Angery people.

Wow. This discussion has run the gamut. And I agree that relative Financial Security can contribute to happiness. The frightening statistic that I look to is the fact that 39% of working Americans cannot put their hands on $1,000 in the event of a financial emergency. We in here are probably blessed for the most part to be able to do that without resorting to credit cards or borrowing, but there is a huge group of people that.are living so close to the edge it's no wonder they're angry and frightened.

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to Duke :

Sorry I disagree.  If by one specific network you mean Fox, what about Info Wars, Blaze, Conservative tribune, the Federalist, Drudge report, American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the National review, hosts of right wing talk radio etc.  And the whole bunch of networks you allude to on the other side all still report on that same condemnation of those programs by both the Right wing politicians, special interest groups, lobbyists and the opposing press.

For that laundry list, there is an equally lengthy (if not longer) laundry list of leftist organizations, many of equally dubious quality.  How about The Daily Show, Colbert, NPR, The Guardian, Occupy Wall Street, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, Slate, MSNBC, CNN, Samantha Bee, Rachel Maddow, Young Turks, Mother Jones, The Economist, Real News, Now This, etc etc etc.  The list goes on and on.

And of course leftist media report on what the right is doing.  They're not going to pretend it doesn't exist.  Reporting on the very existence of a particular viewpoint does not imply support.  I really don't understand what you're getting at with your last sentence.  The right wing media reports on the left's enthusiasm for poor-supporting programs, too... but somehow that doesn't count to you?

Robbie said:

Middle class - lives with large home and consumer product loans, net worth negative

Upper class - makes the majority of their money from things they already own, rather than the time they spend

So where do I fall?  I need to work for a living in a full-time job (not from investments), but I have a positive net worth and few large loans.

Duke said:

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to Duke :

Sorry I disagree.  If by one specific network you mean Fox, what about Info Wars, Blaze, Conservative tribune, the Federalist, Drudge report, American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the National review, hosts of right wing talk radio etc.  And the whole bunch of networks you allude to on the other side all still report on that same condemnation of those programs by both the Right wing politicians, special interest groups, lobbyists and the opposing press.

For that laundry list, there is an equally lengthy (if not longer) laundry list of leftist organizations, many of equally dubious quality.  How about The Daily Show, Colbert, NPR, The Guardian, Occupy Wall Street, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, Slate, MSNBC, CNN, Samantha Bee, Rachel Maddow, Young Turks, Mother Jones, The Economist, Real News, Now This, etc etc etc.  The list goes on and on.

And of course leftist media report on what the right is doing.  They're not going to pretend it doesn't exist.  Reporting on the very existence of a particular viewpoint does not imply support.  I really don't understand what you're getting at with your last sentence.  The right wing media reports on the left's enthusiasm for poor-supporting programs, too... but somehow that doesn't count to you?

I didn't say there weren't just as many left leaning media outlets.  I was commenting on the fact that you specifically said one organization was reporting negatively on social programs.  If I misunderstood wht you said originally then I apologies.

frenchyd said: Rich is a relative thing,  many would look at me and say I’m rich.  After all I have a home worth a million +  and  a relatively modest mortgage. I’m not even in the neighborhood of rich compared to most of my neighbors.

Yep 'millionaire' sure don't meant what it used to.  Inflation I guess.

Driven5 said:

More specifically, I'd call it an unfairly light burden on those with a less-than-modest means, 

es?  

I'm not sure you can call it unfairly light on those of modest means when they are so poorly paid that they need extra government assistance to survive.  IF you want to tax them more so they carry more of the 'burden' then you need to fix the artificially low wages or accept that they will need even more assistance.  

No apology necessary... but your whole point seems to be that the preponderance of public opinion / media output is AGAINST a leftist (for want of a better term) policy of government programs supporting poor people (again, for want of a better term).

I still comprehensively disagree with that. If I am misunderstanding your point, it’s my turn to apologize. 

I guess we're into the 'agree to disagree' realm. 

Adrian_Thompson said:

Driven5 said:

More specifically, I'd call it an unfairly light burden on those with a less-than-modest means, 

I'm not sure you can call it unfairly light on those of modest means when they are so poorly paid that they need extra government assistance to survive.  IF you want to tax them more so they carry more of the 'burden' then you need to fix the artificially low wages or accept that they will need even more assistance.  

My 'less than' is in reference to the modesty of the income, not the quantity of it. 

In reply to Driven5 :

Ahh capisce!!

Robbie said:

Upper class - makes the majority of their money from things they already own, rather than the time they spend.

Good point Robbie

One metric I calculate that I’ve never seen mentioned in any of the financial literature is what I call the organic / inorganic growth percentage.

Essentially, I determine how much my net worth increases each year and then I decompose the total amount into two categories: organic (appreciation from existing assets) and inorganic (new money coming in through sweat effort). Putting organic in the numerator and total in the denominator gives you a percentage.

The percentage should increase over time as you build up your portfolio and hopefully, as you approach retirement age, your day to day sweat effort will become pretty irrelevant relative to your overall financial situation.

I’m 53 and my percentage for 2017 was 0.82 meaning that only 18% of my wealth appreciation came from busting my a$$ all year.

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

I read somewhere what I think must be the corollary to that:

"If there's easy ways to do something, and a hard way, the hard way isn't necessarily the right way to do it, but it's very seldom the wrong way."

I was raised on two quotes that have stuck with me and that would be one of them. The other was not to waste time telling the truth to women since people who wear make-up have no use for the truth.

I am seldom angry as I have had the good fortune to have traveled to and lived in a lot of places on the globe. I realize that a huge percentage of the world can only pray for the moderate life I take for granted. Being born a wite make in North America is a winning lottery ticket any way I look at it.

Pete

Duke said:

Robbie said:

Middle class - lives with large home and consumer product loans, net worth negative

Upper class - makes the majority of their money from things they already own, rather than the time they spend

So where do I fall?  I need to work for a living in a full-time job (not from investments), but I have a positive net worth and few large loans.

I think this is commonly called the "upper middle class". Key being there isn't a commonly discussed "lower upper class".

In reply to Robbie :

Which brings up another question.  We all are used to seeing the term 'middle class' banded about.  But I've never seen a decent description of what constitutes a middle class, let alone upper or lower middle class person or family.  Has anyone seen one?

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to Robbie :

Which brings up another question.  We all are used to seeing the term 'middle class' banded about.  But I've never seen a decent description of what constitutes a middle class, let alone upper or lower middle class person or family.  Has anyone seen one?

I read a study on this in one of my college sociology classes.  What was interesting is that people with a very large range of incomes and net worths describe themselves (or 'self-identify' in the  modern parlance) as "middle class".  I forget the actual numbers, but it was something like the middle 70 0r 80 percentiles.

Adrian_Thompson said:

In reply to Robbie :

Which brings up another question.  We all are used to seeing the term 'middle class' banded about.  But I've never seen a decent description of what constitutes a middle class, let alone upper or lower middle class person or family.  Has anyone seen one?

There is no agreed upon income definition for middle class that I'm aware of. Most of the studies that I can dig up define middle class as having a household income of $35,000 to a little over $100k per year. But those studies are from 2005-ish. With inflation, those numbers change to 45,600-130,000 today. Those numbers would be from about 33-75th percentiles in income. Obviously differences in cost of living from one area to another can play a significant role as well.

Here: 

In reply to Driven5 :

Given your agreement can you create a fair income tax?  

Here’s my attempt.  

Eliminate income tax on anyone earning less than $50,000 ( (adjust for inflation)  married could earn $100,000. 

Above $50,000 one flat rate.  Let’s say 10% for simplicity.  (And this from a progressive). No deductions.   Paid 24 hours after receipt.  

Eliminate corporate taxes,   eliminate Capitol gains tax,  eliminate alternative minimum tax.  

In place of those add a national sales tax to everything.   Everything, no exception! None!  Religious, resale,  speculation, gambling, everything.  Due 24 hours after sale.  Penalty for not paying the tax remains the same.  Even in the cash society how many people would risk those penalties for 2%  so collection would improve dramatically.  Keep it a nominal percent and few would evade.  

Your kid buys a bubble gum 2% is added to the cost. You buy General Electric stock 2%  ( per share)   Company 2% General Electric buys a roll of wire 2% 

Here’s the Brilliant part of this. 1/2 of any car made in AMERICA  is imported.  Let’s say a Finnish made Air bag  cost $70 to make plus $30 profit =$100  plus freight $5 + import duty  $10 + 2% sales tax  $2.30   For a total of $117.30  

 Average car has 7 air bags   GM will sell  2 million cars in our fictional year.  That’s $329  extra profit per car  if made in a GM plant instead of bought from Finland or Japan  

$658 million more dollars per year!!  I think they could build a plant here in the US and still make a profit!!! 

Think of all all the jobs that would bring back to America!   

In reply to frenchyd :

That's...not  terrible. 

In reply to Appleseed :

Well it would put tax preparers out of a job. One line on your deposit slip. Taxes_______

In reply to frenchyd :

I've actually reviewed some scholastic articles for a national sales tax to replace income tax and most pundits suggest it would have to be between 22% up to 45% to be revenue neutral.  So your 2% appears to be Farrrrr too low.

In reply to frenchyd :

I have no objection to that. 

Ovid_and_Flem said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I've actually reviewed some scholastic articles for a national sales tax to replace income tax and most pundits suggest it would have to be between 22% up to 45% to be revenue neutral.  So your 2% appears to be Farrrrr too low.

He still has the flat income tax so he doesn't have to replace all income tax revenue with sales tax revenue, which I do think is low at 10%. Pick something greater than 15 however (like say 18%), and the income tax alone would be revenue neutral. 

I'm not an expert but I am guessing the vast majority of tax collected comes from the 15% capital gains tax rate. So my assumption is as long as you are higher than that you stay pretty renevue neutral on income taxes.

The biggest problem with that plan is the (hundreds of thousands?) Of tax preparer industry workers who suddenly have no job.

I think it would be a good thing in the long run, but it would be hard to Garner political support when you plan to axe that many (american, white collar) jobs overnight.

In reply to Robbie :

Only 9% of the federal tax revenue comes from capital gains. And those stats come from before capital gains tax was reduced from 25% to 15%. So it's probably lower.