The poor spend all the money. Isn’t it obvious? - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40091520]As long as your credit is good the banks make it a little too easy to go to college.[/QUOTE] Not sure how it is where you live, but here, if you have no credit rating and no one to co-sign, you don't get anything. I know people who offered 2k+ collateral and got turned down for $500 credit cards.

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40088041]protip: be born into wealth and hire someone to manage everything for you.[/QUOTE]

The sad thing is that even though this is satire, there is still a grain of truth to it. This [URL="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-18/news/36823675_1_poverty-line-middle-class-milk"]article from the Washington Post[/URL] explains it better than I ever could but in short, the poor can't even afford to save money, resulting in a vicious cycle.

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40091520]As long as your credit is good the banks make it a little too easy to go to college.[/QUOTE] Perhaps by taking out loans without any certainty you'll have a job with which to pay it back. But that's hardly living, now is it?

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40091520]As long as your credit is good the banks make it a little too easy to go to college.[/QUOTE] It still doesn't matter how easy it is to go to college when most job markets are completely saturated since every man and his fucking dog has a degree.

I have spent years of intensive study as an upper class Englishman, to come to the conclusion that indeed, the poor have chosen to be poor. In order to rouse them from their position, we must find a way to stop the poor from choosing to be poor. I mean, I find it easy to remain wealthy, why do they expend so much effort trying to stay poor?

-snip-

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40087279]He's kind of right. Being rich isn't that tough. Go to college to get a job with a good salary, spend less than someone below the poverty line, bank the majority of your salary, l2invest. Congratulations you are now a millionaire. People don't usually do this though because they have damn no self control and spend all of their money instead of save like they should.[/QUOTE] grats on being able to squeeze thousands of annoyingly bad self-help books into one annoying post

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40091520]As long as your credit is good the banks make it a little too easy to go to college.[/QUOTE] So, tell me about your Bugatti.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;40087226]Just because it's obnoxious doesn't mean people will immediately think it's satire. I mean, there's people who have said worse and whole-heartedly meant it.[/QUOTE] It's British. It's satire by default until proven otherwise.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090435]Tbh wealth inequality doesn't really matter as long as living standards are rising at a fairly decent rate and people aren't allowed to be treated like shit.[/QUOTE] Exactly this, many people would rather have the poor even poorer provided that the wealth inequality gap was smaller. I also wonder whether wealth equality is even [I]that[/I] achievable? Higher salaries that aren't worth the market value would surely cause rapid inflation. The best a government could do is have a gradual decrease of low-end taxes and even start moving towards negative taxation if that's the way you want to do things. Also the article is a heaping pile of shit, it's not exactly humorous and the underlying viewpoint is plain moronic.

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40087279]He's kind of right. Being rich isn't that tough. Go to college to get a job with a good salary[...][/QUOTE] Got $60,000+ for tuition and whatnot? Cool, pay me that much to go to attend university here. thx bro, brb millionaire. Since this degree will definitely make me a millionaire I'll totally pay you back and stuff later.

[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40087279]He's kind of right. Being rich isn't that tough. Go to college to get a job with a good salary, spend less than someone below the poverty line, bank the majority of your salary, l2invest. Congratulations you are now a millionaire. People don't usually do this though because they have damn no self control and spend all of their money instead of save like they should.[/QUOTE] It's that easy then why are you on facepunch and not out being rich? Because it's a helluva lot more complicated than THAT.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40090435]Tbh wealth inequality doesn't really matter as long as living standards are rising at a fairly decent rate and people aren't allowed to be treated like shit.[/QUOTE] Wealth inequality tends to enable the "allowing people to be treated like shit" thing. It's been an issue lately in the US, where the courts have ruled that corporations count as individual humans who have freedom of speech/the press and are allowed to "donate" as much as they want to political causes, leading to things like Cindy the Struggling Single Mom getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars by Millionaire Records Inc. because her 7 year old daughter downloaded some Justin Bieber songs off Limewire or whatever, and this gets to happen because Millionaire Records Inc. can "donate" as much money as they want to the people that matter in our congress who make these copyright laws and whatnot. Wealth inequality kinda does matter.

[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;40092538]Wealth inequality tends to enable the "allowing people to be treated like shit" thing. It's been an issue lately in the US, where the courts have ruled that corporations count as individual humans who have freedom of speech/the press and are allowed to "donate" as much as they want to political causes, leading to things like Cindy the Struggling Single Mom getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars by Millionaire Records Inc. because her 7 year old daughter downloaded some Justin Bieber songs off Limewire or whatever, and this gets to happen because Millionaire Records Inc. can "donate" as much money as they want to the people that matter in our congress who make these copyright laws and whatnot. Wealth inequality kinda does matter.[/QUOTE] As long as someone is richer than someone else (which will always be the case) someone will claim that they're being treated like shit - the wealth inequality is not that bad in the Western world and has drastically improved over the last century. In the UK people can receive benefits and free healthcare etc. whilst maintaining a relatively good wealth equality, especially after tax - something which would have been unimaginable back in the industrial revolution days. There will never be no wealth inequality, it would never work - as Sobotnik says, provided that living standards are increasing for all, it doesn't matter.

Wasn't there this social "law" where if something is portrayed satirically enough OR if something is way ridiculous to be true, people will think it's the opposite?

I think a better distribution of wealth would result from capping individuals at a bank balance of £250 million, with uncapped income potential, and exceptions/allowances in some cases (for planned purchases of companies or w/e). Any money that goes over this amount is reinvested into startup companies, which can either be at the choice of the investor, or tasked to a team of angel investors, and a fair % is given to the investor in exchange for their capital. The game for people with £250million+ then, would be making it so their balance never dips, regardless of what they purchase. The savings limit would slowly be raised for contentious investors and people who embrace the system. Why £250 million? Because that amount would allow a person to spend [b]£6844 per day for 100 years.[/b] Which is excessive by anyone's standards. Also this should only apply to an individual's shared bank balances. Corporate bank accounts would be separate to these limits.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;40092872]I think a better distribution of wealth would result from capping individuals at a bank balance of £250 million, with uncapped income potential, and exceptions/allowances in some cases (for planned purchases of companies or w/e). Any money that goes over this amount is reinvested into startup companies, which can either be at the choice of the investor, or tasked to a team of angel investors, and a fair % is given to the investor in exchange for their capital. The game for people with £250million+ then, would be making it so their balance never dips, regardless of what they purchase. The savings limit would slowly be raised for contentious investors and people who embrace the system. Why £250 million? Because that amount would allow a person to spend [b]£6844 per day for 100 years.[/b] Which is excessive by anyone's standards. Also this should only apply to an individual's shared bank balances. Corporate bank accounts would be separate to these limits.[/QUOTE] Why would you bother doing that? Firstly, any money that is deposited into a bank account is lent out by the bank in the form of loans and mortgages. No bank account would ever be £250 million for two reasons. Firstly, there is no guarantee over £80,000 and there are minuscule returns on savings. Secondly, anyone with that amount of money wouldn't just keep it in the bank anyway, they would invest into stocks, bonds, or tangible assets, which would return them a dividend of some form - you wouldn't be able to touch the wealth kept in these assets. How would you ever convince someone with over £250 million to even invest in start ups when the majority of them fail within the first 6 months? Someone with that amount of money would easily just relocate it, we don't want to scare wealthy people away. The only time money ever actually sits still is in the case of the bank itself, which is required to keep itself solvent. Also, your suggestion doesn't actually [I]re-distribute[/I] wealth - the net worth of the wealthy person would be unchanged, you're just suggesting a method to increase the flow of capital to small businesses so that they can create their own wealth. [editline]a[/editline] Also are you getting confused with net worth and cash? Just because someone is [I]worth[/I] £250 million doesn't mean they could spend £6844 a day, the wealthiest people in the country are so because of the value of the shares they hold.

[QUOTE=butt2089;40092718]As long as someone is richer than someone else (which will always be the case) someone will claim that they're being treated like shit - the wealth inequality is not that bad in the Western world and has drastically improved over the last century. In the UK people can receive benefits and free healthcare etc. whilst maintaining a relatively good wealth equality, especially after tax - something which would have been unimaginable back in the industrial revolution days. There will never be no wealth inequality, it would never work - as Sobotnik says, provided that living standards are increasing for all, it doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] You missed that diagram on the last page about how bad wealth inequality is in the US. I suggest you go back and find it. Wealth Inequality is a huge issue.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;40092998]You missed that diagram on the last page about how bad wealth inequality is in the US. I suggest you go back and find it. Wealth Inequality is a huge issue.[/QUOTE] No, I saw it very clearly - the top 1% controls something like 34.6% of the wealth, how would you re-distribute it? Why would you want to re-distribute it? You would risk messing with an already fragile economy. Wealth is not some sort of finite resource, people create it all the time. As Sobotnik said, if living standards are increasing, what's the problem? Why is it such a big issue?

[QUOTE=butt2089;40093070]No, I saw it very clearly - the top 1% controls something like 34.6% of the wealth, how would you re-distribute it? Why would you want to re-distribute it? You would risk messing with an already fragile economy. Wealth is not some sort of finite resource, people create it all the time. As Sobotnik said, if living standards are increasing, what's the problem? Why is it such a big issue?[/QUOTE] You mis-read it then. Go read it again carefully. Top 20% control over 60% of the wealth. In fact, just watch the video that diagram came from: [url]http://www.youtube.com/v/QPKKQnijnsM[/url]

[QUOTE=butt2089;40092990]Why would you bother doing that? Firstly, any money that is deposited into a bank account is lent out by the bank in the form of loans and mortgages. No bank account would ever be £250 million for two reasons. Firstly, there is no guarantee over £80,000 and there are minuscule returns on savings. Secondly, anyone with that amount of money wouldn't just keep it in the bank anyway, they would invest into stocks, bonds, or tangible assets, which would return them a dividend of some form - you wouldn't be able to touch the wealth kept in these assets. How would you ever convince someone with over £250 million to even invest in start ups when the majority of them fail within the first 6 months? Someone with that amount of money would easily just relocate it, we don't want to scare wealthy people away. The only time money ever actually sits still is in the case of the bank itself, which is required to keep itself solvent. Also, your suggestion doesn't actually [I]re-distribute[/I] wealth - the net worth of the wealthy person would be unchanged, you're just suggesting a method to increase the flow of capital to small businesses so that they can create their own wealth. [editline]a[/editline] Also are you getting confused with net worth and cash? Just because someone is [I]worth[/I] £250 million doesn't mean they could spend £6844 a day, the wealthiest people in the country are so because of the value of the shares they hold.[/QUOTE] My solution was for cash held, not net worth. Also, it'd combine the value of rainy day funds that people had stored away in multiple bank accounts etc. True, it would probably scare people away though.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;40093085]You mis-read it then. Go read it again carefully. Top 20% control over 60% of the wealth. In fact, just watch the video that diagram came from: [url]http://www.youtube.com/v/QPKKQnijnsM[/url][/QUOTE] No I didn't, my figure of 1% controlling around 35% of the wealth was nearly the same as the video. You're also not answering my questions, nor does the video - it just explains that figures. [QUOTE=SCopE5000;40093100]My solution was for cash held, not net worth. Also, it'd combine the value of rainy day funds that people had stored away in multiple bank accounts etc. True, it would probably scare people away though.[/QUOTE] Well like I said, I doubt many people hold that amount of cash, and if they do I would imagine that it's being re-invested in some form.

The top 1% controlling 40% of the wealth is bad for the economy because it shows the lie that anyone can become rich. The economy is founded on the principle that if you work hard you can eventually become upwardly mobile, but with the wealth all funnelling to the top 20%, that's not actually true. The vast majority of people, no matter how hard they work, will never become rich. It also means that it is incredibly hard to break out of being poor and that the old adage "The rich become richer and the poor become poorer" is true (See his figures about how much the top 20% got richer in the past 20 years) Reagonomics is a bastardly little piece of work, as it turns out that "trickle-down economics" is just that. A trickle of wealth. It also means that the spirit of capitalism, where competition keeps prices affordable is being murdered by corporate monopoly.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;40093232]The top 1% controlling 40% of the wealth is bad for the economy because it shows the lie that anyone can become rich. The economy is founded on the principle that if you work hard you can eventually become upwardly mobile, but with the wealth all funnelling to the top 20%, that's not actually true. The vast majority of people, no matter how hard they work, will never become rich. It also means that it is incredibly hard to break out of being poor and that the old adage "The rich become richer and the poor become poorer" is true (See his figures about how much the top 20% got richer in the past 20 years) Reagonomics is a bastardly little piece of work, as it turns out that "trickle-down economics" is just that. A trickle of wealth. It also means that the spirit of capitalism, where competition keeps prices affordable is being murdered by corporate monopoly.[/QUOTE] But anyone [I]can[/I] become rich - wealth is not finite, anyone can create it. Saying that the wealthy owning that much of the wealth is bad for economy because it shows a lie, is not a reason why it's bad for the economy. The economy is partially based upon that principle because it causes people to work hard and strive, but it's not the sole reason people go out to work though. Also America is the richest country in the world, by total GDP, per capita and by average income. Living standards are ridiculously high for Americans, why is wealth distribution still a problem when living standards have been increasing? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer isn't true - wealth is not a finite amount. Would you prefer that the poor were poorer provided that the rich were less rich? How would you even begin to re-distribute wealth at all? Wages are allocated according to demand of the skill set, dividends are allocated according to the capital invested by an individual - how would you change this without causing rampant inflation and destabilisation of an economy that is already weak?

[QUOTE=butt2089;40093367]But anyone [I]can[/I] become rich - wealth is not finite, anyone can create it. Saying that the wealthy owning that much of the wealth is bad for economy because it shows a lie, is not a reason why it's bad for the economy. The economy is partially based upon that principle because it causes people to work hard and strive, but it's not the sole reason people go out to work though. Also America is the richest country in the world, by total GDP, per capita and by average income. Living standards are ridiculously high for Americans, why is wealth distribution still a problem when living standards have been increasing? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer isn't true - wealth is not a finite amount. Would you prefer that the poor were poorer provided that the rich were less rich? How would you even begin to re-distribute wealth at all? Wages are allocated according to demand of the skill set, dividends are allocated according to the capital invested by an individual - how would you change this without causing rampant inflation and destabilisation of an economy that is already weak?[/QUOTE] You so funny, you know that?

[QUOTE=Van-man;40094021]You so funny, you know that?[/QUOTE] Funnier that no one is actually answering my questions, they just rate dumb.

[QUOTE=butt2089;40094046]Funnier that no one is actually answering my questions, they just rate dumb.[/QUOTE] Because we've been over this so many times it's literally a chore to keep spewing it out.

[QUOTE=Van-man;40094069]Because we've been over this so many times it's literally a chore to keep spewing it out.[/QUOTE] Then it should be easy to explain if it's been done so many times, no?

[QUOTE=butt2089;40092718]As long as someone is richer than someone else (which will always be the case) someone will claim that they're being treated like shit - the wealth inequality is not that bad in the Western world and has drastically improved over the last century. In the UK people can receive benefits and free healthcare etc. whilst maintaining a relatively good wealth equality, especially after tax - something which would have been unimaginable back in the industrial revolution days. There will never be no wealth inequality, it would never work - as Sobotnik says, provided that living standards are increasing for all, it doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Okay, so poor people these days can generally afford a miniature refrigerator instead of having to store all their stuff in a bin of ice and find ice for it every morning, and therefore I shouldn't be complaining because poor people today have it better than they did earlier in history? Or do you mean that I shouldn't be complaining because people in other countries get benefits that I don't (such as free healthcare) and therefore wealth inequality doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you as much as it does other people? Regardless, my point wasn't really that "some people have more money than others and that's not fair because I want a gold plated swimming pool too, we should all be equal!". My point was more that (at least here in the US) money almost directly equals things like political influence, and because of that anyone who isn't a millionaire that can fund a lobbying campaign gets little or no say in what happens to their life or their country. What do we do, write a strongly worded letter to our local senator threatening to not vote for them when we see some looming money-backed threat to our personal freedoms or safety? They're not gonna fucking care if they miss a few votes from the teeming masses, they're still gonna get their $1,000,000 cheque from the CEO of MegaCorp Inc. provided they vote yes on the "Make Not Buying Our MacGuffin Insurance a Felony" bill. So, when I say that wealth inequality is a problem, doesn't necessarily just mean a minority of people having more wealth than the majority, but also that said minority also gets to have a big influence over the majority.