $16 and change A DAY!  I used to spend more than that on smokes

[Equilux]

And the difference between the rich and the poor is the amount of money held by each.

They're [the rich] people, just like the poor.  Given money, luck & intellect, the poor would be just like them.

God damn you're an idiot...

Did you know that Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, and Sergey Brin started out with approximately the same amount of money as you? Why are they rich and you are poor? And do you honestly think that if you were to take away all their money so that they are as poor as you, that you all will have the same equal chance of becoming rich? Man you're deluded...

I am not poor by any standards, furfag.  In my entire adult life, i haven't lived on $500 a month you claim your poor parents live on ($1000 jointly)

My parentsv aren't poor, either. They earn a combined ~$25,000 a month. It's just that all but $1,000 of it goes to support their various properties and investments (just as all but ~$450 of mine goes to investments) - things that give people a place to live and a place to work. You have one again missed my point entirely, which is that rich people that make a lot of money, such as my parents, aren't just sitting on bags of money, and can't just give up half their wealth without doing some serious harm to other people (one of their tenants is on government assisted housing, so hurting them directly hurts the poor, too).
As I said, you're too much of an idiot to recognize these things, even when I spell them out for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247874.msg2802864#msg2802864

You're either a troll or you haven't left the basement since early 90s.  Your parents, who make 25k, live on 1k a month?  500 bucks ea?  Out of that, they pay taxes (assuming they own a house & not living out of cardboard boxen), heat, maintenance, electricity, gasoline & auto insurance (or do they thriftily bus it?), car expenses, cable, phone, medical (or do they sneak in through the emergency room?), toiletries, clothes (or do they rifle through the boxes left for Good Will?), and -gasp- food?  Just how wretchedly do you live?  

*To bystanders:  This is all happening in US of A, folks!  These people are living on $16 and change A DAY!  I used to spend more than that on smokes

You are still missing the point, but besides that, you've just pointed to the exact reason you'll likely remain living from paycheck to paycheck while the people who spend their money wisely will be working when they feel like it, and on projects they enjoy.