And most who do not know that are the ones screaming the loudest when one of the "most" successful buys a Porshe.

So you don't recognize a difference between what people do with their own money versus what people do with other people's money? Interesting.

Not really since we pay for our own health care and yours.

I don't begrudge paying for your health care and disability.  That's not what Jill is saying either.

What she (and I) do begrudge are the people who complain how we spend our money as a justification for having the government take from us to give to other people who are typically even more wasteful than we are when looking at it as a % of their income.

I can't argue with you that they are idiots ... but they are another type of idiots .... the fact that the tax code is not based on the idea you pay taxes because you dont need the money is a proof that they at least didnt listen to that stupid idea.

If they really listen to the majority of the masses we would be in much better shape.

I am sorry ... but that is exactly the idiocy that ruins every thing for every one.

what is it that makes you think that buying a costly car or a dress by someone who can afford it is irresponsible or not enough discretion? each one of these cars or dresses support tens of working people ....

the buyers paid their taxes and taxes on buying those high-cost items .... that is good for all and they enjoy it as a bonus ... so what is soooo bad about that? .... you can even enjoy looking at these items too ... they are of great beauty and elegance.... what is bothering you in that????!!!! strange mentality for sure and idiotic too

I am LW.... i am not quitting ... no matter what ... i enjoy it and refuse to submit to the health-craze of this world. ...

I dont drink, dont eat much, work as hard as anyone if not more and suffer all kinds of irritations all day long from idiots allover the place  ... for more than 40 years now .... and I quit the only thing that relaxes me without questions or silly demands?

No way ... i am smoking ...

More assumptions you know little about.  We and our family will have to earn a lot of money each year (over $80k) just to pay the taxes to keep the real estate once we pay for it.  Do you consider that not costing anything?  Also, there is no circumstance, getting out of the crisis or not, that you could ever get what we will be putting into our dream house.  It is for us.  Customized to suit our family, not likely anyone else's.  But we knew that going into it.  It isn't a financial investment, it's an investment in family happiness.  It is the realization of a dream whether it makes sense to anyone else...it shouldn't have to.  And for those who think it's crazy, talk to the workers who thank us every day when we go to visit them at the construction site.  They are happy to be out there in the freezing cold working their asses off becasue they wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Like ThinkAloud pointed out, a lot of those extravagant purchases that are ridiculed create a lot of jobs.

You know what they say about assuming don't you?  Just because we have wealth doesn't mean we are planning to just give it all to our kids and they know that.  They know they have to work to achieve their own goals.  They aren't getting handed cars when they turn 16.  Hell, except for birthdays and Christmas (and stuff their grandparents sneak to them) they have to pay for their own stuff already.  Our son Alex lost a library book for instance.  Most parents would have just given the school the money.  Alex didn't even ask for the money.  He paid because he knew that it was he who lost the book and it was his responsibility.

If taxes keep going up we won't have to worry about what my kids will inherit.

What gets my goat, LW, is people who receive money from people who have worked there way up who sit back and judge them on what they spend their money on but think they shouldn't be judged on how they spend theirs. 

It certainly does not maintain pot-hole free roads.  A bunch of that money went/goes to Detroit (we're in the same county) to be squandered by the likes of Kwame Kilpatrick.  For our $80k we get nothing more than what plenty of people in the county pay nothing at all for.  Oh, and we get to pay the Detroit Zoo too whether we ever go or not.

It is an asset but it is only worth what you can get someone to pay for it.

I'm not asking for sympathy or anything else from anyone!  I just want people to stop taking our money and then judging us on how we a) spend the money that we make and that we don't pay society ENOUGH!

I wouldn't call sheer luck ... i think it is a divine intervention ... which is the same thing from a different perspective... but hard work sure maximaizes the benefits of that intervention...

look at how Bill gates and Steve Jobs got their chance and you will see what i mean.

Very interesting discussion.

A few points:

Re Being Rich versus being a burden on society:

LW writes:

Most people don't need handouts from society.

This isn't a discussion about what it takes to be rich.  This is a discussion that points out that people who want other people's money are very quick to complain how rich people spend money they earned but suddenly become offended if someone takes issue with how they themselves spend money.

Little Whip: Whether you would spend money on a fancy dress or car is not relevant. We all agree that those things are not a necesity. But there is a big difference between the rich guy/gal blowing money on a car or a dress - it's their money.

By contrast, a person who receives money that was taken forcibly by other people is arguably open to a little more scrutiny.

For instance, I wouldn't blow money on drugs, cigarettes, etc.  My wife and I never even tried smoking or drugs or anything like that.

I don't really care how people spend their money. It's not really any of my business.  But if people are going to start scrutinizing how I spend the money that I earn, then I certainly think I have every right to scrutinize the people whose money comes from money that was taken from me in the form of taxes.

Regarding becoming an entrepreneur...

Little Whip writes:

I started out with nothing. There is such a thing as sweat equity.  

The reality is, most people don't want to take the risks or make the sacrifices. And that's fine -- until they start bitching and moaning about people who were able to delay their gratification suddenly have a lot more than those who chose not to take risks or make sacrifices.

Little Whip writes:

What means did I have to pursue what I pursued?  You've written enough about your upbringing and vice versa that we both know I had less than you did growing up.  I grew up poor. 

Sure, if someone has an idea and a rich uncle to give them a bunch of money to give it a whirl, then that's sheer luck IMO too.

But that's certainly not what happened in my case. I didn't have sibblings to help me and my friends who I wanted to have in the business chose not to participate because of the risk and financial sacrifice it took.

While I was driving a Chevette my friends were driving Mustangs and Firebirds. And I never begrudged them their choices.  I was willing to take risks and make sacrifices.

But please feel free to tell me what luck I had.  I would say, in the bigger scheme of things, I've had a lot more bad luck than good luck.  

Regarding Realestate and investment:

One of the most common misconceptions about assets is that people count the house they are in as an investment. In fact, this falacy is one of the things that comes up over and over in investment books. The home you live in is not an investment because the only way you have a chance to get the money you put back into it is if you sell it. And by chance, I mean, just that, a chance.

Few people make money on the homes they own because they forget to include the interest they paid on their mortgage or the property taxes they paid.  Over 30 years, a typical house will appreciate at around 5% which isn't too bad.  So a person could break even if their mortgage was less than 5% after you subtract property taxes.

However, larger houses, particularly houses that are worth more than a standard deviation more than the mean house price, appreciate at a much lower rate (if at all).  Large homes are not a good investment.

When the housing market was good and people were "flipping homes" they were flipping houses in the exact mean housing price. The further you get from that mean, the more risk there is in that house appreciating.

Little Whip wrote:

LW, you were the one who said that one could buy such a house and not have to worry about expenses after that.  She responded by pointing out the significant ongoing costs associated with such a house.

Are you just not paying attention to what you write or are you purposely trying to misdirect the conversation so that you can avoid admitting that you overlooked that no, you can't just buy a big house and just retire without worrying about ongoing costs.

Regarding laying off people due to tax increases:

This topic is worth having its own discussion.

Work is a means to an end.  People go to work in order to make money to pay for the things they need or want.

My job is like that for me. I go to work to make money to pay for the things my family needs and wants.

But for some reason, people think that I am somehow unique in that I should work not to make money to pay for things my family needs and wants but to create jobs for other people.

Which is ridiculous.  Sure, I'm as compassionate as the next person and like anyone else, I'm willing to sacrifice a little.  I'm sure the autoworker making $80k per year on the assembly line might be willing to take a small cut in salary if it means saving some jobs.  But are they willing to make substantially less to save jobs? Probably not.

I am not willing to take on the responsibilities I do or make the sacrifices I make unless I'm compensated for it in a way that is acceptable to me (just like anyone else).  

So yea, if the government is going to effectively try to lower how much I make to the point where I can't afford the things my family wants or needs then I'm going to first not hire as many people and then lay off people.

After all, I don't see poor people willing to give up smoking or reduce their costs in order to require less money from the government which in turn would require less money being taken from other people which would save jobs.

It is always interesting to note that people who tend to fail in life never expect to make any sort of sacrifice themselves but demand the economic winners of life to make the sacrifices.  Maybe that is one of the factors that makes one group of people economic losers and the other group economic winners.

Regarding the difference between someone who earns money objecting to having their money looted versus someone who thinks they are entitled to the money other people earn:

I don't feel "entitled" to any money.  I never have.  I convert my labor into a product or service that I then trade for money to another person voluntarily. There is no entitlement involved.

I hire people only because I think doing so will result in more money being made for my company and therefore me.  Those people work here not because they are forced to but because they choose to be here because they think it is in their best interests.  If I fail to pay them or treat them in a way they find acceptable, they have the right to find another place to work that they believe will pay them and treat them the way they want.

By contrast, when someone receives money from the government, that money was originally taken forcibly from someone else who earned it.  There is no voluntary relationship there. 

I can definitely see how poor people need me. But I do not see how I need poor people. Hence, the only power poor people have is through the use of force by proxy via the government.

Remember, I don't force anyone to give me money. By contrast, poor people force people to give them money.  Comparing the two is like comparing a farmer to a thief.

A less optimal solution than the alternative (of just giving those people the money), because that money isn't then being spent in the way to maximise the benefit to the receiving person. If you're going to give them money, you might as well maximise the benefit it provides (in turn meaning that to achieve X benefit to them you need to provide less money than if you restricted what it could be spent on).

I don't see governments arguing that if you earn money you can't spend any of it, and hence if you earn extra money you do get to spend some of it (just not all of it). However taxes are necessary to provide government services, and income taxes (taxes based on a person's income) are the favoured way of raising much of this. If you don't want such taxes (your post suggests that taking money that some has earnt if it's above x amount isn't allowing them to live it, although I'm not certain if this is what you meant), what ones are you suggesting instead to raise the money? Consumption based taxes? Higher corporation taxes? Head taxes?

So what form of welfare state would be acceptable to you? Would you support one that provides money to those out of work (if they're trying to work and there's none available), and also those working for such a low amount they don't have enough to obtain the necessities, or would you support a higher level than this, or only support a lower level than this?

I'd agree with you there, if someone has the money to afford the necessities, it is their decision whether they do or don't, and they shouldn't then be provided additional money if they choose not to.

Not had a chance to read some of your later posts, so I might edit this later

Isn't enough for what?

A person is not entitled to someone else's money. Period.