Conference back40::soapbox

Doesn't bother me. Does it bother you?



Who _ARE_ you?

    Considering I'm in debt along with most people and most governments,
    why should I be surprised?
    
    Anyways, the Mark Of The Beast will fix 'em.

>Who _ARE_ you?



 He's Joe Budzowski, Los Angeleeeze

re .0:

>    How does the fact that 1% of the country's people control 95% of the
>    country's wealth (or whatever extreme ratio)

Try again.  The data in note 53.83 says the top 1% earn 13.7% of the money
(and pay over a quarter of all income taxes)    

    
    EAT THE RICH!!!
    

 sing along with Mitch!

	Life's a beach!

    what a reach!
    

    That 1% doesn't bother me, I just want to know how to be one of them.

    < send me $5 and I'll tell you how.

    Take long lunches and breaks, loiter in smoking rooms and chat. Use the
    latest and greatest lingo. Wear a short skirt.
    
    hth

    <  Shoot.  That was my answer too.  Now you've made it a Free Gift.

    >That 1% doesn't bother me, I just want to know how to be one of them.
    
     Well, the government is never going to give you the money, so you'll
    have to earn it for yourself. And the more entitlements the government
    pays out, the more taxes they need to take in (or the more future
    generations that will be sacrificed to pay for today's profiligacy).
    The more taxes you pay out, the less of what you earn you get to keep.
    Do the math.

>    Take long lunches and breaks, loiter in smoking rooms and chat. Use the
>    latest and greatest lingo. Wear a short skirt.

Smoke bother me, and my legs aren't good enough.

    Smoke bother me too!
    
    Ugh.

    
    Smoke bad, fire good.
    

    
      .0 is deliberately misleading.  1% of the country's people do not
     own 95% of the wealth, and he knows it.  So he says "control" the
     wealth, a weaselword.  Bob Palmer "controls" Digital.  Well, somebody
     has to.  I like shallow pyramids as a management tool, so I'm very
     happy that most decisions are made by small teams who get judged on
     performance.  If you don't like the distribution of wealth, then use
     real numbers about the distribution of wealth, not fake liberal
     Democratic half-truths like .0
    
      bb

    
    .17
    
     >I like shallow pyramids as a management tool...
    
    I guess Digital's management model must frost your pumpkin.
    
    :^)
    

    
    >  That 1% doesn't bother me, I just want to know how to be one of
    >  them.
    
    Do as they do not as they say.

    You want a more equitable system?  Do five things:
    
    1) repeal the 16th amendment
    2) disband the IRS
    3) reinstate the gold/silver standard
    4) repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and let the government print its own
       money that is actually backed by something more substancial than
       thin air and a penny's worth of paper and ink
    5) reduce federal government by at least 50%- sell off federal assets
       from this 50+% to pay on/off the national debt
    
    
    This would be a very good start, anyway.  
    
    
    -steve

    The entire premise of this note is incorrect.
    
    NEXT UNSEEN

    
    Ignoring the fact that the numbers are wrong, it still stands to reason
    that the 1% richest will own more than 1% of the wealth (otherwise they
    would not be the richest).
    
    Now the question comes to - Is it a BAD thing that the rich (top 1, 5,
    or 10%) own and control a significant amount of the assets in this
    country?
    
    I think the answer depends on mobility.  If the same people always were
    on top and there was no way or an extremely difficult path to
    improvement then yes, the wealth system would not be the best.
    
    The facts disprove this though.  There is a high amount of mobility. 
    It is rare that the richest people stay the richest for more than a few
    years, and almost never longer than 8-10 years.  Also, during the 1992
    election there was all this talk that the top 20% ended up with more
    wealth during the 80's and the poor got poorer.  Yet, another study
    found that of those who were in the top 20% in 1990, around half
    started in the lower 40% during the '70s.
    
    Now there is mobility for you - when someone can go from being in the
    poorest quintile to being in the richest quintile in less than 20 years
    is extremely positive.
    
    	Skip

    Re: .2 Answered in .3
    Re: .4 Note referred to relates to income, not wealth control
    Re: .17 As Freud once said "Sometimes a cigar..."

Basenoter should pay closer attention to reply numbers. Like most
Angeleans, he confuses.

  Angelinos

    
    re: .24
    
    Well Jack... just look at the last name!!!!
    
    :) :)
    

    Re: .17
    
    What's all this about my pyramids? Where can I cash in, so I can be in
    that 1%? Ahhh, as someone said...I've been poor, and I've been rich.
    Rich is better.
    
    Mr. Shallow Pyramids

    
      Aren't you a Shakespeare character, Shallow ?
    
      bb

    
    Shakespeare? Nah, that's too deep for me ;-)
    
    bs