When did "Rich" become a dirty word?

Remove all ads!

It is nice too se ignorance on such open display. What I proposed actually are as Lokken pointed out a fact in many if not most european states. Due to the will of the people. And that is only income tax.
When did you ever use my arguments against me Darkwolf?? All you do is read something and then think you have read something that was never written. It takes a vivid imagination to do so. But I am glad for your sake that you really believe in ´what you say, it speaks of an innocent and naive outlook on life. Which is always refressing, especially in someone that seems to have seen the world. Perhaps the world would be a better place if people were as optimistic as you but alas most can not do that, but are forced to perceive the world as I, unfair and unjust.

 

Beeing *rich* only is a dirty thing in a world where the differences between the rich and the havenots are mountain high - and when the rich life their life and the poor theirs. In such a world the havenots will hardly ever have the sheer chance to earn enough to really improve their lifestyle. Of course, there may be the occasional dishwasher becoming a millionaire but that's about it.

When becoming wealthy at least demands a good education and that is only available for money .... stipendiums are nice but don't change anything about the general fact. It's a question of a fair society offering fair chances for everyone.

Of course, the spirit of *get your hands on your life and become someone* may be motivating. But it can also be hypocritically abused as an accusation (and justification for not-sharing): Since you are poor you evidently haven't been eager and busy enough .... when we treat you like dirt we only make you harder, that will help you in the long run.

[ January 30, 2003, 17:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Refusing to give people handouts is not treating them like dirt. As I would venture to guess that most of the participants in this forum are probably still are or were recently in school I will not bore you with a full lecture on Maslow. If you aren't familiar with his work, you can find a lot of web sites by searching "Maslow's Hierarch" or follow this link . Welfare can provide for a persons physiological and safety needs. It does not affect belonging needs. It is however detrimental to a persons esteem needs. I quote from the link above,"Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition". How can a person feel that they have achieved anything if they can't even provide for their own physiological needs? How can you feel competent when you live off of the hard work of others? How can you feel the approval of others when you feel that everyone is looking at you as a parasite? And the best, fastest way to receive recognition is to go out and earn it.

I will stop arguing that every single person in America can go out and become monetarily rich if they only work hard, it is an extremist view. I will contend that every person in America (baring the severely disabled) can go out and make a good living, provide for himself or herself, and have a chance at making it to that very rich plateau.

People have always resented the rich, and always will as long as the rich continue to exist. But while they resent them, most want to join the rich. This motivation is one of the factors that sustains innovation, and growth. If you take away the chance for great success, you take away the motivation to take on great risk. Inventors often create many wonderful things just for the satisfaction they get from making something that is good and useful. However the fact is, these items never get produced unless someone can make money on them. IBM and Apple took enormous levels of risk to produce personal computers. They would not have taken the risks it if there were no monetary reward to do so. This means that it is the rich who create the industries for which we all get paid to work at, and that produce the goods we buy. They should be allowed to share their wealth if they choose. However if you take away the potential rewards for their risks by forcing them to provide charity in unfair amounts (over taxation), you also take away the incentive to take those risks that we all reap the rewards of.

And jo, the really amusing thing is I was wondering how old you are, because many of your views mirror my own 10 or 15 years ago. I think that you are a good person, and that you truly mean well, but just don't seem to have seen enough of life to understand that much of what is taught in theory just doesn't work in the real world. I know that might seem condescending, and I truly do not mean it that way, but I can't think of a better way to put it.

 

*cough* I wasn't exactly talking about handouts but anyway ... *cough*

 

Sorry Ragusa, but that is what most of what passes for welfare is in America.

 

I am old enough to feel old all too often...

What you conceded there Darkwolfe was an important point in my argument about the word 'rich' a point that I didnt stress enough. That the bad tinge to the word is *mostly* historical. That even though it takes alot (incidently I dont really call working 10 years to earn 100k$ being rich, I call it reasonable pay if you save up) to get filthy rich and it isnt possible for anyone no matter how hard they work without a enourmous amount of luck but that it *is* possible for more or less anyone in the western world to make a decent living. Which with our standards of livingh is being filthy rich in a global and historical context. Everything is always about perception.

 

Okay, I will say off the bat I need to read more closely everyones posts.
But I want to interject a few thoughts to chew upon:

In the US the rich enjoy many benefits the 'less than rich' are not entitled to.
Throw out whatever numbers you want in terms of percent tax bracket, there is inequality of numbers across the board in numerous ways.
Hidden taxes or fines that people with money avoid.
People with money avoid so many fees and are given opportunities not available to people of lesser means. If one were to add all the hidden costs people in lower income brackets must pay for having a smaller bank account, or less credit, or less equity to back a loan, the overall tax flow or cost for doing the same business would reflect a higher cost to the lower income bracket, guaranteed.

As well, people who have invested interest capital are much more able to find shelters for their wealth. It is too simplistic to simply look at tax returns and gross income when trying to define a fair system for taxation. Flat tax is not the answer.
And, in my humble opinion, too many people make money off the labor of others. Why should a CEO make millions? It is ridiculous what some people make talking their heads off while others slave away. Here in the US we have a distortion of labor.

And in answer to the original question, rich has become a bad word because of all the selfishness that has beeen apparent in the last few decades.

We have new money without the old traditions. Old money respected the arts, education, and felt a need to return to the community in which provided them their wealth, or at least identified enough with the community that it was a reflection of themselves, their backyard so to speak.

Today the rich are greedy, full of the US attitude of selfishness

 

jo,

I didn't mean that a person would have a net worth of $100k a year in 10 years, I meant, and still believe that if you are willing to get out, take risks, and be flexible, that anyone in American can be making a six figure salary, be earning $100k a year, within 10 years. It takes a lot of sacrifice, though. Things like family, cars, houses, jet skiis, boats, motorcycles vacations, furniture, pets, dating, eating out, etc, have to be a much lesser emphasis or not existing during those 10 years. I am talking about working 10 hour days, 6 days a week so that you can be noticed and or earn overtime, saving and investing your earnings, and never ever borrowing for anything other than to purchase a home, and then only buying a home you can put 20% down and afford a 15 year term. You do all that in America, and your gross income before taxes is almost guaranteed to be more that $100k per year.

The question is, how many people are will to do all that? You can start counting after you go past me, 'cause that ain't me!

But to let you know, I did most of those things for 4 years. I started as a teller and worked by way up to assistant branch manager for a worldwide bank. If I would have had one more teller working for me I would have had the title Assistant Vice President. I just didn't have the fortitude to keep it up after I got married and we had a child. But that was my choice!

[ January 31, 2003, 12:20: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Damn we do alot of clarification here, the 100k was meant as having been saved up for ten years, not gross income during these years, if it had been that it would have a really lousy pay. I also think we different definitions of being rich, in my mind you cant get rich on wage working. You can get well off which a salary on 100k a year would make you. But you wont be rich, rich is having a few millions to your name.

 

joc,

Assume a career is 40 years in length (age 25 to 65). At age 35 you are earning $100k per year. Living a moderate lifestyle, you mean to tell me that you don't think that it is possible to have a net value of a couple million by the end of your working career. Don't know how handy everyone is with time value of money, but lets make some very conservative estimates here. Lets assume that the person invests $25K of their earnings each year, at a moderate rate of return of 4%. They never increase the amount that they are saving, even though their salary probably continues to go up. The future value of that money is $1,400,000! Add in the value of their home and you will easily exceed 2 million dollars. Increase the return to 8% (still quite conservative if you look at the 30 year history of a good growth and income mutual fund) and you are talking about $2.8 million at retirement, plus any pensions, the value of their home and any other assests they pick up on the way, and that assumes that they never saved before age 35. That is (assuming a 3% inflation rate) $1.15 million in today's dollars. If 1.15 million US in your pocket today isn't rich to you, you are living in a fantasy land, or a place that is VASTLEY more expensive than where I have lived.

My paternal grandfather retired in 1986. He was very close to being a millionaire then. He was an electrician, and earned $45k in his final full year of work. That was the most he had ever earned in a year from his job! He is a millionaire today. He gathered all his wealth through hard work and living modestly. He drove Volkswagens and Oldsmobiles that he never borrowed to buy, lived in the same house for 30 years, and didn't spend his money frivolously. He went through the great depression as a child and was determined to always have the means to support himself no matter what happened with the economy or his job. But he gave up a lot to have all that money. My father never remembers him being at any of his childhood events, or even being around on the weekends. He didn’t have fancy cars, boats or toys. He didn’t travel to Europe, Australia or the Orient.

It is all about sacrifices. What are you willing to sacrifice to have something? Sir Belisarius has it right. He is rich, because he has the things he wants. Ask him if he would be willing to work another 20 hours a week so that he could retire a millionaire and I imagine he would tell you no. I know that I don't want to miss the next 10 years of my friends, my family and children's lives for any payoff in 40 years.

 

Working my bum off and saving a fourth of my income so I can be rich when I retire at 65 years of age? Doesnt appeal to me all too much. What good is money when you are about die any time anyhow? I think most people would prefer to very well off in great parts of their life instead of having a big pile of money on the bank for the retirment to Florida. In my experience there are only a few ways to get really rich: you are born rich, you get extremely lucky and win it (this more or less includes financial speculation), you get an incredible brilliant ideé or you steal (plenty of legal and halflegal ways of stealing).

 

Now we need to make the distinction between being rich and being able to retire.

To me, being rich means that I don't have to think about money on a daily basis - I can buy whatever I want without having to worry about the impact of my new designer outfit or my $50 lunch on my ability to pay my bills. In the long run, I don't have to worry that my son will have to go to Podunk U over Harvard because of money. When you get into huge homes and Ferraris and yachts, now you're talking FILTHY rich.

$1.5 million in the bank at retirement? Let's look at that. Many Americans are planning to fund their own retirements. Social Security payments are a piece of the pie but CANNOT be relied upon as one's major source of funding. Ignoring continued growth of the $1.5M nest egg, if you live for another 30 years that's $50,000 per year for general expenses. Most people want to enjoy their retirement, so the "recreation" line item on the budget takes a big jump while many other costs (e.g., housing, food) stay about the same. And just how fast would that money be eaten up by a major medical problem?

To me there's a difference between being (financially) rich and having planned well.

 

Well, you can't really fairly say "ignoring continued growth." Doing the numbers in my head, if you look at the return on 1.5 at 8% you're looking at $120,000 a year and you haven't even touched the 1.5. A 4% return and you're at 60,000 a year without touching the 1.5. Add in that by the time someone retires who is capable of having 1.5 socked away they are likely to have a house, car etc. all paid off.

However, I don't think having 1.5 mil in the bank will necessarily stretch as far as some think. One of the primary reasons people retire and try to live off the interest (and living off of 160,000 a year can be a very, very full and enjoyable life) is because they would like to leave something for their children. Often though, that money disappears despite the best of intentions.

The medical costs toward the end of a person's life are astronomical. If I cared enough anymore I'd look up the exact numbers but the majority of medical bills that come in a person's life come in the last 6 months of her life. The cost of assisted living for someone with Alzheimers (sp), the cost of treating even simple high blood pressure let alone a more serious heart conditino, the cost of a hip replacement, or cataracts, or cancer or..... well, that 1.5 can disappear very quickly. Do a search on the net and look at the cost of some of the nicer assisted living facilities -- an eyeopener.

Now, some will say that the adults should live with their children when they reach the point of no longer being able to take care of themselves. I've had this battle with my parents, who are both still spry and in their mid 50's. They want to work their finances in such a way that they can live in these type of homes if it becomes necessary down the road (my father's mom is 85 and still jogs every day and lives alone, but my friends grandmother is 72 and has severe alzheimers and her husband who is 78 is in a similar condition -- who knows how you'll turn out?) because they don't want "to be a burden." I on the other hand argue they wouldn't be but they have their own pride and worry for their children. Also, some children despite the best intentions just find that juggling their work, their children and parents who need constant suprevision is too much -- I can't blame them until I've been in a similar situation.

Point is: 1.5 million is plenty to live off of just the interest barring high medical costs or some type of disaster BUT those high medical costs are pretty common and then 1.5 will be gone in the blink of an eye. When you're rich, in my opinion, you will never have to worry about being bankrupted by high medical costs so 1.5 =!= being rich.

 

I get it now; you all want a way to be rich tomorrow, without making any sacrifices. Whatever! Life isn't fair, and the government is never going to legislate it into being "fair". There just isn't enough wealth in the world for us all to be "filthy".

$2.8 million, in the bank at age 65 is pretty damn good (8% is very easily achievable). You would have no house payment, no car payments. As far as medical expenses, they would be partially offset by Medicare, and you can get supplemental private insurance for a decent cost if you plan early enough. If you made the assumption that you were going to live to 110 years old, (pretty safe that you won't) and had $2.8 million you could safely draw of $130k a year, assuming a 4% annual return. That is $6,500 dollars a month after taxes if you set up residence in Nevada, Florida, or some other state with no state income tax. No house payment, no car payment. If that is not living pretty comfortably, I don’t' know what is. I think that you can afford some pretty luxurious items at that point without blowing your budget.

Jo,

The average life expectancy in America is 70 something, depending on if you are male or female. However, that number takes into account infant deaths, which brings the average way down. If you make it to age 60, your life expectancy is actually over 90. 65 is not old and frail. If you have taken care of yourself there really aren't many things that you can't do for another 5 to 10 years.

I never said that the sacrifices are worth it. They certainly aren't to me. But if you believe that winning the game of life is being rich before you die, there it is!

True, your odds of every being "filthy rich" is pretty thin. But then, there are always the Bill Gates and Sam Waltons! I don't believe that either if them had it handed to them on a silver spoon.

 

I can't understand why the US idolise the successful dishwasher-becomes-a-billionaire stories so much. They are exceptional careers, yes, it *is* possible but how often does that happen? Consider how difficult it is to get money from bank? You only get money from a bank when you have money already. Not only that, Bill Gates was lucky too. He was the right man at the right time with the right ideas and contacts and products. Purely a reuslt of brilliance and eagerness? Hardly.

Luck and brilliance do not always meet. It's not all about beeing eager. I find it a little hypochritical to accept an unfair social structure with stark social differences and starkly different chances for everyone and justify it as fair in reference to the possibility of an exceptional success.

[ February 03, 2003, 11:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Darkwolf, are we arguing or agreeing? All I'm trying to say is that the term "millionaire" used to conjure up mental images of someone with more money than they could ever possibly know what to do with, while today it's enough to afford you a comfortable living for a finite amount of time, not infinite extravagance. I'm making no assumptions whatsoever about how the money got there or what sacrifices were involved. Did you ever read "The Millionaire Next Door?"

Another twist on the original question: Why do people seem so reluctant to think of themselves as rich?

 

We are all lucky at some level or another. Some of us are lucky just to still be alive.

What is frustrating is a bunch of socialists who cannot accept the fact that we are all responsible for our choices, and that those choices make us who we are, and determine what we have. We shape our environment, not the other way around.

What you call luck I call opportunities. You make your own opportunities. You create them by making sound decisions and then take advantage of them when they occur. If you do, you will be rich in life, perhaps not Bill Gates or Sam Walton rich, but just as rich in many other ways.

 

So we agree.

 

Rally,

My argument is that you can be rich, maybe even filthy rich, if you work hard, at least in the US. That opportunity doesn't present itself in many other countries. If people get off of their asses they can achieve. All the whiners who lay in their misery and claim that they just never “got lucky” accomplish nothing. When you hear "I just never got (or will be) lucky enough to be rich" you know you are speaking to a weak minded, unmotivated (i.e. LAZY), person who does not take responsibility for themselves.

There is no such thing as an amount of money to have "infinite" spending. Rockefeller was thought to have that kind of money, but it is gone, Bernie Ebbers was thought to have that kind of money, it is gone, in another generation Sam Walton's money will dissipate to the point of being unremarkable.

Being "filthy rich" is a dirty word because humans are hypocrites. We badmouth the rich because they allegedly steal their wealth from the poor, and then supposedly do to little for these poor people whom they stole money from. It is funny how the people who work the hardest to get their riches are the ones who turn around and provide jobs and charity, and people who win it in a lottery think they are being wonderful people because they bought mommy a home.

99% of the time the rich are rich because they earned it. They saw opportunities, and they took the risks to make the most of them. They provide far more to the economy than the rest of us.

Bill Gates isn’t rich because he got lucky. Bill Gates was a software developer who, when provided an opportunity, (IBM asking him, due to is good reputation, if he could build an OS for their new computers) took a hell of a chance, and through his sheer will and hard work, made it. Remember, Microsoft had never developed OS's before this buying the rights to a rough Disk Operating System and then working to improve it. He continued to take advantage of opportunities by making the right decisions. You can claim it was luck that he made the right decisions, but I believe that it was though using his intelligence, research and employing the right people (who also got rich!).

 

Darkwolf, I'm definitely right there with you regarding opportunities, preparation and hard work! What I'm curious about is the hypocrisy regarding the result. People want to get/be rich, but they're willing to shoot down a proposal because some talking heads claim it benefits the rich? It makes no sense to me that people buy this argument without stopping to determine if they'd be helped by the proposal in the first place.

Like I said, why aren't people willing to think of themselves as "rich" if that's one of their goals?