EPTOn October 06 2014 10:02 Sub40APM wrote:
She made tens of millions subsequent her porn tape.
She made tens of millions subsequent her porn tape.
OK, so what? She was a millionaire who did some light lifting to become... a millionaire?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1334
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
OK, so what? She was a millionaire who did some light lifting to become... a millionaire? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23984 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 06 2014 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: OK, so what? She was a millionaire who did some light lifting to become... a millionaire? She was not a millionaire, she was a potential millionaire born into a wealthy house that provided her with certain privileges which she used as a jump of point to make herself an independent millionaire. Thus, a bootstrappy bootstrapper of awesomeness, in your interpretation of what it means to be a self made person. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 06 2014 12:12 IgnE wrote: What inheritance nonsense? That the off-spring of the parents should not be recipients of the familial estate / businesses, and such should be appropriated by the Government. This would essentially kill any long-running business as the Government would de-facto shutter a business (or at least reduce it's competitiveness) via inheritance taxation. Similarly, somehow the Government or other folk are more 'deserving' or whatever justification of that property / money than said offspring. Anyways, my whole point is that if we want to tackle inequality and address average joe standard of living the answer isn't - Hey you guys with guns calling yourself Government; go take those rich guys stuff and give it to those in the lower-rung economic bracket. Are there rich folk who stole and cheated their way to their wealth? Certainly. Almost all of those people are politically connected douchebags, and if you want to deal with them you do so by taking away their lucrative means of profiting off buying politicians. In other words, political power is the problem, and that needs addressing. There's nothing wrong with wealthy folk getting wealthy by providing a wanted product to those willing to voluntarily trade with them. Of course, all people see are folk above them and their inclination is to tear them down, instead of looking around and asking; how best can we work to raise the average folk standard of living? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 06 2014 12:38 IgnE wrote: Let's all be billionaires together. You're being facetious but nobody is stopping you, literally or figuratively. You could actually become very rich if you were motivated enough. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23984 Posts
On October 06 2014 14:20 coverpunch wrote: You're being facetious but nobody is stopping you, literally or figuratively. You could actually become very rich if you were motivated enough. You could become even more rich not being very motivated at all, too. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 06 2014 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote: You could become even more rich not being very motivated at all, too. As Confucius says, a man who stands on a hill with mouth open will wait for a very long time before roast duck flies in. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 06 2014 12:22 Wegandi wrote: That the off-spring of the parents should not be recipients of the familial estate / businesses, and such should be appropriated by the Government. This would essentially kill any long-running business as the Government would de-facto shutter a business (or at least reduce it's competitiveness) via inheritance taxation. Similarly, somehow the Government or other folk are more 'deserving' or whatever justification of that property / money than said offspring. Anyways, my whole point is that if we want to tackle inequality and address average joe standard of living the answer isn't - Hey you guys with guns calling yourself Government; go take those rich guys stuff and give it to those in the lower-rung economic bracket. Actually, taxing inheritance is precisely one of the necessary ways to tackle inequalities, as was well demonstrated by Piketty's The Capital in the 21st Century. Beyond this, why should money received by doing nothing (inheritance) be taxed less than money received through hard work (one's income)? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10888 Posts
Not that i think it shouldn't be taxed again (on the contrary, inheritance should imho be taxed heavily), but the reasoning why it shouldn't be taxed again is very obvious and easy to understand... | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 06 2014 19:06 Velr wrote: Because it allready has been taxed once. Not that i think it shouldn't be taxed again (on the contrary, inheritance should imho be taxed heavily), but the reasoning why it shouldn't be taxed again is very obvious and easy to understand... Yes, but that's based on a misunderstanding. In the context we're discussing, it's transfers of money which get taxed, not the money per se. The transfer of money from the dead relative to the guy receiving the inheritance was not already taxed. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
I think it would be far more interesting if Forbes put out a "Rags to Riches" index, which identified the people in the Forbes 400 who at one point in their lives struggled with hunger, homelessness, or access to healthcare. I doubt many (any?) of them would make the cut. If all children born in the US were secure with respect to these bare essentials (plus education), we would probably see a lot more social mobility. | ||
KwarK
United States44012 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Jordan Belfort as well to some extent. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday set the United States on a historic civil rights path, paving the way for the majority of Americans to reside in states where same-sex marriage is legal. The court declined to hear appeals from five states that were challenging lower-court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage. By passing on that debate, the court gave a final legal stamp of approval to marriage equality in five states: Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wisconsin. It also set the stage for legalization in six other states that also fall under the lower courts' jurisdiction: Colorado, Wyoming, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. When all is said and done in those states (which could happen in short order, according to the Associated Press), same-sex marriage will be legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia. The total population of those states, based on 2013 estimates from the Census Bureau, is about 190 million. Just over 60 percent of the U.S. population now lives in a state where marriage equality soon will be legal. Source | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On October 06 2014 23:45 Mercy13 wrote: Some people get more help than others, but virtually everyone gets at least A LITTLE assistance; the term self-made is inherently subjective and silly to use. I think it would be far more interesting if Forbes put out a "Rags to Riches" index, which identified the people in the Forbes 400 who at one point in their lives struggled with hunger, homelessness, or access to healthcare. I doubt many (any?) of them would make the cut. If all children born in the US were secure with respect to these bare essentials (plus education), we would probably see a lot more social mobility. People have blown out "self-made" beyond all proportion and sense. But it follows the Romantic tradition of being successful DESPITE the conventional wisdom of society, not because of it. Since this is the week of Nobel Prizes, the Nobel committee loves Romantic stories of singular scientists who change our perception and flip established knowledge on its head, where it eventually becomes so established itself that it seems obvious and people declare it stupid to have ever thought otherwise. Obviously they're never fighting the entire scientific world on their own, but they face broad opposition from "right-thinking people" who think they're being too risky, too foolish, or too stubborn. And I think many successful people feel like that in their respective fields. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal from a Mt. Vernon teacher who was fired in 2011 because he kept religious books and a poster of the Ten Commandments in his eighth-grade classroom. The justices, without any comment, let stand a 4-3 ruling last year by Ohio Supreme Court that upheld the Mt. Vernon City School District Board of Education’s decision to dismiss John Freshwater for insubordination because he did not remove all the religious materials from his classroom. Freshwater, who was originally hired as a Mt. Vernon teacher in 1987, had received positive evaluations from his superiors. But as early as 1994, he was admonished by school officials because he distributed a pamphlet on the Book of Genesis to his students. In 2007, parents of one of Freshwater’s students complained to school officials that the teacher had used a hand-held Tesla Coil to make a mark on their son’s arm that appeared to be in the shape of the cross. A Tesla Coil is an electrical generator which does not produce much of an electrical shock, but can leave a mark on skin. Source | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
| ||
