Money management isn't just throwing darts at a board and investing in a company. It actually does take some work and effort.

Also, money management skills are not something most people are simply born with, they take work to acquire. You are correct in saying that it takes money to make money, but I don't understand the view that a poor person, who by virtue of his hard work and willingness to learn, made a multimillionaire of himself, would no longer have to work in order to keep it, particularly if he's become accustomed to an extravagant lifestyle.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

I thought it took practice. Simply having a work ethic does not guarantee having good money management practice. Having good money management skills can help guarantee that a wealthy individual will not need a work ethic.

Ya'know, as I said above: the 1% does nothing to bring themselves in to the favor of the other 99%. The real trouble with the super wealthy in this county started with the draft buy-outs of the civil war and the poverty that was willfully cresated in the industrial cities then and later that caused poverty. I would say that todya "official poverty" is that recognised by statistical data: again, the 1% do not make it their business to help society improve itself. I would further reject out-of-hand any notions about philanthropy and these gifts serve as tax shelters. That, in my view is why people would rather have it out. People can be very smart; experience teaches them who is lying and who is not.

__________________
. . . Everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, it's easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.

Yes, provided he's willing to work at becoming a good money manager. The skills don't grow on their own, and you do have to put quite some time toward developing them to do it well on your own. A work ethic is built, to one degree or another, by the time you learn to manage money on your own, unless you simply have chronic exposure to finances over the course of your lifetime, massive natural ability, or tremendous luck.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Third world investments, by their very nature of cuase and effect have shown repeatedly that such investments do nothing for this country: robbing Peter to pay Paul is a bad economics - full stop.

I disgaree with your idea about "other goods and services". Those goods and services were sold on the idea that they they would consumed in those markets of investments. In fact, those goods and services have been shown to be produced on the cheap, and then packaged for the US market, all the while driving down the US's ability to compete and then effectively pruchase said goods and services. Walmart is a good example of the Frankenstein that venture capitol has created: partime employment, no benefits and a majority of product imported from China. Walmart is a commercial poriah and this why "Big Box" stores are being banned is cities nationwide: that by the way is why Walmarts are not allowed in cities. They dry up competeing businesses and ruin teh local markets.

I believe that those of you on the Right are stuck on this business about fiscal waste in the face of those facts that I have cited in this thread. The Robber Barons of the 19th century, like the Walmarts and Strabuck's of today were the icons of fiscal conservatism, particulary with respect to the areas of the working population: setting up a Walmart in Harlem is no different in practice than setting up a drug market: some people with get a little high with a minimum wage, but not one of them will be able to support themsleves or a family on the crumbs they get. Business is about long term commitments with participation that is good for the neighborhoods in which they operate. I would argue that it ios only through the relentless fighting of the left for labor rights and equitable housing, equitable education and clean healthier streets that any of what is available is even there. This, I'm sure ou would argue, is the fiscal irresponsiblity you are concerend about, but as I just laid out, if the corporate, the 1% more readily shared the wealth - there would be little use for public dollars other than the basics, because the surrounding populace would able to afford to to participate in meaningful ways.

__________________
. . . Everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, it's easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.

Your argument is one based on classical management thinking: "if I don't get what I want you don't get anything". I would argue that business is leaving in droves for one chief reason: lease rates. The regulations and taxes I would consider secondary. From conversations I've had with Bay Area commerical owners, it is more economically sound to keep the rates high and take the losses on empty spaces and buildings than it is to lower rates. This strategy was known in 18th and 19th centuries as rack-renting and was one of the singular reasons for mass emmigrations. Just like today, those that cannot afford to move, lose their income and wind up increasing the rate of poverty. This is one way that free market capitalism works against us. Study the effects on people and the mass migrations immediately following WWII as an example.

The reason that the 1% don't participate is because up until now, they didn't have to. What you are really seeing is the classic business model of social Darwinism working against them by a stronger force: that of the people utilizing representative democracy to redress their grievances. This is exactly how the 1% has for thirty years manipulated the legislative and legal systems in this country: now the shoe is on the other foot and it's "a communist under every bed!" again . . .

They can hack. But as usual, just like buying out the draft in the civil war; they don't want to do their share.

__________________
. . . Everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, it's easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.

So, only businesses that can afford those high lease rates and high taxes should be permitted to do business?

How does that help anyone who isn't a 1% rich person make it in this economy? What about those that would like to start a business but can't afford it? It's best to not rent those spaces than have more business (that would employ more people)?!?!?

Maybe I just don't get this... but it sounds like a complete load of BS to me.

I just started my own small business. I can't afford to rent a high priced shop, so I am keeping it as a home based business. I will also never get so big that I need to hire anyone. I will NEVER let it get that big. So, really, due to high costs of renting a place and the BS lawsuits from employees, there are people like me out there that will make sure that they never make over $250k, never rent a place, and never hire anyone! I make enough to support my family (yeah finally!!! ) and that is good enough for me!

I have heard of the expression that practice makes perfect. However a traditional labor work ethic is usually not a requirement for a wealthy individual. Good money management skills are a requirement for a wealthy person to remain wealthy.

I agree with everything you've said, I simply propose that the building of good money management skills would involve the development of a work ethic in most circumstances.

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

I think you misread my statement with respect to lease rates. What I said was that small businesses are getting run off by high lease rates. These businesses cannot afford to start, cover expenses, compete fairly and pay exorbitant lease rates at the same time. The 1% are not doing their fair share by taking rate cuts to help businesses get along. Instead building and mall owners will keep the rates high and write off the losses. This practice keps small businesses weak or non-existant and it keeps people unemployed.

__________________
. . . Everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, it's easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.

Ahhhh... ok... I was thinking that something wasn't right about what you said.

I was under the impression that you agreed with this.

Ok... thanks for the clarification.

But, I still stand by what I said. It is BS.

Do you really believe that the top 1% earners in this country just take their money--stuff it under their mattresses & don't do anything with it?

They are huge creators of JOBS in this county. I just described one wealthy person I know--he has taken risks & worked his behind off all of his life, & is also very active in the management of his business'es & certainly didn't come from the civil war era.

He employs over 1000 people & is always looking to expand--which creates even more jobs. You tax this individual to death--he won't expand--he may not give his current employees a raise & or may cut their benefits-&-he certainly will no longer be a new job creator.

A question for you? How would you personally benefit by raising taxes on this individual?

Make your case for BS. I think you're wrong about that.

__________________
. . . Everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, it's easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.

We have to describe the 1% as a group. There are plenty of individuals who are very good people, but we must look at this in scale: the 1% represent 300,000 people who possess and thereby control almost 90% of the wealth in this country. All we have to do is consider teh economy and the way it's been for the middle class in the last thirty years to draw the reasonable conclusion that I'm arguing.

If taxes go up for them, if they are (frorced), like everybody else has been, then I stand to gain with a reduced tax burden on myself, (I) stand to gain with more available jobs and a tighter infrastructure, because the only way for the 1% to recover their losses and benefit long term will be for them to work their money more effectively here in the US: we're hemridging money left and right and that's been the problem all along in my view.

__________________
. . . Everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, it's easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.

A study/learning ethic is not necessarily the same as a work ethic since a work ethic usually involves receiving an income for that labor. Wealthy individuals may have no need for a work ethic that requires labor for an income.