Oh, and here I thought that they hired people to work for them...man how stupid am I? It must be some poor person creating those jobs and paying their salary.

Good one...

Are you addressing me, Einstein? Because you're beating the crap out of straw-men. Oh, the humanity! Errr, oh, the straw-manity!

I merely asked what you were getting at with your reference to inherited wealth. Obviously you thought it was relevant to mention the distinction. Apparently one has to be tired and/or drunk to ask why you thought it was relevant.

Pointing out a distinction between directly earned wealth and inherited wealth does not make any of the three "points" you listed, so why would those points explain your reference? My question is simple and clearly worded. I wasn't implying any other question or topic. I asked simply and clearly what I desired clarification on.

twosidedeath,

You can't be serious.

"invesment bankers work so hard to make thier moeny i can see the sweat beads as they sip thier coffee, though its probably from the coffee. gotta love how people fall into wealth."

Because they don't do massive amounts of research and make important decisions, risking their own money and/or their careers? Are you collecting a large salary working for venture capitalists or an investment bank? No. Because it's not as easy as you claim.

"perhaps taxing savings, investments. make them spend that money!"

Tax their savings, because, God forbid, people plan responsibly and take care of themselves? We can't have them going and taking care of themselves, not dependent upon government? Your position is terrifying.

Tax their investments, because people risking their own money to give businesses a chance to expand, hire, and develop new products/services--providing jobs, innovation, and lower prices--is undesirable? Investors benefit the entire population even before considering their capital-gains contribution to tax revenue. They would be beneficial to society even if they were entirely untaxed.

The more they are taxed, the less incentivized they are to invest in this way, in this country (and the smaller their return on investment, reducing their pool to continue investing). Taxing them hurts businesses, resulting in less capital for expanding, hiring, development, etc. It's all well and good to want to steal all you can rationalize from everyone you can vilify, but here you're talking about increasing a tax rate which directly hurts job creation and growth. Is that really the direction you wish to go?

Key,

Seeing as it's their wealth, why is what they do any of your business?

Seeing as you will fail to answer that question at all, let alone reasonably (because it's not your wealth nor your business), another question: How does it harm you when a wealthy person does not spend their wealth?

Thanks for confirmiing your liberalism

Now to mock you

You want more pay GO OUT AND GET A TOUGH JOB THAT PAYS MORE!

Now as for your sister... if she is a liberal, or she married a liberal, he single parenthood is her fault! Not mine, hers!

As for the rich just moving money around.

A rich person who does not put money to work does not stay rich for long, unless they live in a small house with few amenities and buy their food from WinCo.

All of them who spend for lavish lifestyles produce jobs in that persuit.

Additionally the money they invest also provides for jobs.

GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND TRY TO DO SOME REAL WORK. Washing dishes is a lazy mans job.

I did security for years because I at first needed it for short term stability, then next I wanted to stjdy it for a book, then my depression made it an easy choice.

Once I once free of depression I went and got myself a hard, yet well paying, job.

Life a Pitch, go try or go die.

"GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND TRY TO DO SOME REAL WORK"

Most of the income the rich get, they don't get from working.  The poor and middle class do.  So who needs to get off their lazy asses and do some real work, then?

Yeah sure Xeno

Let me hire five people, offer them four years on my dime, then start reaping my benefits.

The first one stops studying, flirts with the girls, and is known as Mr. Kegger. -fired- I lose the money I put up for him

The second one decides she really wants to be a marine biologist -quits- and those classes I paid for help her reduce the cost... another loss

The third wants to persue a doctorate... I am not able to afford that, nor would he stay for the salary I offer. Another loss.

Number four and five finish, and they even start working for me! Wow! Well number four stays for a year before he is hired somewhere else (since they did not have to pay his schoolig they could give him a raise) and after that who knows how long number five will stay.

Your a [wonderful man...] moron, your ideas are moronic, you have no clue beyond your own selfish greedy bastard ideals, and you deserve whatever low income hell you exist in right now.

EDIT: No masking!!! X(

Actually it is not a lie. EVERYONE can raise enough money to go to college and graduate. And get a decent enough paying job to live life comfortable. If that means you start mowing lawns at 14 and saving your money then so be it....like I said, its people that waste their youth partying and spending money on meaningless things that pay for it later in life.

And Jr. College is not expensive....one could make enough money to pay for his first 2 years while still living at home and going to high school. Just takes some motivation and dedication. (I did...)

"Your a [wonderful man...] moron, your ideas are moronic, you have no clue beyond your own selfish greedy bastard ideals, and you deserve whatever low income hell you exist in right now."

Will you talk that way at the state legislature?

Consider yourself ignored, again, Einstein.

EDIT: Cleaning up the quote

As stated, $100 still mine.

He cannot refute it so he has to ignore it. What a maroon

I equate your desire for other peoples items (greed, lust, and jealousy) as a choice you have made. Instead of working for your own desires you wish those others provide your desires.

Thus you are creating your own hell by being unwilling to try, and by being greedy for others stuff to the point of creating what appears to be a mental disorder.

The other side of the coin you mentioned is wealth and heaven. A truly greedy man has no chance, agreed, which is why you (even being poor) have problems right now.

If I won the jackpot that is up (not going to happen since I did not buy a ticket, but stay with me here), I would not give one bit to a shelter, to help with college loans, to those in Africa, or in any other 'liberal charity'.

I might spread a tithe around to churches I inspect and like, but the rest is for sure going to be spent on businesses and elections.

Elections because I want fundemental changes opposite of yours.

Businesses because not only will that provide long term income, but it will increase the wealth while providing jobs.

While I sincerely doubt you would do any such as I just posted. Your far to greedy.

If it weren't for the fact that government programs caused the price of tuition to be inflated, then I would agree that everyone of merit could afford their own education. These days, yes, I swear only the women seem to care about performing well. But then, can you blame the men? There are more women in college than men, for real.

Key,

We read what you said. You don't need to repeat it. I asked why it's your business and how it harms you.

You then go on to make things up about banking, which you clearly do not understand. You make it further awkward by informing us that you have made poor financial decisions in your life and have no even moderately valued skill set. You make things further awkward by informing us that your entire family makes poor decisions, both financial and personal, and that all of you lack marketable skills.

"I get by.  The wealthy, want to cry about unequal tax representation? "

We're discussing principles and economic best-practices. You're crying.

"Don't really care, because we have no one in power that really gives a shit."

Can't argue with you there.

"All they spout is "equal rights for 100% of americans."  Geeze we get taxed and churches and corporations reap tax-exemption status?"

Again, can't argue with you here. Do they actually claim to want equal rights? That's laughable. I don't disagree that the power structure in DC (which is bought buy many of the wealthy) is horribly corrupt. What I disagree with is speaking as if all of the wealthy and upper-middle-class are guilty of buying power in DC. While many do I and join you in condemnation of their corrupt practices, not all of the rich or even wealthy are guilty of this corruption and I take issue with speaking of their money as if it's _all_ ill-begotten and we, therefore, have the right to steal every penny we can get our hands on.

You are, to me, like one of the occupy communists--You probably are. While I agree with you on many of the problems you mentioned (those that you understand enough to put into a coherent sentence, anyway), you want a communist government solution, I want a libertarian free-market solution. Our agreement is 100% on the problem, 0% on the appropriate solutions.

The Riddler,

It's easier to slack off and cry later.

xeno syndicated,

"Most of the income the rich get, they don't get from working.  The poor and middle class do.  So who needs to get off their lazy asses and do some real work, then?"

The poor and middle class, if they want more money, obviously. Duh?

The rich have money because they earned it in a free market. (At least they should--let's pretend, for a moment, apathetic voters will ever shape up and stop electing corrupt trash) Because they provided things that the world wanted, the world payed them with money. Now, they don't need to work more, if they don't want to, because they already worked disproportionately more than your lazy ass.

This is capitalism. This is fair. If you don't like it, stop buying all of the awesome products that make people rich. There's a reason people in Cuba, North Korea, and China don't have the awesome things we have: They're not compensated for developing and producing them. As a result, they don't have them.

That you even have a computer or access to one and claim to hate free markets is hypocritical.

""ANYONE can get a college degree and land a better paying job"
This is a lie.
You need the money and opportunity for this.  Most people don't have the money or the opportunity.  AND most of the few that do don't land a well-paying job even after they graduate."

This is false. Community colleges are inexpensive, and one can attain grants and scholarships (I applied for many and got a few. Suck my nuts, lazy bum.). You don't "have" the money or the opportunity, you borrow the money at 0% interest (subsidized student loans) and make the opportunity. Most that do find a well-paying job, because they're not lazy and they keep looking until they do.

You sound really lazy, pessimistic, and ignorant for someone posting on a politics forum about justice and earnings. If you're doing something like frying fries at 40, maybe the problem is you.

"Employers expect their candidates to have taken all the risk of investing in their education and / or training, so the employer can reap all the rewards of that investment."

In exchange for fair pay. If they don't offer fair pay, anyone working for them is an idiot who should work for somebody else.

You're implying that employers should risk investing in the education of people not providing any service (work) for them. You're implying that workers and employers should be bound even before they establish a mutually beneficial (and voluntary) relationship. We have a word for the controls and ownership you're advocating in the west: It's called "slavery." And it's evil, you ignorant bum.

"Training the employee should be at the employer's expense because they, the employer, reaps the profits generated by that investment."

Employers do train employees. But they don't hire fry cooks to design products or manage personnel. Any employee who is worth more than he's being payed can show his accomplishments on his resume and find higher paying work elsewhere. The free market is epic, fair, and just in this way. I can tell you're starting to love its principles.

Zarf BeebleBrix,

Sometimes being nice to someone involves telling them they're doing something wrong. If someone does 0 work, probably doesn't bathe, picks his nose, and cries a lot in public, we'd only be hurting him (aka being mean) to smile and tell him he's doing a good job!

xeno syndicated,

"Will you talk that way at the state legislature?"

If he's honest and cares about his constituents, he will.

"Consider yourself ignored, again, Einstein."

You just conceded that he won the argument.

Congratulations, Einstein!

"Everyone can?  This is logically impossible.  Decent enough?  This is vague.   A comfortable life?  Again, too vague.    Could you clarify your statement?"

What he's saying is essentially that WE DID IT. Stop crying, you ignorant monkey. We have firsthand knowledge of how possible it is. That it isn't easy and requires some wisdom and hard work does not make it impossible. Pimply-faced kids telling adults that what they did is impossible gets old. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, so we're baffled as to why you keep talking.

"You've said you are a Christian, Einstein, yet you equate having a low income with hell."

Figurative language. Your citation of Luke is retarded. The point of that passage is that a good life requires one to be compassionate and care about his fellow man. Obviously, being wealthy and going to your grave with that wealth indicates a lack of this compassion. This has absolutely nothing to do with what opportunities the poor do or do not have, nor how hard it is for them to achieve X, Y, or Z in life without such compassion by others.

"I do not covet other people's things."

Hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahha! Good one!

"It just makes it seem like you have no better response to the idea besides personal attacks."

When all of your statements are based in being a lazy person who can't achieve success, sometimes it's hard to ask if your position (perpetual failure is what you describe as the only thing the poor can achieve) is based on your own personal shortcomings. You're positive that what some of us have done is impossible, so we're forced to ask if you believe this, perhaps, because it's impossible for you with your current work ethic, intelligence, and goals.

Einstein,

I'm seeking dialogue here on ideas, one without personal attacks.  You seem intent on have a discussion attacking each other personally. I am asking your to clarify your position.  You aren't answering. How can I focus on the ideas here if you refuse to clarify your position?

I'll ask again: "You seem to think poor people are poor and thus in thus in hell because they are greedy and deserve the hell they are in; that the rich, conversely, became rich by being generous and are thus deserving of the heavenly state they are in.  Is this correct?"

/ignore Einstein still off pending his response.