unfortunates....constant poor decision making or bad luck?

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

No one is ashamed of being wealthy but you seem to have a jealousy complex about it.

Please also note that the Rabbi is fabulously wealthy, self-made, of super-human intelligence, a political guru, and has earned every penny of that high horse he rides into every thread.

Careful guys-- Rabbi's been very forthcoming with suggestions on investment strategies and rental property, so I suspect he does alright for himself, and is willing to share how he got there, if you ask real nice.

I think we're talking past each other in this thread, and not hearing what the other is saying, and it's frustrating the crap out of folks.

Kinda like the argument with SWMBO today.  Problem is, I didn't O, so she bared the teeth and claws, and now I'm shredded.   Ouch.  Talk about Ad Hominem attacks! Ouch.

[Art Eatman]

"There is a good reason why life isn't fair, it's planned that way by the wealthy.

Nonsense.  Rockefeller and J. Pierpont Morgan had zilch to do with my family's economic status.  (Trump, Gates, et al, are Johnny-come-lately types for an Old Fart like me.  I got here first.)

But if you're right, Telewinz, that could explain why Condaleezza Rice never got anywhere in life.  Or, for that matter, the Revverrund Jesse Jackson...

Art

[brimic]

Wealthy kids might start ahead on the track, but that doesn't mean they will run in the right direction.
A good read outlining the problems with wealth can be found in "the Millionaire Next Door." Its a boring book and is mostly stats and figures, but it shows how easily a wealthy couple can corrupt their kids and turn them into lifelong dependants.

Case in point, I know of two examples in my little world that fit this.
A coworker of mine is 33 years old and still lives with his parents who are wealthy, in fact to fit the stereotype to a 'T' he actually does live in their basement. He shows up to work sporadically, just enough to not get him fired, he eats at Subway every night, usually buys 3 subs at a time. When he gets his paycheck, he gives his parents the small token amount they charge him for 'rent' then blows the rest of it on hunting equipment and fast food. I have to wonder what's going to happen to him when his parents are no longer around. He has a decent job, but has no plans or ambitions, and definately no savings to fall back on.

In my hometown, an entrepreneur set up a small sock factory several decades ago. The man became the wealthiest man in our town. He gave quite a bit back to the community- he subsidized many of the high school sports teams especially Golf where he paid all of the expenses for the program. He was the only person in town that had a large in ground swimming pool, which pretty much became a community pool for the kids in the town. He was a high profile member of the Chamber of Commerce, Lions Club, and various social service groups in the area. When he died, he left the factory to his son. The man barely had dirt in his grave before his son sold the factory off in a fire sale to support his lifestyle where he spends money on luxury crap like its going out of style. He probably has enough money to last a few more years, then he will be broke.

[The Rabbi]

No one is ashamed of being wealthy but you seem to have a jealousy complex about it.

Please also note that the Rabbi is fabulously wealthy, self-made, of super-human intelligence, a political guru, and has earned every penny of that high horse he rides into every thread.

I appreciate the compliments.  But I also must consider the source.  A man with a pair of shoes is a Croesus to the one who goes barefoot.

[The Rabbi]

Wealthy kids might start ahead on the track, but that doesn't mean they will run in the right direction.
A good read outlining the problems with wealth can be found in "the Millionaire Next Door." Its a boring book and is mostly stats and figures, but it shows how easily a wealthy couple can corrupt their kids and turn them into lifelong dependants.

I didnt think it was boring.  I thought it was one of the best books I had ever read.
But you make a good point.  Merely possessing an advantage is no guarantee of anything.  In some cases it actually turns out to be a disability.  The stories you bring are very typical.  Warren Buffet often says he wants to leave his kids enough money to be able to do anything but not enough to enable them to do nothing.

[matis]

"All people in this country DO have equal opportunity BEFORE THE LAW." Almost too funny. So much for elementary school social studies.

I said it wasn't perfect.

I also said that the poor have devastating values.  So you can only do so much for them.  They learn to game the system.  But those bad values hurt them more than anyone else.  There is no way to make things "fair" for those who won't develope themselves.

Yep, life is a struggle and unfair BUT pretending the wealthy don't have tangible advantages over the less PRIVILEGED is just plain inaccurate.

telewinz, your posts make me think you'd have a hard time walking a straight line even without being drunk.  You're the one who complains that the rich have advantages.  I am glad of it.  Otherwise what's the point of producing the stuff for  our good standard of living -- if at the end there is found to be NO advantage.


A system based on the idealism of its citizens, starves.

My son has a poster in his house that says that any economic system based on greed and avarice -- is on a solid foundation.

Why do you also assume (wrongly) that I don't already have a fulfilling direction?  Again I want to be wealthy,  I have no resentfulness against them.

Unless words have no meaning, yours reveal quite a load of resentment, as I've already quoted again and again, above.  And since you also claim to have no resentment against the rich, etc. etc., you're confused at best, and maybe deeply split inside.

I'll tell you what's worse.  I do believe you'd like to be wealthy.  But to the extent you move in that direction, you may feel enough guilt and anxiety to sabotage yourself.

Your writing clearly reveals your feelings of resentment about the rich.  So the more wealth you do manage to acquire, the more inner conflict you will experience.  

People with leftist "ideals" resent those who make a buck and suffer conflict because they feel "bad" if they themselves make any real money.  That's one reason why rich leftists are so bloody destructive to the society.  They hate themselves and bitterly hate their society.


We all have some degree of inner conflict.  This one carries a big charge in our (probably in any) culture.  Tends to make one defeat oneself.


You would do better with your time and energy to reprogram yourself.  Find friends who embody free-market, laissey-faire values, read the books that can provide the intellectual underpinnings so you can learn to feel good about these values. Read Ayn Rand's CAPITALISM, THE UNKOWN IDEAL.  And become a winner.

Took me decades but life is wonderful now.  Didn't used to be so good.


You're in a time and a place that encourages you to be free.  So long as you ignore the socialist slime in the universities, the media, the courts and almost everywhere else you look.

It's still better than any other time and place.  Especially for you.  'Cause here and now is where you are.  No use finding out that last century was better, is it?


And if you're going to protest again, "who, me?" please -- just reread and analyze your own post #89.  It's all there plain for even you to see.


I have no dog in this fight, telewinz, I'm just having fun.


But you, telewinz, if you're willing to eat a little crow now -- you can be eating filet mignon for the rest of your life.  And anyway, do it for the children (yours).



matis

[...has left the building.]

No one is ashamed of being wealthy but you seem to have a jealousy complex about it.

Please also note that the Rabbi is fabulously wealthy, self-made, of super-human intelligence, a political guru, and has earned every penny of that high horse he rides into every thread.

I appreciate the compliments.  But I also must consider the source.  A man with a pair of shoes is a Croesus to the one who goes barefoot.

I'm glad we can have a somewhat gentlemanly exchange, albeit one where you have to stroke your ego by referencing a somewhat obscure King of Lydia. Do you lie awake at night and feel the pain that Lec alluded to:
"You climb to reach the summit, but once there, discover that all roads lead down."

[...has left the building.]

Wealthy kids might start ahead on the track, but that doesn't mean they will run in the right direction.
A good read outlining the problems with wealth can be found in "the Millionaire Next Door." Its a boring book and is mostly stats and figures, but it shows how easily a wealthy couple can corrupt their kids and turn them into lifelong dependants.

I didnt think it was boring.  I thought it was one of the best books I had ever read.
But you make a good point.  Merely possessing an advantage is no guarantee of anything.  In some cases it actually turns out to be a disability.  The stories you bring are very typical.  Warren Buffet often says he wants to leave his kids enough money to be able to do anything but not enough to enable them to do nothing.

Aside from our other exchange, why do you find the book so fascinating? I haven't found any of the material in there to be revolutionary nor completely solid. I've heard arguements both ways so I'm curious what your take is.

[The Rabbi]

Wealthy kids might start ahead on the track, but that doesn't mean they will run in the right direction.
A good read outlining the problems with wealth can be found in "the Millionaire Next Door." Its a boring book and is mostly stats and figures, but it shows how easily a wealthy couple can corrupt their kids and turn them into lifelong dependants.

I didnt think it was boring.  I thought it was one of the best books I had ever read.
But you make a good point.  Merely possessing an advantage is no guarantee of anything.  In some cases it actually turns out to be a disability.  The stories you bring are very typical.  Warren Buffet often says he wants to leave his kids enough money to be able to do anything but not enough to enable them to do nothing.

Aside from our other exchange, why do you find the book so fascinating? I haven't found any of the material in there to be revolutionary nor completely solid. I've heard arguements both ways so I'm curious what your take is.

No you're not.

But the book pointed out the essential difference between wealth and income, a difference that seems simple but that most people fail to grasp.  Ask 10 people if Michael Jackson is wealthy and I suspect at least 9 will say yes.
The book also documented that "wealthy" is an elusive concept to most people.  The wealthy that Telewinz seems intent on excoriating are probably guys he lives down the street from.  they aren't the high consumers most people associate with wealth.
Further, the analysis on children of wealthy people was an eye opener.  It confirmed what had been wisdom in my family: parents who give their kids "everything they didnt have growing up" are actually doing a disservice by not giving them the one thing they did have--the drive to succeed.
And yes, it made the idea of wealth something which is in virtually everyone's grasp.

[...has left the building.]

I didnt think it was boring.  I thought it was one of the best books I had ever read.
But you make a good point.  Merely possessing an advantage is no guarantee of anything.  In some cases it actually turns out to be a disability.  The stories you bring are very typical.  Warren Buffet often says he wants to leave his kids enough money to be able to do anything but not enough to enable them to do nothing.

Aside from our other exchange, why do you find the book so fascinating? I haven't found any of the material in there to be revolutionary nor completely solid. I've heard arguements both ways so I'm curious what your take is.

No you're not.

But the book pointed out the essential difference between wealth and income, a difference that seems simple but that most people fail to grasp.  Ask 10 people if Michael Jackson is wealthy and I suspect at least 9 will say yes.
The book also documented that "wealthy" is an elusive concept to most people.  The wealthy that Telewinz seems intent on excoriating are probably guys he lives down the street from.  they aren't the high consumers most people associate with wealth.
Further, the analysis on children of wealthy people was an eye opener.  It confirmed what had been wisdom in my family: parents who give their kids "everything they didnt have growing up" are actually doing a disservice by not giving them the one thing they did have--the drive to succeed.
And yes, it made the idea of wealth something which is in virtually everyone's grasp.

Income doesn't automatically translate into a high net worth, but if you have a higher income, you definitely can save/invest/etc. more. Also, having a Porsche and Rolex (even though Kiyosaki is quick to point out he owns these items) doesn't make a person wealthy. And to excel in anything in life, including accumlating net worth, one's drive and planning are more important than where they start. I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider this basic wisdom. I guess I don't find it to be worth the $12; to each his own though.

[brimic]

I liked Kyosaki's books. I think the one of the most important yet simple lessons I've read was from one of his books that can be distilled down to: wealthy people became wealthy by buying assets that generate money, nonwealthy people never become wealthy because they buy liabilities.

[...has left the building.]

I liked Kyosaki's books. I think the one of the most important yet simple lessons I've read was from one of his books that can be distilled down to: wealthy people became wealthy by buying assets that generate money, nonwealthy people never become wealthy because they buy liabilities.

No arguement there. Kiyosaki says a few good things in his books. But the problem is that they can normally be condensed into a half page of witty sayings and not be surrounded by all the other pages of oversimplified, and many times erroneous, information.

[grampster]

This thread has been more damn fun than watching my two grandsons spar.  I hope at the end of the day, everybody takes a deep breath and then chuckles a bit.  I know I have.

The girdle crack, though, may cause someone some bodily harm.  Barbara DID just buy a new shotgun.      

[telewinz]

From all the false assumptions, I think many have just read too many Richie Rich comic books...he's not real you know.  In short,  Wealthy (as in MONEY) people have inherent advantages over the less privileged.  That some might squander that wealth,  inherit that wealth, earn that wealth, have a higher tax rate, might live (wrong) in my neighborhood, I might be jealous of (maybe) doesn't effect that truism.  I don't wish to offend those of you that inherited your wealth and wish to believe you are a hero of the working class.  I wish to join your ranks via any legal method, I'll even accept the higher tax bracket as the heavy burden I must bear (a cross of GOLD).  And regarding the justice of our legal system, who is punished more, the poor man with a $200 speeding ticket or the wealthy (as in money) person with a $200 speeding ticket?  Who has better JUSTICE?  The poor man with the court appointed lawyer or the wealthy (as in money) person who can afford the best lawyer money can buy?  Why are our prisons mainly filled with the lower classes?  Bad luck?

[Guest]

You're think they'd have taken that into consideration!

[Guest]

FWIW, Condoleeza Rice's family was solidly middle class, even when she was growing up, and she had the benefit of a good education. There also aren't a lot of Rice's out there. How many other black women her age make it there?

Jesse Jackson? Blech. Apparently snake oil still sells. I don't know anyone who would consider him a sucess by any means. If you were looking for a black man who made it, I'd suggest Colin Powell. Or hell, Puffy Combs.

What's really interesting in this thread is at least one person's assumption that I'm asking for something for myself. I've read back through and don't see that anywhere. I have a full time job, a college education, own my own home (and gasp! a couple of rental units on top of it!) and don't depend on anyone for anything. On top of that, I work a good number of hours a week at volunteer activities. I stand by the fact that a lot of this is because I've been blessed in a lot of ways and that a lot of people will never get to the point I'm at no matter how hard they work. And also by the fact that I will always be behind the curve as far as saving for retirement and that if I have a serious illness or bad accident, I'd be in big trouble. None of this is because I'm lazy or have a crack habit or spend a lot of money on whatever it is that fat lazy poor people spend money on (I do have that navel ring. Probably going to cause the downfall of western civilization right there.)

Yet, even admitting that I used to be very poor (and am even now moderately broke) is enough to make at least one person here think I have some sort of character flaw?

As I said, kind of telling.

[telewinz]

Facts NOT emotion

BIAS IN ARREST RATES

Numerous studies show that the middle class conducts just as much, if not more, crime as the lower class. Even so, police choose to arrest the poorer criminals at a higher rate. Most studies proving this bias have been on juvenile delinquency, but keep in mind that teen-agers and early twenty-year olds form the largest criminal age group.

One study interviewed 847 males and females between the ages of 13 and 16, and found that 88 percent of them admitted to committing at least one delinquent offense. But 88 percent of these youth do not have police records; generally, only the poorest do. (9)

A Philadelphia study of 3,475 juvenile delinquents found that police referred lower class boys to juvenile court much more often than upper class boys, even for equally serious offenses with similar prior arrest records. When it came to upper class boys, the police were more inclined to treat the matter informally with their parents.

BIAS IN CONVICTIONS

The O.J. Simpson murder trial provided us with a snapshot of a system that is heavily biased towards money -- even more so than race. Without his Dream Team of lawyers, O.J. would have been convicted of murder within a matter of weeks. Indeed, trial lawyers everywhere conceded that death sentences have been handed out on lesser evidence. The counterpoint to this observation is the true-life movie Dead Man Walking. In the movie, white death-row inmate Matthew Poncelet tells Sister Helen Prejean: "There ain't no money on death row."

The rich have several important, if not decisive, advantages when it comes to handling the legal justice system. They can afford bail, which allows them to conduct their own investigations and prepare for trial. They can afford better attorneys (by itself an enormous edge), better expert witnesses, better private detectives, better alibis. In fact, rich corporations or individuals often threaten to put up such a huge legal battle that courts often seek to plea bargain away or even dismiss the charges.

On the other hand, the poor are often represented by a harried public defender or assigned attorney. One study found that most public defenders spend an average of five to ten minutes with their clients; even then the subject of conversation is not the facts of the case, but plea-bargaining strategies. (11) Not surprisingly, public defenders win dismissals or acquittals in 17 percent of their cases, compared to 18 percent for assigned attorneys, and 36 percent for privately hired counsel. (12)

This situation becomes even worse in death penalty cases. Because of the extreme poverty of most of the defendants, and the huge expense of trying a prolonged capital case, few lawyers of merit are willing to take them.

BIAS IN SENTENCING

There are two ways that sentencing is biased against the poor. First, the rich either write or lobby for the very laws that purport to oversee their behavior. Harsh sentences for the poor are softened whenever legislators write them for the rich, even though their crimes may be many times greater. Second, judges have shown themselves reluctant to make common criminals out of the community's best and finest. Both of these biases have created wide disparities in sentencing. For example, millionaire Jack Clark received no fine and only one year in jail for cheating stockholders out of $200 million. Yet in the same courthouse, a minimum wage worker who had stolen $5,000 received four years in prison -- that is, 160,000 times the punishment. (13)

A study of federal and state courts found that the poor were not only found guilty more often, but that they were not recommended for probation 27 percent of the time, compared to 16 percent for the upper classes. The poor were also not given suspended sentences 23 percent of the time, compared to 15 percent for the upper classes.

The disparities between the rich and the poor continue when it comes to both sentencing and parole:

Sentences and paroles for different classes of crime, 1986 (14)

                            Average     Average time
                            sentence    served
                            (months)    (months)
----------------------------------------------------
Crimes of the poor:
     Robbery                 128.5       46.5
     Larceny/theft          36.9       18.3
     Burglary                  35.6       17.9

Crimes of the rich:
     Fraud                         27.8       13.6
     Embezzlement             23.8       11.4
     Income tax evasion       18.3       10.3
To see how well the U.S. Criminal Justice System takes care of the rich, consider what happens at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency charged with keeping Wall Street honest. Researcher Susan Shapiro writes:

"Out of every 100 suspects investigated by the SEC, 93 have committed securities violations that carry criminal penalties. Legal action is taken against 46 of them, but only 11 are selected for criminal treatment. Six of these are indicted; 5 will be convicted and 3 sentenced to prison." (15)

Interestingly enough, when the government cracks down on the poor, it's praised for getting "tough on crime." But when it cracks down on the rich, it's condemned for "excessive regulation."

[brimic]

I think committing crimes falls uner the category of 'poor decision making.' It has nothing to do with a person's struggle to become self sufficient.
Whether or not a person can afford a good lawyer or not or make bail doesn't really concern me. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[telewinz]

I think committing crimes falls uner the category of 'poor decision making.' It has nothing to do with a person's struggle to become self sufficient.
Whether or not a person can afford a good lawyer or not or make bail doesn't really concern me. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

The wealthy(as in money) suffer from poor decision making also, yet in our "less than perfect" legal system,  the wealthy seem to be able to rebound/recover with much greater ease and are punished less.  Must be due to GOOD Luck and better planning on their part.  Yea, that's got to be the answer, forget all those facts I posted.  They are confusing you.  OK, lets all join in and sing "I will carry The old rugged (gold) cross".

Taxes and Politics in 2004
By Cheryl Woodard, Executive Director of AskQuestions.org
 
Posted April 15, 2004

Fifteen years ago, socialite Leona Helmsley bragged, only the little people pay taxes, but then she went to jail for tax fraud. Unfortunately, Helmsley's statement is even more accurate today than it was at the time.

Tax fraud is estimated at $311 billion this year, more than the entire budget for Medicare, and more than last year's revenues at Walmart or General Electric. Most cheaters go unpunished. Whats worse, the legal tax system is rigged to favor rich people and large corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and small businesses. Even when everybody abides by the law, middle-income households pay more taxes than rich ones. And politicians keep handing out tax favors to their campaign contributors  at our expense.

A chorus of academics, journalists, and private citizens are warning that a tax system favoring the rich fuels the growing concentration of wealth in America  and therefore threatens our economic growth and even our democracy.

Middle class spending is the growth engine in a free market economy, and when taxes rob the middle class in favor of the rich, the economy shuts down. Huge fortunes also produce political power that is hard to control. Thats why all modern democracies use their tax laws to prevent excessive concentration of wealth. And thats why we need a fair taxes campaign in America.

The Tax Code Fuels Wealth Concentration

Not since 1929 have so few people controlled so much of the wealth in our country. In his new book, Perfectly Legal, New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston reports that between 1970 and 2000 average income for the top 13,400 households in America increased from $3.6 million to nearly $24 million. Thats a staggering 538% increase. At the same time, the average income for 90% of US households actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035. These 13,400 households account for just .01% of the population, according to Johnston.  Prosperity that was supposed to trickle down has instead flowed straight uphill. Between 1990 and 2, the average CEO pay went up by 571% and corporate profits grew by 93% while worker pay barely stayed ahead of inflation.  Investors pay lower income taxes than workers. Roughly 85% of stock market wealth is owned by 10% of American households and there is no logical reason why income from those investments (called capital gains by the tax code) should be taxed less than income from work. But the top tax rate on wages is 35% while the top tax rate on capital gains is only 15%. This rate structure gives the richest households enormous advantages without producing any obvious social benefit. If we reversed the favor  and let workers pay lower tax rates than investors  then working families might have greater opportunity to accumulate wealth.  Historians point out that more people moved up into the middle class during the 1950s and 1960s  and American wealth was much less concentrated  when the top income tax rate was 91%, impacting salaries and capital gains equally. According to IRS data for 2, most American households earned 70% of their income from work and only 10% from capital gains. But in the highest tax brackets, the situation is completely reversed.

[brimic]

And regarding the justice of our legal system, who is punished more, the poor man with a $200 speeding ticket or the wealthy (as in money) person with a $200 speeding ticket?  Who has better JUSTICE?  The poor man with the court appointed lawyer or the wealthy (as in money) person who can afford the best lawyer money can buy?  Why are our prisons mainly filled with the lower classes?  Bad luck?

Ah, so we should have different penalties depending on how much a person is monetarily worth? To each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs and the rest of the happy horsecrap in that line of thinking?

From all the false assumptions, I think many have just read too many Richie Rich comic books...he's not real you know.  In short,  Wealthy (as in MONEY) people have inherent advantages over the less privileged.  That some might squander that wealth,  inherit that wealth, earn that wealth, have a higher tax rate, might live (wrong) in my neighborhood, I might be jealous of (maybe) doesn't effect that truism.  I don't wish to offend those of you that inherited your wealth and wish to believe you are a hero of the working class.  I wish to join your ranks via any legal method, I'll even accept the higher tax bracket as the heavy burden I must bear (a cross of GOLD).

I'm not wealthy, not even close to it. I have a good job however. It wasn't given to me. I worked in a factory to put myself through college, in fact I'm the first person in my family to go to college. My wife is in the same boat, though she had to take more student loans than I did. We live in a nice middle class neighborhood. While others in our neighborhood are buying new cars every year or every other year, new boats, $20,000 motorcycles, and taking out home equity loans to pay for it all,  we are quietly putting money away. Its pretty easy to put away a lot of money if every month you don't have: $200 in cell phone bills, $100 in cable TV bills,  $600 in car leases/loans, and several hundred more on ahome equity loan. On top of that, we put 15% of our income into 401ks and IRAs right off the top. Its takes discipline to do it, but its a well known concpet called 'living below your means.' Right now, if one of us lost their jobs, it would barely pinch us if at all. If one of us became disabled, we are insured for it. If one of us dies we are insured for it.

My wife and I decided about 6 years ago on a set amount of money we want to have put away and a timeline to do it in so that we can retire if we choose by the age of 60. We not only have a plan in place, but we spend at least 1 day every year on your winter holiday vacation going over the yearly finances, setting budgets, and setting savings/investment goals for the year. We don't stop there, as we spend another hour a month discussing our progress.  Its not fun and its not easy. There is a whole lot of vetoing that goes on: I might want an Ar-15, it gets vetoed, she might want a $1000 matching bedroom set for the kid, it gets vetoed, I might want to get cable TV, it gets vetoed, she might want a big screen TV, it gets vetoed. People might think we are nuts, and we probably are, but we don't believe in fairy tales like social security or government funded health care, and both of us are too bullheaded to ever except any handouts.

Look back at my marathon runner analogy- people say that they can't do it, or its too hard, or that others can't do it either mainly because they are unwilling to make the sacrifices and have the discipline to do it themselves.

[telewinz]

"Ah, so we should have different penalties depending on how much a person is monetarily worth? To each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs and the rest of the happy horsecrap in that line of thinking"?

It's hardly a new idea or horsecrap, Germany has done it for years.  "If you do the crime, pay the (pro-rated)FINE"!

"Whether or not a person can afford a good lawyer or not or make bail doesn't really concern me. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."  But justice dosn't concern you I thought.

[telewinz]

Not since 1929 have so few people controlled so much of the wealth in our country.

[Firethorn]

I think that the difference is the type of crimes commited.

Let's face it, the poor tend to commit stupid crimes.  Our society has determined that, on average, violence is worse than stealing.  The rich, when they steal, tend to do it in sneaky and on average non-violent ways such as fraud, embezzlement, and income tax evasion.  The poor do so with a much higher violence rate of robbing, muggin, burgling and shoplifting.  The first has to be discovered, with various degrees of success, through careful audit.  The second, well, often they have a description of the guy and the cops pick him up in the neighborhood.  Or they pick the wrong victim.

As for securities exchange violations, well, the regs on that make income taxes look simple.  Just look at Martha Stewart.

The 'poor' also tend to engage in stupid violence more.  You've seen their example on shows such as COPS.

There are people who make more than I do that live hand to mouth.  I'm currently socking 10% away into savings for retirement.  If returns stay the same, in about 10 years I'll be making as much in my investments as I am at my job.  Depending on variables such as promotions, pay increases, actual returns, and whether I stay at 10%.  Heck, I keep this up I'll have to start looking into investing in non-tax sheltered accounts and looking at retiring early.

Another couple years my car will be paid off, and I'll have even more money available to save up, though I'm likely to save it for another new car.  Make interest work for me, instead of the bank.

How do I do this?  By practicing control.  Sure, I want that High Definition TV, but my old 32"(bought on special) lowdef still works just fine.  Also, rather than look at a  > $1,000 television, the HighDef I'm looking at is a walmart special, $400 for 32".  Sure, it's better than 2" thick, being a CRT, but the picture quality is good, and it'd be an easy swap for my current television.

[telewinz]

Because the largest income declines occurred among the lowest income families, the share of the nation living in poverty increased, from 12.1% in 2002 to 12.5% last year, adding 1.3 million persons to the poverty rolls.    Since 2, poverty is up 1.2 percentage points, an addition of 4.3 million poor persons.  

It should be noted that these income, poverty, and health insurance results over the past year occurred in the second year of an economic expansion, with the nation's gross domestic product up 3% and productivity growtha supposed determinant of the living standards of working familiesup especially strongly, at 4.5%.   As today's report shows, clearly the benefits of this growth have failed to reach middle- and lower-income families.

[brimic]

Because the largest income declines occurred among the lowest income families, the share of the nation living in poverty increased, from 12.1% in 2002 to 12.5% last year, adding 1.3 million persons to the poverty rolls.    Since 2, poverty is up 1.2 percentage points, an addition of 4.3 million poor persons.

It should be noted that these income, poverty, and health insurance results over the past year occurred in the second year of an economic expansion, with the nation's gross domestic product up 3% and productivity growtha supposed determinant of the living standards of working familiesup especially strongly, at 4.5%.   As today's report shows, clearly the benefits of this growth have failed to reach middle- and lower-income families.

So your argument is that the economy went up yet left people behind? How is this so? Sounds more like you are making an excuse or are an apologist for those who don't want to put an effort forth when opportunities abound.

"Ah, so we should have different penalties depending on how much a person is monetarily worth? To each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs and the rest of the happy horsecrap in that line of thinking"?

It's hardly a new idea or horsecrap, Germany has done it for years.  "If you do the crime, pay the (pro-rated)FINE"!

Actually it is complete horsecrap. The words "to each according to his abilities.........." are a direct quote from Karl Marx, one of the biggest bullshit artists in history.  If you want to take a look at a economic philosophy that won't implode on itself every time its tried, have a look at Adam Smith.

BTW, what's the unemployment rate of Germany? Does a citizen or worker in Germany have the same economic opportunities as they do here?