Now that MLB is back...does anyone care?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

It has nothing to do with it, which is the point. I don't know what your personal concepts of wealth redistribution are but there is nothing about the practice that relates to taking something from one individual and giving it to another individual, except in personal matters between two people (like in divorce). The vision you have of someone reaching into someone else's pockets and giving it to a third person is not what happens in practice. And a fear of wealth redistribution is unfounded because as I've pointed out, you are surrounded by wealth redistribution every day.

What you're talking about are taxes, something rich people have fought since there were taxes.

Literally EVERY example of wealth distribution you gave is false.
A city budget for instance, is an allocation of funds generated through taxation.

According to Wikipedia: "The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It shows one aspect of economic inequality or economic heterogeneity"

Does that sound like things you mentioned as wealth distribution? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be rude, but reading your comments, I don't think you really understand any of this.

And your last sentence again points out your bias against the rich... so the poor LOVE taxes and never fight them??????? Hilarious

[packs]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Literally EVERY example of wealth distribution you gave is false.
A city budget for instance, is an allocation of funds generated through taxation.

According to Wikipedia: "The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It shows one aspect of economic inequality or economic heterogeneity"

Does that sound like things you mentioned as wealth distribution? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be rude, but reading your comments, I don't think you really understand any of this.

And your last sentence again points out your bias against the rich... so the poor LOVE taxes and never fight them??????? Hilarious

Income inequality and the redistribution of wealth is a public issue, not a private one. When people talk about redistributing wealth, it's for public services, which are included in a city budget. Everything I said is true and an example of public redistribution of wealth, which is what we're talking about.

Nobody is saying that if you have a lot of money and I don't, you should write me personally a check from your bank account.

In practice, wealth redistribution on the public level would include funneling more funding into schools in low income areas so that students in these schools have access to the same equipment and same educational tools as students in high income areas. That is the perfect example of wealth redistribution and bridging income inequality.

What I said about the rich and taxes has nothing to do with bias. This country has a progressive income tax.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

Income inequality and the redistribution of wealth is a public issue, not a private one. When people talk about redistributing wealth, it's for public services, which are included in a city budget. Everything I said is true and an example of public redistribution of wealth, which is what we're talking about.

Nobody is saying that if you have a lot of money and I don't, you should write me personally a check from your bank account.

In practice, wealth redistribution on the public level would include funneling more funding into schools in low income areas so that students in these schools have access to the same equipment and same educational tools as students in high income areas. That is the perfect example of wealth redistribution and bridging income inequality.

You still don't get it....

If you allocate more money for one area, funds have to be taken from other areas.
Why do schools in low income areas have less than schools in high income areas to begin with? The answer is obvious.. the people that live in those areas contribute less than the people in the high income areas, hence, they have less.
So what you want is for people with more money to fund the people with less money... correct?

By the same token, and what you would like to see, is those with less income having the same as the people with more income, but they'll contribute much less to get it.

Bottom line, you can delude yourself all you want with spurious logic and left-wing rhetoric, the truth is, it's stealing from one group to give to another. Period.
And this is coming from a liberal...

.... yeah, that's fair.

[packs]

The people you're talking about are children. They can't be held responsible for their finances. When NYC went to distance learning during the pandemic, they quickly encountered a problem. Not every student has a computer and not every family had the internet. What did the city do? Money was set aside to provide every student who needed a computer with one and the city continues to work on providing internet access. The city is doing this because students are entitled to an education.

There is no taking from someone else. If a high income school has already provided its students with a computer, why would they need funds to buy a second computer for its students? It wouldn't. So that money goes to a school who does.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

The people you're talking about are children. They can't be held responsible for their finances. When NYC went to distance learning during the pandemic, they quickly encountered a problem. Not every student has a computer and not every family had the internet. What did the city do? Money was set aside to provide every student who needed a computer with one and the city continues to work on providing internet access. The city is doing this because students are entitled to an education.

There is no taking from someone else. If a high income school has already provided its students with a computer, why would they need funds to buy a second computer for its students? It wouldn't. So that money goes to a school who does.

There is ALWAYS taking from someone else. Funds don't magically appear and are never limitless. If NYC "set aside" money as you mentioned... where did it come from?? SOMEONE is paying for that.

You also ignore why the high income school had that computer to begin with... they contributed more. It's the same reason the low income school doesn't have that computer, they've contributed less. So even with your example, you end up with people getting something they didn't work or pay for.

And there SHOULD BE "income inequality". The United States is a capitalist country, everyone makes different amounts of money based on NUMEROUS factors. As an example, people DO NOT work equally, invest equally or create equally, they are NOT equally talented or able, nor do they all share the same intelligence... so in what deluded world should they EARN equally and all have the same?

The United States is THE bastion of opportunity and success where ANYONE can improve their life and make something more of themselves if they so choose.
The absolute truth is that success and well being reside with the individual and their choices, not society.

[packs]

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by packs

That's simply not true. There was no computer tax on NYC residents. The money was already collected and that's how the city chose to spend it, which is what redistribution is all about. Where did that money come from? The city's budget.

Yeah, the city's budget... where the people who have more, contributed more.
And those people who contributed less... now get the benefits of those who contributed more.

Again, sounds fair!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Everyone in this country today has the opportunity to become a millionaire no matter your race, your background, your circumstances or whatever.

Let me recommend a book to you. It’s called “Everyday Millionaires” by Chris Hogan. He has another book too titled “Retire Inspired” which I read a few months ago.

In “Everyday Millionaires,” Chris debunks all the myths that are associated with millionaires such as: millionaires make a lot of money, millionaires inherited all their wealth, millionaires went to prestigious universities, etc. None of this is true based on Chris’ study of over 10,000 millionaires - the largest study ever of millionaires. These are only society’s preconceived notions.

The truth is, you probably wouldn’t recognize most millionaires based on the typical stereotypes. Most millionaires don’t flash a lot of cash, they don’t live in expensive homes, they don’t drive expensive cars, they don’t buy expensive clothes, etc. The Everyday Millionaire is probably your next-door neighbor, your co-worker or maybe even a family member - people you would never suspect of being a millionaire.

In his book, Chris tells you how anybody can become a millionaire by building wealth, and it’s not hard. There is no magical secret. But first, you have to understand the difference between getting rich and building wealth. Most people want to get rich. They want it now - either by some get rich quick scheme, winning the lottery, risky fad investments, an inheritance from some rich uncle they never knew about, etc. - they don’t want to put in any time or effort, and unfortunately this is why most people never acquire millionaire status.

By contrast, most millionaires Chris studied built their wealth over a long period of time by investing in their employer-sponsored retirement plan (401k, 403b, etc.). Did you know that if you invest only $100 a month @ 12% interest from the time you’re age 25 to age 65 (40 years), that will make you a millionaire? Do that math. If you’re in your early to mid-twenties and you start investing that amount RIGHT NOW (or even more if you can do it), you are guaranteed to be a millionaire (and maybe even a multi-millionaire) by the time you retire. And that’s not even factoring in a company match (assuming your employer offers a match). There, I just showed you how to become a millionaire. Sure, it will take some time, but anyone is capable of doing it.

Anyway, the book has been a great inspiration to me and shows that anybody can do it. Chris shows how to overcome all the excuses and the victim mentality by factual statistics through his research.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, especially with the youth, their motto is “fake it to you make it.” But by trying to look rich and keeping up with the Jones’s, you’ll never will make it. Newsflash: The Jones’s may have all the stuff you want - fancy house, nice cars, fine clothes - but they’re flat broke, drowning in credit card debt and eventually they're headed for bankruptcy.

If you don't retire a millionaire, that is YOUR FAULT and nobody else's!

[egri]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Everyone in this country today has the opportunity to become a millionaire no matter your race, your background, your circumstances or whatever. . .If you don't retire a millionaire, that is YOUR FAULT and nobody else's!

A while ago, there was a book written called The Millionaire Next Door. It’s from 1996, so some of the data is a bit dated, but here is an excerpt:

Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?
•I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.
•About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.
•Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dullnormal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.
•About half of our wives do not work outside the home. The number-one occupation for those wives who do work is teacher.
•Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.
•We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.
•On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.
•Most of us (97 percent) are homeowners. We live in homes currently valued at an average of $320,000. About half of us have occupied the same home for more than twenty years. Thus, we have enjoyed significant increases in the value of our homes.
•Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
•We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.
•Most of our wives are planners and meticulous budgeters. In fact, only 18 percent of us disagreed with the statement "Charity begins at home." Most of us will tell you that our wives are a lot more conservative with money than we are.
•We have more than six and one-half times the level of wealth of our nonmillionaire neighbors, but, in our neighborhood, these nonmillionaires outnumber us better than three to one. Could it be that they have chosen to trade wealth for acquiring high-status material possessions?
•As a group, we are fairly well educated. Only about one in five are not college graduates. Many of us hold advanced degrees. Eighteen percent have master's degrees, 8 percent law degrees, 6 percent medical degrees, and 6 percent Ph.D.s.
•Only 17 percent of us or our spouses ever attended a private elementary or private high school. But 55 percent of our children are currently attending or have attended private schools.
•We are fastidious investors. On average, we invest nearly 20 percent of our household realized income each year. Most of us invest at least 15 percent. Seventy-nine percent of us have at least one account with a brokerage company. But we make our own investment decisions.
•We hold nearly 20 percent of our household's wealth in transaction securities such as publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. But we rarely sell our equity investments. We hold even more in our pension plans. On average, 21 percent of our household's wealth is in our private businesses.
•I am a tightwad. That's one of the main reasons I completed a long questionnaire for a crispy $1 bill. Why else would I spend two or three hours being personally interviewed by these authors? They paid me $100, $200, or $250. Oh, they made me another offer--to donate in my name the money I earned for my interview to my favorite charity. But I told them, "I am my favorite charity."

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

You still don't get it....

If you allocate more money for one area, funds have to be taken from other areas.
Why do schools in low income areas have less than schools in high income areas to begin with? The answer is obvious.. the people that live in those areas contribute less than the people in the high income areas, hence, they have less.
So what you want is for people with more money to fund the people with less money... correct?

By the same token, and what you would like to see, is those with less income having the same as the people with more income, but they'll contribute much less to get it.

Bottom line, you can delude yourself all you want with spurious logic and left-wing rhetoric, the truth is, it's stealing from one group to give to another. Period.
And this is coming from a liberal...

.... yeah, that's fair.

I always envisioned an America where a basic level of life is provided: education, fire and police, roads get paved. If a portion of my taxes are actually being used so the poorer neighborhoods around me can have a city pool or a library, then I feel that I'm keeping up my duty as a member of this society. To use the term "stealing" is offensive to me. It's beyond the debate of how much of my taxes go to whichever pot. We are such a low-tax country, yet we all want Uncle Sam to take care of us in our own way, but it's "stealing" if I don't get back, in some form, every penny I put in??

So if in our society, the "haves" and the "have nots" only get money for education that they can raise in their own district, Bottom line: poor districts will always be poor, and they will keep raising poorly educated students. And what's going to happen to the "haves?" The answer is obvious: they will be able to put more resources into making their educational system even better. All of which leads to that great promise: Make America Great Again for People With Money.

[packs]

Double post.