Apparently the top 1% of the population have it all and the other 99% Don't! I don't know what this means for those truly in poverty but it would seem that at least in some circumstances this situation is obscene. When you consider that such statistics are fueled by oil wealth and whole nations, however small, who import servants there is no excuse for thinking this is OK

Combat obscenity. Send 30% of your total wealth to my Paypal, another 30% to your government for Social Justice causes, and live on the other 40%. (Okay, the sarcasm font was on after the first comma)

Combat obscenity. Send 30% of your total wealth to my Paypal, another 30% to your government for Social Justice causes, and live on the other 40%. (Okay, the sarcasm font was on after the first comma)

Sarcasm doesn't cut it, from your response I expect you are one of the 1% and you don't like looking in the mirror

When does wealth become obscene?


When other people suffer from your wealth.

It is obscene when you consider with the resources throughout the world, and not just from a financial perspective, there is more than enough to stamp out poverty.

Much of what results in poverty could be dealt with... lack of education, training, and infrastructure.

However, you would still have the human nature aspect from those who seek power (sometimes at a government level), at the cost of those things, to those who would rather not put forth the effort to change their individual circumstances.. and everyone in-between.

Business wise... many have worked very hard to get where they are and have the jobs for thousands. Some experienced more luck than others along the way... you can't begrudge them of that. Many do spread the wealth to support various causes.

The issue arises of who decides how much is too much? Who decides what someone should and shouldn't do with their money? What's the cut off? Do celebrities and professional athletes fall in to the same category?

I don't know, Doula, if you are a billion dollar corporation, and have thousands of jobs, and enjoy tax breaks to do your business, I think it's obscene for the vast majority of your workers to be on WELFARE.

I have to agree with Tal there and that is the issue yet no one wants to think about wealth distribution, why should 100 individuals possess as much as 50% of the inhabitants of the planet, luck, effort or innovation doesn't justify it and yet there are whole political systems designed to ensure it can happen. Debate rages about wages and how much is too much, not how much is too little. Billions are spent trying to eliminate labour under the guise of efficiency but it is not efficient to have large numbers of the population unemployed and in poverty

from your response I expect you are one of the 1%

If you have a phone, floors and an income above $9800 Aus. Per year, you are one of the 1% like me.

If you have a phone, floors and an income above $9800 Aus. Per year, you are one of the 1% like me.

As I understand it the measure is $1 million in assets which is different to the poverty level, I know people who are just above the poverty line on $50,000 family income in an ecomony where average weekly earnings equate to $75,000 a year. Everyone has a floor it is a question of what it is made of, marble or dung. No one who lives on the pension could be considered wealthy unless they have substantial other income. However the question is how to lift the 99% because the statistics demonstrate that the share of wealth for them is shrinking

However the question is how to lift the 99% because the statistics demonstrate that the share of wealth for them is shrinking

So that's what the question is. Thanks for clarifying. The one word answer is "opportunity." Any attempt to "give" anything else to people puts one in mind of the signs in the wildlife parks that say not to feed the wildlife lest it become dependent and incapable of providing for itself.

Obscenity has been around as long as there have been kings, czars, despots, chairmen, and leaders of any stripe. There is obscenity when a poor couple sells a 5 year old daughter for a tv set instead of rice, or when shrimp processors smuggle people over the border who are poorer than their poor and lock them in sheds for 16 hours a day in rooms full of ice water, and the cops are paid off the catch them if they escape. It reaches from the deepest depths to the highest peaks. What do you want, a Russian Revolution, or Mao's March? What do you do about the billionaires who give most of their money away? America's high tech rich give away a lot. And Warren Buffet, who WANTS laws to close the tax loopholes. There are good rich people! Some of them are even smart enough to know that they are supported at least as much by the poor as the poor are supported by them.

Change the tax code. Don't lump the 1% together as evil.

Change the tax code. Don't lump the 1% together as evil.

An interesting detail on calculation of income inequality: it's all done using pre-tax figures. So increasing taxes on the rich actually does nothing for reducing "income inequality," at least as defined in the statistics that get bandied about.

An interesting detail on calculation of income inequality: it's all done using pre-tax figures. So increasing taxes on the rich actually does nothing for reducing "income inequality," at least as defined in the statistics that get bandied about.


One way would be to change the tax codes so the money flows back here rather then being held offshore for a rainy day by investing in the future of the product or service. Education in value is what needs to be taught again rather then the wasteful attitude of a throwaway soceity. One like Walmart would run from it because they are part of the problem. We need to get back to self thinking and being independent rather then waiting around for a government solution. Being able to think on your feet and move through the fog of life used to be the standard. Now its foghorns and training wheels all the way. We all need to take ownership and be responsible for our own peice of the world. The rest will align itself.

Obscenity has been around as long as there have been kings, czars, despots, chairmen, and leaders of any stripe. There is obscenity when a poor couple sells a 5 year old daughter for a tv set instead of rice, or when shrimp processors smuggle people over the border who are poorer than their poor and lock them in sheds for 16 hours a day in rooms full of ice water, and the cops are paid off the catch them if they escape. It reaches from the deepest depths to the highest peaks. What do you want, a Russian Revolution, or Mao's March? What do you do about the billionaires who give most of their money away? America's high tech rich give away a lot. And Warren Buffet, who WANTS laws to close the tax loopholes. There are good rich people! Some of them are even smart enough to know that they are supported at least as much by the poor as the poor are supported by them.

Change the tax code. Don't lump the 1% together as evil.

Ok so Gates and Buffett have shown some spine but they are lone voices and they can afford to be generous, if they gave away 99% they would still have a huge fortune. It is not only the tax laws that need to change, it is the greed laws that need to change. Think about this for the moment; what if the salary of a CEO couldn't be more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid person in the organisation and no cheating, like stock in leiu of salary or fringe benefits. What if stock holder dividends were limited to say 10% of face value. What if the salary of the CEO was limited to a multiple of after tax earnings. If the corporation incurred a loss the CEO would feel it. This would change the way corporations are structured

I don't believe in regulating CEO salaries any more than I believe in term limits. Heck, I don't even like the term limit on president. No one wants to do any work as a citizen anymore, not even vote. They want laws. Instead of limits they need to overturn Citizens United and reform tax laws. I don't much like to vote either, given how railroaded I feel. Between National Party Chairmen and the media, it's all in the bag. On the heels of those heels who buy any and every politician they want. They all dance with each other and I trundle off to the polls feeling like a chump.

Salaries are the job of boards and active investors. Do you think if Goldman Sachs is paying a 5 billion dollar fine for all sorts of crap, the CEO's salary is really that big a deal?
Can we at least try to keep this a semblance of a remnant of a democracy?

I don't believe in regulating CEO salaries any more than I believe in term limits. Heck, I don't even like the term limit on president. No one wants to do any work as a citizen anymore, not even vote. They want laws. Instead of limits they need to overturn Citizens United and reform tax laws. I don't much like to vote either, given how railroaded I feel. Between National Party Chairmen and the media, it's all in the bag. On the heels of those heels who buy any and every politician they want. They all dance with each other and I trundle off to the polls feeling like a chump.

Salaries are the job of boards and active investors. Do you think if Goldman Sachs is paying a 5 billion dollar fine for all sorts of crap, the CEO's salary is really that big a deal?
Can we at least try to keep this a semblance of a remnant of a democracy?


Yes the CEO salary is a big deal various CEO have been paid huge sums for presiding over debacles. Democracy is not that great an institution because as it is implemented the ordinary person has no say. Electing candidates and having them speak for us isn't democracy it is a sham. True democracy is any person being able to address the assembly and being given time to do it. A vote can then be taken on what they have said. What we have now is ridiculous, party politics, obstructionism. Laws so volumunous no one knows what is in them. The most ridiculous statement was made by Pelosi" we have to pass it to see what's in it" what sort of governance is that. What is the point of having an elected king if he cannot be deposed. No one can stay fresh after years in government, there comes a time when they are out of ideas. The electoral process is supposed to be a process of renewal not entrenchment, there should be term limits on all politicians no more than two terms. That will get them off their bums and into work

Yes the CEO salary is a big deal various CEO have been paid huge sums for presiding over debacles. Democracy is not that great an institution because as it is implemented the ordinary person has no say. Electing candidates and having them speak for us isn't democracy it is a sham. True democracy is any person being able to address the assembly and being given time to do it. A vote can then be taken on what they have said. What we have now is ridiculous, party politics, obstructionism. Laws so volumunous no one knows what is in them. The most ridiculous statement was made by Pelosi" we have to pass it to see what's in it" what sort of governance is that. What is the point of having an elected king if he cannot be deposed. No one can stay fresh after years in government, there comes a time when they are out of ideas. The electoral process is supposed to be a process of renewal not entrenchment, there should be term limits on all politicians no more than two terms. That will get them off their bums and into work

I couldn't agree more. Rather then being protected from legislation that they pass they would have to return home and live under it. That was part and parcel of how this system was suppose to work.

I couldn't agree more. Rather then being protected from legislation that they pass they would have to return home and live under it. That was part and parcel of how this system was suppose to work.

Yes I expect the idea behind two year terms was no one could afford to be away from home long, but then that was in the days of public service when politicians weren't paid

So let me get this straight. We can't be trusted to vote people out who are 'entrenched,' so we institute term limits for everyone. Thereby making voting even more of a sham than it is. Believe it or not, there are some very valuable people in Congress, and it can take years to figure out the workings of some of the most important committees. There go Sanders and Warren, and others we don't hear about! BYE BYE! Oh, and there is HUGE time wasted in getting adjusted to Congress and hiring a Washington staff and learning the ropes and wangling your way onto a committee (again, often the most important part of change), hopefully by virtue of showing your expertise on the subject at hand, whether it's weapons or veterans' benefits.
Second, you don't like CEO salaries, because some 'preside over debacles.' So down go their salaries, even Tim Cook and that new guy at Google. Never mind that you can't just pass a law for every damn little thing you don't like. Sure, business can have regulations, but messing with salaries is really uncomfortably fascist.

I claim that you want nice easy fixes in the form of yet more and more laws, the very laws you complain about as being too complicated. You don't like the general look of something, you slap a law on it. You are full of contradictions. Of course a nation of 319,000,000 people can't be democratic in the old fashioned way. A lot of my most liberal friends like to show what various Scandinavian countries have done successfully, nations smaller than most New England states, and with mostly homogeneous peoples. NO COMPARISON. We have about the same land mass as China (albeit 1/4 the population) and the process is going to be messy. Deal with it.

... the process is going to be messy. It already is. Since the ultimate goal in the US is to become wealthy the politicians have figured out that getting their pockets lined by big corp and special interests groups is incredibly rewarding for their personal pocketbook. They will tell you what you want to hear in order to get elected, after that it's easy street. Not sure how you're going to fix that. The Citizens United decision was a big step backwards. Good luck.

SCOTUS decisions do get overturned on occasion. I'm not sure if they were naive about all the ways to move money around or if they really thought that free speech was the clincher. I agree that it's serious. Big Money is much more sophisticated than in the past, any past, but the end result is the same. It's nothing new to buy politicians.

I'm always amazed by how many people think the past was a lot rosier than the present. It NEVER is; it's just different in some ways and not others. We bumble along and it works better than any other option of government. Term limits will solve NOTHING. Caps on CEO salaries by anyone other than investors and boards will solve NOTHING. There are no sound bites, no quick fixes, no apps for that. A survey of employers about young workers found that the young want to work and even do a good job, but the minute they finish their first project, they expect a promotion and a raise.

Capitalism is a rigged game, and that's what makes wealth obscene. It's an OLD game, and only the name has changed to protect the greedy. Do you believe Trump when he says he wants everybody to be rich?

... but the minute they finish their first project, they expect a promotion and a raise.Because that's how it used to be - your job was your career, your company mentored you and promoted you. Now not so much, you're low-value chattel, infinitely replaceable.

Because that's how it used to be - your job was your career, your company mentored you and promoted you. Now not so much, you're low-value chattel, infinitely replaceable.

That was rae even then. The mentor bit anyway, that is a word that krept in in the 90's

Wealth is obscene when the boss sucks all the money a company makes and shares NONE with the workers that help him make it!

Wealth is obscene when the boss screws up the company and the workers lose their jobs.

Wealth is obscene when the bosses screw up the world and the workers lose their jobs.

Wealth is obscene when you get a job and need taxpayer assistance to pay for food rent and heat.

Wealth is obscene when workers need TWO or THREE jobs to make ends meet to have a LIFE.

Wealth is obscene if you can employ slave labor for high end products and beech about the high cost of labor.

Wealth is obscene when take your profits to buy government officials to give you more tax breaks and shelters, and waive the rules of regulations that ensure clean air, water, and soil for ordinary people.

Wealth is obscene when rich people rig/run the whole economic system and call it fair.

Wealth is obscene when the boss runs your country and YOU don't.

Wealth is obscene when it allows you to control lives, and not bear responsibility.

Wealth is obscene when it puts you above and beyond the laws of ordinary citizens.

Wealth is obscene when it's used by the few to control the many...................

Talaniman - I'm trying to figure out how to apply your definitions. Imagine this scenario: a person starts a lawn maintenance company, buys a couple of trucks and some mowers on credit, and hires 6 seasonal workers at $15/hour to mow lawns. After the summer mowing season is over he realizes he has burned through all his cash and can't afford to keep paying on the loans for for the equipment, and so declares bankruptcy. He lays the workers off, shuts down the business, and gets a job as a clerk at Walmart. Does this person have obscene wealth? He falls into at least 4 of your definitions, and maybe as many as 6. The point is that you have classified virtually anybody who hires people and tries to build a profitable business as having obscene wealth.

So Tal having identified the reasons and found all of them in daily operation what solution do you propose?

Talaniman - I'm trying to figure out how to apply your definitions. Imagine this scenario: a person starts a lawn maintenance company, buys a couple of trucks and some mowers on credit, and hires 6 seasonal workers at $15/hour to mow lawns. After the summer mowing season is over he realizes he has burned through all his cash and can't afford to keep paying on the loans for for the equipment, and so declares bankruptcy. He lays the workers off, shuts down the business, and gets a job as a clerk at Walmart. Does this person have obscene wealth? He falls into at least 4 of your definitions, and maybe as many as 6. The point is that you have classified virtually anybody who hires people and tries to build a profitable business as having obscene wealth.

By definition he has no wealth, just debts and high hopes. By definition he is an entrepreneur or small businessman with a failed business. Hardly qualifying him as wealthy, so he fits in NO category. Unlike say a Donald Trump, whose bankruptcies have never landed him in Walmart's employ. Or a GWBush who had 7 bankruptcies and ruined a baseball team, and still ended up president.

Do you grasp my distinction about obscene wealth now? Wealth is obscene when you are too rich to fail, or JAIL!


So Tal having identified the reasons and found all of them in daily operation what solution do you propose?

Unfortunately Clete it's going to take many election cycles of increased participation by informed voters........at least in the US. Or at least enough with common sense, and a sense of the common good.

Unfortunately Clete it's going to take many election cycles of increased participation by informed voters........at least in the US. Or at least enough with common sense, and a sense of the common good.

What you have said there is that bankruptcy is almost a qualification for President, perhaps if you could have an elected cabinet just as you have an elected president you would have a broader group to choose from

'Mr Teflon': Sydney's showiest politician comes unstuck - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35490225)

proving the apple doesn't fall far from the tree a Sydney millionaire is following in the footsteps of his father, very soon he will be jailed, the charges range from corruption to well who knows. He has made obscene use of his wealth and influence in recent months and may even be the reason for the dismissal of an Urban local government Council. Dealings include a deal where the council sold him a property which may have been significantly under valued. His wife even had the termerity to allege they may loose money because of his suspension.

One could even say he has given fuel to the idea we don't want muslims here, their moral values are lacking

When does wealth become obscene?

There is no such thing as 'obscene wealth'; it is a phrase fabricated by those who would facilitate the redistribution of wealth by setting economic classes against each other .
There are those who acquired their wealth by illegal ,or even immoral means .THEY are obscene, not wealth.But if they got their wealth legally and by moral means ,they are not obscene regardless of how much they've accumulated . Avarice may be one of the deadly sins(as is envy btw) . But that is between humans and their maker . What is a big obscenity is thinking a government has the right to determine how much wealth person in a free society can accumulate ;or the confiscate that wealth based on a pretext that the person has enough wealth.

What if the wealthy person uses every trick in the book, every possible loophole, to prevent his wealth from being taxed fairly?

What if the wealthy person uses every trick in the book, every possible loophole, to prevent his wealth from being taxed fairly?
Why are there loopholes ? That is the fault of the government that creates loopholes to favor tax evasion.

I doubt that little people get to use the loop-holes like the big boys and corps. Loop-holes are put there intentionally, don't you think?

Why are there loopholes ? That is the fault of the government that creates loopholes to favor tax evasion.
I wonder who was in charge when loopholes were created? And who was financially behind those in charge?

I doubt that little people get to use the loop-holes like the big boys and corps. Loop-holes are put there intentionally, don't you think?

of course they are . They are put there for 2 reasons . 1 social engineering . The government thinks it is a better manager of other people's money so they confiscate it to allegedly achieve a social goal. 2. The government is trying to be a top down manager of the economy . So they permit loopholes so they can decide the winners and losers .

I wonder who was in charge when loopholes were created? And who was financially behind those in charge?

Both sides are at fault if you are talking about political parties . Now you will blame the rent seeking person who is trying to gain favor by giving a donation . I say that it is the government that makes laws that is at fault . The government holds all the cards because they make the laws of the land . If they are corrupted by money then it is up to we the people to throw them out of office.

If they are corrupted by money then it is up to we the people to throw them out of office.But that rarely happens and they are mostly all corrupted by money. What now?

Both sides are at fault if you are talking about political parties . Now you will blame the rent seeking person who is trying to gain favor by giving a donation . I say that it is the government that makes laws that is at fault . The government holds all the cards because they make the laws of the land . If they are corrupted by money then it is up to we the people to throw them out of office.

So right, look at what happened in Oregon. The little guys stood up with a legitimate argument and they get slapped down without the possibility of addressing their question in a court of law. Power Corrupts right or wrong. So much for standing up against corruption.

So right, look at what happened in Oregon. The little guys stood up with a legitimate argument and they get slapped down without the possibility of addressing their question in a court of law. Power Corrupts right or wrong. So much for standing up against corruption.

Refresh my memory .What corruption were they protesting when they took up arms and occupied a wild life refuge ? That was a strange hill to take a stand on.

But that rarely happens and they are mostly all corrupted by money. What now?
When exiting the Constitutional Convention a woman asked Franklin what they had done. He said they had given the people 'a Republic ;if you can keep it' . Republics are not only founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato

Nice quotes, but they offer no constructive solution at all.

Refresh my memory .What corruption were they protesting when they took up arms and occupied a wild life refuge ? That was a strange hill to take a stand on.

I don't have a dog in the fight but they were protesting the Government owning all the lands that they have in various states and charging the cattle people for grazing on their land. The land belongs to the people not the Government as far as I am concerned. Sort of like damning up the flow of water so the people down stream can not get any of the water. Good Luck getting into court against the Government and possibly winning.

I expect that what is being said here is government cannot be corrupt since it operates under the weight of law. This is the falacy of democracy where decisions are no longer made by people but by bureaucracy

I expect that what is being said here is government cannot be corrupt since it operates under the weight of law. This is the falacy of democracy where decisions are no longer made by people but by bureaucracy

Well said, Para. Along with the power to in force what it wants. One other thing that I hate is the statement "You Don't have Standing" in this case.

Well said, Para. Along with the power to in force what it wants. One other thing that I hate is the statement "You Don't have Standing" in this case.
Just like the residents of Flint, Michigan, didn't have any standing and were at the mercy of money-seeking interests.

Just like the residents of Flint, Michigan, didn't have any standing and were at the mercy of money-seeking interests.

Yes but the residents of Flint can drink bottled water and who benefits Coca Cola

Yes but the residents of Flint can drink bottled water and who benefits Coca Cola
And fill up the landfills with plastic bottles. (Ever take a bath or shower using a bottle of water?)

Income distribution: Australia's highest earners think they are battlers (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/income-distribution-australias-highest-earners-think-they-are-battlers-20160212-gmt62w.html)

What it means is that people well above average earnings, which is well above the poverty line, think that they have it tough. Some of this may be mortgage related in that they just have to afford that million dollar house in outer suburbia with room for a pony, but it tell us that reality has gone out the window. Today an article suggested that 10% are below the poverty line but that included students 15-18 living at home so not "living" in poverty. We cannot measure wealth by earning capacity. The fact is if you get the equation right you can have significantly lower income and still live well. But it is obscene to suggst someone with an income twice or three times average is doing it tough or even that a person earning average income is in poverty. Average income is $1,400 a week which is a princely sum to a factory worker or labourer


And fill up the landfills with plastic bottles. (Ever take a bath or shower using a bottle of water?)

Try to keep up, plastic bottles can be recycled where I come from we are working on zero to land fill, I think it will just be plastic bags, which can be recycled, and some very odd rubbish. Anything recycleable is and food and organic waste is composted and no doubt will be turned into methane gas for renewable energy

Keep up yourself. Guess where most of those bottles will end up -- in landfills. The last thing on anyone's mind is recycling.

I don't have a dog in the fight but they were protesting the Government owning all the lands that they have in various states and charging the cattle people for grazing on their land. The land belongs to the people not the Government as far as I am concerned. Sort of like damning up the flow of water so the people down stream can not get any of the water. Good Luck getting into court against the Government and possibly winning.

I agree that it is wrong for the Federal government to own so much of the western lands . But they do ,and all the protests in the world aint going to change that reality . They made the provision as part of the admission to statehood .It is up to the states to lead the fight to regain control of their lands ....not individual armed up fools who's only fight is about paying grazing fees .


I expect that what is being said here is government cannot be corrupt since it operates under the weight of law. This is the falacy of democracy where decisions are no longer made by people but by bureaucracy

On the contrary . I am saying that it is the government that is corrupt . People will do what is in their self interest . It is the governments that can be corrupted and the governments that have to be reigned in .

Just like the residents of Flint, Michigan, didn't have any standing and were at the mercy of money-seeking interests.
like the EPA ,the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Democrats that ran the state and the city into the ground . The issue of standing on the national level has come up with the silly birther issue .

like the EPA ,the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Democrats that ran the state and the city into the ground . The issue of standing on the national level has come up with the silly birther issue .
And who switched the water from Huron to the Flint River?

Cruz's birther problem?

Cruz's birther problem?

I give as much credit to Cruz's so called birther problems that
I gave to the emperor's so called birther issues..........none. It is nonsense .

And who switched the water from Huron to the Flint River?



The switch was a local decision that was approved by Flint's mayor, and confirmed by a City Council vote of 7:1

The switch was a local decision that was approved by Flint's mayor, and confirmed by a City Council vote of 7:1
And they belong to which party?

I give as much credit to Cruz's so called birther problems that
I gave to the emperor's so called birther issues..........none. It is nonsense .
President Obama was born in the US.

Cruz is a Constitution originalist, a literalist. If "natural-born citizen" doesn't apply to him and the term is not be taken literally and as originally meant, then much of his literal and originalist rhetoric on what the Constitution says about certain issues cannot be taken seriously and does not apply.

And who switched the water from Huron to the Flint River?

And why did they switch it and when did they know it was poison, and what are they going to do about it? Gov Snyder to testify before congress.

The switch was a local decision that was approved by Flint's mayor, and confirmed by a City Council vote of 7:1

And this tell you what, it is democratic to poison people if some local dills approve? Many wrong decisions are made at local level and we can only guess why

I read that article by the former emergency manager Tom,

Column: Don’t blame emergency manager for Flint water disaster (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2015/10/26/opinion-flint-water-disaster/74657458/)


Darnell Earley formerly served as the emergency manager of Flint. He is currently the emergency manager of Detroit Public Schools.

Okay that's his side, but let consider another viewpoint,

Daniel Howes: Truth, competence are largest casualties in Flint water debacle (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/columnists/daniel-howes/2016/02/12/howes-truth-biggest-casualty-flint-water-debacle/80286628/)


Virginia Tech's Marc Edwards says “the state of Michigan has been breaking federal law since April 2014, triggering a massive lead-in-water problem in Flint that they are covering up to this present day. The cover-up includes the repeated claim (not once retracted) that Flint has always met the provisions of the Lead and Copper Rule....”

And they belong to which party?
Democrat

President Obama was born in the US.

Cruz is a Constitution originalist, a literalist. If "natural-born citizen" doesn't apply to him and the term is not be taken literally and as originally meant, then much of his literal and originalist rhetoric on what the Constitution says about certain issues cannot be taken seriously and does not apply.

nonsense . There is no definition of natural born in the Constitution . The fact is that since the 1st Congress ,Congress has defined who is a citizen ,and it has always meant that someone born overseas from an American parent is a natural born citizen .

I posted the specific statutory law many times arguing against the Obama birthers when the issue 1st came up . Specifically I pointed out that it did not matter if the emperor was born here or in Kenya since his mother was an American citizen

Here it is :
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/ineligible-candidate-275470.html


And why did they switch it and when did they know it was poison, and what are they going to do about it? Gov Snyder to testify before congress.

It is rubbish and a waste of time to point fingers . There is plenty of blame to go around ,starting with local and state and Federal authorities from both parties . But the Dems think they can politicize this like they did in New Orleans . Disgusting !! You are right . Just tell us how this is going to be remedied .

I doubt that little people get to use the loop-holes like the big boys and corps. Loop-holes are put there intentionally, don't you think?

How about a loophole called "Low income tax credit"? Interest deduction? Charitable donations? Aren't they "loopholes", even if in the tax code?

Obscene is $1Million? I bet many of the middle class, counting the value of their homes and IRAs, is obscene. Through judicious long term investments, starting with our first home in 1968 @$15K, my wife and I raised 4 children, sent them to public colleges without them incurring ANY debt, all on 1 income that never exceeded $80,000 a year. We never starved, had 2 older cars, took family vacations every year in our camper, didn't take vacations in Maui or belong to a country club. At 75 YO, I therefore consider myself an OBSCENE person. PS Dow is up 313.

Obscene is $1Million? At 75 YO, I therefore consider myself an OBSCENE person. .


I think you miss the whole point of this thread, which is discussing the obscene behaviour of billionaires and those who like to behave like billionaires. No one would suggest that a person who worked hard and at the end of their life is comfortable and secure is obscene, but the way you use your wealth can be obscene. What is obscene is to use your wealth and position to rip others off. Yes the top 1% might have amassed one million dollars but it is likely they have far more. I am considered wealthy and I don't have a million dollars because it is a question of how you measure wealth, a person who lives in a city might be in the same circumstances and have a million dollars.

I do think that the unequal distribution of wealth on the planet is fueling many of our conflicts, with certain wealthy nations behaving in an oppressing manner

How about a loophole called "Low income tax credit"? Interest deduction? Charitable donations? Aren't they "loopholes", even if in the tax code?

You are talking about peanuts across one hell of a lot of people, this discussion is about ill gotten gains of the filthy rich in underhanded ways. Sorry I don't know how to include the brackets of quotes like you guys.

How about a loophole called "Low income tax credit"? Interest deduction? Charitable donations? Aren't they "loopholes", even if in the tax code?

Of course . The country would be better off if all loopholes were eliminated and we had a lower flat rate . For every loophole someone else is paying more to make up the difference.

I think you miss the whole point of this thread, which is discussing the obscene behaviour of billionaires and those who like to behave like billionaires. No one would suggest that a person who worked hard and at the end of their life is comfortable and secure is obscene, but the way you use your wealth can be obscene. What is obscene is to use your wealth and position to rip others off. Yes the top 1% might have amassed one million dollars but it is likely they have far more. I am considered wealthy and I don't have a million dollars because it is a question of how you measure wealth, a person who lives in a city might be in the same circumstances and have a million dollars.

I do think that the unequal distribution of wealth on the planet is fueling many of our conflicts, with certain wealthy nations behaving in an oppressing manner

face facts ,obscene wealth is $1 more than you have . Envy . Wealth is not obscene and punitive confiscation should not be the remedy even if it was . The victims of such policies will be the ones who don't use their money in "obscene" (whatever that means ) manners .

obscene wealth is $1 more than you haveNot at all, it was clearly stated in the beginning of the thread who the OP is referring to.

Of course . The country would be better off if all loopholes were eliminated and we had a lower flat rate . For every loophole someone else is paying more to make up the difference.

Most of the so called "loopholes" that you speak of, are there for everyone not just the rich.

face facts ,obscene wealth is $1 more than you have . Envy . Wealth is not obscene and punitive confiscation should not be the remedy even if it was . The victims of such policies will be the ones who don't use their money in "obscene" (whatever that means ) manners .

How about you face facts Obscene wealth is influence pedaling, I have included the actions of two local individuals in my comments here as illustrations of obscene wealth, this isn't about distorting the tax system to appear to give benefit to the under privileged, it isn't about confiscation although maybe it should be, but 1% of the population having 99% of the wealth is obscene because obviously they are not using that wealth to benefit anyone but themselves. Tom you need to loose this strawman argument of a flat tax, it is part of the obscene wealth debate because it is obscene if the rich pay the same rate of tax as the person on lower income, the impact falls disproportionately and the wealthy persons makes greater use of the benefits provided by taxation

Wealth is obscene when you have enough to be rich in every country on Earth, and still have a secret bank account in a Swiss bank, or any bank, and b1tch about your taxes being to high!

Just ran across this. While it is not about "Obscene" money, it fits the mold most Dems are pushing, particularly BS.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers, 1931

Just ran across this. While it is not about "Obscene" money, it fits the mold most Dems are pushing, particularly BS.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers, 1931

With all due respect those ideas are what drives the capitalist world view, they are as much b/s today as the day they were written. Very few people have the idea they don't need to work and most of those because opportunity has been deprived by opportunists or circumstance. What is not realised is that accumulating wealth in itself does nothing. We once used to tax interest and dividends at a higher rate because it was "unearned income", today that idea is turned on its head and capital is allowed to accumulate sometimes at preferential tax rates. Therefore we must have a regime where capital is forced to work if in no other way than being invested in government loans so that capital is forced to look for returns and fuel the economy, it cannot be allowed to lay around in low interest accounts

Most of the so called "loopholes" that you speak of, are there for everyone not just the rich.

Then why are they needed ? .

Just imagine Tom if the obscenely wealthy took a small part of their wealth and applied it to infrastructure, roads, schools, and clean air and energy, instead of tax shelters, secret offshore accounts, and chasing cheap labor overseas we wouldn't be having this conversation would we? Of course that .05% tax increase to pay for it by the wealthiest among us was obscene when it was proposed and went down in flames at the time.

I guess you think greedy isn't obscene as long as it turns a buck for one guy/corporation/bank. Suck more money from the economy and give it to the already obscenely wealthy and expect nothing from it with a flat tax. You just haven't admitted those kinds of profits NEVER trickle down, and certainly never create jobs.

It's not like there is not enough work to do, just lazy rich fat cats more obsessed with counting money while capitalists keep enabling the sick b@stards every time they holler they want MO" MONEY! Need a link to the obscenity? Of course I got one,

DailyTech - Foxconn Installs Anti-Suicide Nets at Its Facilities (http://www.dailytech.com/Foxconn+Installs+AntiSuicide+Nets+at+Its+Facilitie s/article18877.htm)

I won't quote the link as I usually do but check out some of the side stories on that page. If that's not OBSCENE behavior by the wealthy, let me help you pull your head out of the sand, or wherever else you capitalist have seemed to stick it.

@ catonsville. Tell me how those loopholes can be taken by the US population that's not rich enough to qualify?

What is not realised is that accumulating wealth in itself does nothing.
The wealthy either invest ;which means people get employed ,and others gain wealth .How many millionaires has Bill Gates made ? How many people benefit from investing in Microsoft ? How many public union's pension plans have Microsoft stock ?

They buy things which again means people are employed to make the things they buy ;the more the conspicuos the consumption ,the more people are employed to make the products ,homes ,goods they buy ....the more people are employed to service their lifestlyes .


They also contribute their money to various charitible organizations ,or set them up on their own . I can write a long time before I document all the hospitals ,buildings ,parks and public lands ,arts foundations ,education institutes ,etc . that some of these " obscene greedy " people are involved in.


The underlying presumption of this OP is that governments are better at distributing people's money that the people are . Under that presumption the "obscene rich" are subject to confiscation as punishment for their success.

Then why are they needed ? .

Maybe, it makes the populace feel that the government is not screwing them as hard as it would be without them. What the government is taking, it only hurts a little bit.

Maybe, it makes the populace feel that the government is not screwing them as hard as it would be without them. What the government is taking, it only hurts a little bit.

Maybe...under my plan the government wouldn't be taking that much out of their paycheck to begin with .

The government has distorted the market on things like home prices with their various loopholes . In my mind it would be better over all if the price of a home really reflected it's value on the market. Probably too late to reverse that however . Take away a freebee and people really think they are being screwed .

I wonder if people consider that they have to actually own a home to get the mortgage deduction. So what happens to renters ? Well renters pay for the cost of the mortgage ,the home value ,and some profit for the landlord ;and the landlord collects the tax break . The government social engineering at work .

Maybe...under my plan the government wouldn't be taking that much out of their paycheck to begin with .

The government has distorted the market on things like home prices with their various loopholes . In my mind it would be better over all if the price of a home really reflected it's value on the market. Probably too late to reverse that however . Take away a freebee and people really think they are being screwed .

I wonder if people consider that they have to actually own a home to get the mortgage deduction. So what happens to renters ? Well renters pay for the cost of the mortgage ,the home value ,and some profit for the landlord ;and the landlord collects the tax break . The government social engineering at work .

It is safe to say, the Government is out of control and has been for a long time. The only light at the end of the tunnel that I see would be "Term Limits" and raise the voting age to 30+ years of age. So that we don't have so many "Numb, Numb's" voting when they get out of school with only an understanding of "free stuff".

The people that complain about obscene wealth. (when its actually earned... not like certain heads of state in the world) tend to feel they are entitled to more than they have earned. Most of the same people don't want to work as hard or take the same risks to get ahead. Some just aren't smart enough or good enough at what they do to make more...

It all boils down to envy... much more than greed...

Funny how the same people that think CEO's are overpaid... (who actually do work hard for it because I know a couple really well) think nothing about what certain actors or athletes get paid. That's where obscene actually applies.

\


The underlying presumption of this OP is that governments are better at distributing people's money that the people are . Under that presumption the "obscene rich" are subject to confiscation as punishment for their success.

Wrong. The underlying assumption of this OP is that the wealth of the world is concentrated in too few hands. If you follow this through you find that, rather than more people becoming wealthy as has been suggested, what is happening is wealth is being concentrated in a smaller percentage of the population. As a result of this the robber barons of the world are being able to avoid contributing through tax havens and manipulations while the actual burden of taxation falls on the 99%. This is obscene that those with less resources should finance government while those who benefit the most don't.

No one wants to punish the rich but the attitude you display tells us that those who have the wealth do not freely contribute. Taxation is not punishment for being wealthy or for earning income, it is the other side of the coin of democracy

Funny how the same people that think CEO's are overpaid... (who actually do work hard for it because I know a couple really well) think nothing about what certain actors or athletes get paid. That's where obscene actually applies.

The entertainment industry is full of obscenities and nothing more than inflated incomes paid to a few, but the whole spectrum of reward is messed up if you think that you should be paid millions for sitting behind a desk while there are people in the organisation who barely earn enough to live above the poverty line or that the organisation makes money by exploiting labour in third world countries.

The entertainment industry is full of obscenities and nothing more than inflated incomes paid to a few, but the whole spectrum of reward is messed up if you think that you should be paid millions for sitting behind a desk while there are people in the organization who barely earn enough to live above the poverty line or that the organization makes money by exploiting labor in third world countries.

I can't speak for all CEO's. The couple I know are where they are because they were really good at what they do. One built his business up from nothing (known him over 15 years)... one of the others is a very large corporation in the energy sector, and I do know how much he makes from his own mouth, Know his family and have been to his house a few times... and he is a really intelligent guy who is really, really good at his job. Which does take significantly more knowledge than the average minion that only has a fairly few simple tasks to worry about doing right. These were the two I knew best the other couple I don't know nearly as well.

And as I've said before... if someone doesn't like what they are being paid... all they have to do is look someplace else... if they really are any good at what they do... then someone is willing to pay them more so they have better employees as better employees bring more value to the business. There are far too many people out there that are only willing to do just enough... or only what is required. The people willing to do more, and be better than the next guy are the people that get ahead, those are the people employers are willing to pay more for... and to keep. Those are the people that get ahead.. those are the people that in time... get the better wages. And people working minimum wage jobs more than their first year or two in the job market... are either lazy or dumb as stumps, because plenty of better opportunities exist out there.

As far as third world countries... people jump for those jobs... if they were so awful, why don't they go to the better jobs, maybe because these "awful jobs" are better than anything else they have... its not North Korea where you are told work or die... you aren't even forced to work for them in China... they can leave whenever they want to go work someplace else.

I can tell you the wages are commensurate with the cost of living in that area... you can't compare wages in a third world country directly to Wages in Melbourne, Sydney, NYC or Washington DC.

Because prevailing wages paid won't even be the same within our own countries between lower and higher cost areas.


Plus there are a lot of really dumb people out there....that would have trouble putting a stamp on the right corner and side of an envelope time after time. If you can train a monkey to do a job in 20 minutes....its not worth much money. because then jobs that actually do require more skill and experience then become more valuable by comparison...and pretty soon you have hyper inflation...

Because someone working a minimum wage job...is NOT worth the same pay as someone who does have learned skills and experience you can't train anyone with a heartbeat to do in ten years much less ten minutes.

I didn't spend ten years paying off my student loads after attending college to get paid the same as some idiot that can't do what I do that never had a job before.

And I certainly wouldn't do the job I do now for the same pay as someone 21 years old wet behind the ears...not that its an option...because none exist that could do it...because nobody except a fool would be willing to work harder for the same money as someone that can't do 10% of what you do gets paid.

CEO's are worth significantly more then the average drone. Doctors are worth more than a newspaper delivery person...and people with more highly skilled jobs are worth more than unskilled workers.

People with "practical" Knowledge, Intelligence and specialized skills are always worth more than those lacking it. And Practical is key here, example being a PHD in Philosophy doesn't make you worth more than an experienced gardener for anything but a job as a philosophy teacher.

.

I can tell you the wages are commensurate with the cost of living in that area... you can't compare wages in a third world country directly to Wages in Melbourne, Sydney, NYC or Washington DC.

Because prevailing wages paid won't even be the same within our own countries between lower and higher cost areas.


.

Very few americans realise what you just said, that you cannot make comparisons between countries on the level of wages paid because cost structures differ, they think that if you can get a worker in the US for $5 an hour that is all the rest of us should be paid. They don't realise that a $200,000 house in the US costs $1 million in Sydney You can buy a lot for Y5 in China but little anywhere else all of which has nothing to do with someone being paid millions to sit behind a desk. What I think is the lowest worker should be paid a fraction of the CEO salary and that should be a fair fraction so that the CEO isn't paid 1000 times what that worker is paid. Entry level should be 10%, skilled level 25%, executive level 50%, senior level 75% and so on. You might think this is what actually happens but very rarely. If the organisation has a good year the salary levels of everyone don't rise

The problem with that even is that entry level worker usually does only 10% of the work of their manager, and maybe 1% of what a senior executive does. They also for the most part, don't have the same level of accountability.

Sure some people get off on the power and would do it for that alone.. most people take on the extra work for the commensurately bigger pay. Why take a promotion and do twice the work for a 10% increase in pay... few people would.

I wouldn't take a promotion to be a manager at this point. Why, because on my job.. they do have significantly more work, and far more accountability (and its not like I don't have a lot as it is) but they don't get paid all that much more comparatively speaking.

The problem with that even is that entry level worker usually does only 10% of the work of their manager, and maybe 1% of what a senior executive does. They also for the most part, don't have the same level of accountability.

Sure some people get off on the power and would do it for that alone.. most people take on the extra work for the commensurately bigger pay. Why take a promotion and do twice the work for a 10% increase in pay... few people would.

I wouldn't take a promotion to be a manager at this point. Why, because on my job.. they do have significantly more work, and far more accountability (and its not like I don't have a lot as it is) but they don't get paid all that much more comparatively speaking.

What I'm talking about here is the essential worth of a person, if you adequately reward people ,not according to some arbitrary value placed on their position, but on the worth of the organisation then you give them incentive. The CEO only achieves what he does because of those who execute the decisions, without them he can only accomplish a small fraction of what must be done, so you pay well and fire the drones.

We've talked about the Walmart business model before, Clete. OBSCENE for sure.

What I'm talking about here is the essential worth of a person, if you adequately reward people ,not according to some arbitrary value placed on their position, but on the worth of the organization then you give them incentive. The CEO only achieves what he does because of those who execute the decisions, without them he can only accomplish a small fraction of what must be done, so you pay well and fire the drones.CEO's play a much bigger part in corporate decisions and direction than you are giving them credit for. Without someone who understands the business they are in... and has the knowledge and experience in charge to make the right decisions the Organization is doomed to fail... and do it rather quickly.

Its easy for people to play armchair Quarterback while watching replays of the game they just watched. A large part of their job is anticipating where things are going and making the right choices to get there. No business can be a success playing catch up.

The average drone can't plan the next weeks meals.. much less understand the field of business and understand the direction things appear to be heading.

There are a LOT of business that have failed and gone bankrupt because the wrong decisions were made or they were trying to follow the lead rather than setting the pace. Your average drone might think things are static but the further up a corporate ladder you get the more you find they are anything but constant or guaranteed.

Drone have an over-inflated sense of worth to the business. The lower they are on the corporate ladder they are the less skilled overall they are, outside of one simple task they do...drones are easily replaced...the further up the ladder you get the more experienced in many fascists of the business you tend to be are and the more value you have have to that business.

I am not a manager or higher...but I am bumping up against it. I'm close enough to have intimate knowledge of what the manager does...in fact..at my last job, half of what I did would have been the managers responsibility if we actually had one locally....those were delegated to me by my last several managers because I was the senior and most experienced guy there...and in the case of my last manager...he was basically no knowledgeable on my groups job functions and historic responsibility, because it eclipsed his own groups in scope. Part of it was due to having very different contracts and job descriptions. The work my group did was actually split between three different groups on his side.

The advantage that gave me was a chance to see the business from a different perspective...and have direct working experience with other managers and directors and people I normally would not have ever dealt with directly (over more than a year on that part because people at my level generally didn't work with them or the related stuff we were doing at that point) and 5 years on the other lesser stuff,. And that gave me the opportunity to show them what I could do... I might not have managed to get into my current job if it wasn't for that when they shut down my old office and consolidated operations. Because the move I made was anything but lateral, and normally wouldn't have been open to someone in my old position.

I'm a long way from a CEO's level...and far closer to the drones level...but its a good example of how a drone doesn't have the value people not a whole lot further up the latter are...that have a lot of very specialized experience..that takes decades in the field to learn. People new or with just a few years experience are easy to replace....people where I am are far more difficult to replace...and yet...my level is still far from indispensable. Layoffs still happen with shocking regularity.

Fact is...business is so competitive...nobody is indispensable. Not even the CEO....just that some people have far less value and are easier to replace than others.

Drones that think they are worth so much...should open their own business, call their own shots...find out how little they really know in many cases, most will fail because they don't know that much, and aren't nearly as good as they thought they thought they were ....but a few will overcome and succeed. All of them will develop a much more reasonable perspective of their value and self worth.

So that's what the question is. Thanks for clarifying. The one word answer is "opportunity." Any attempt to "give" anything else to people puts one in mind of the signs in the wildlife parks that say not to feed the wildlife lest it become dependent and incapable of providing for itself.

Smoothy the problem is opportunity is not being created, when opportunity was created in China at the expense of western economies and western employment, millions were lifted and many became millionaires but overall the statistic declined to 1% having 99% of the wealth so it isn't just opportunity. There were programs of discrimination to lift certain minorities and some have been lifted but not enough to have real impact. My own nation has been engaged in a program of intervention so that a specific minority might have opportunity at equivalent levels to the other 95% of the population. It doesn't seem to have made significant difference. The gap has not been closed. No, I think the word is initiative, I think it is lacking and I think the problem is education

Smoothy the problem is opportunity is not being created, when opportunity was created in China at the expense of western economies and western employment, millions were lifted and many became millionaires but overall the statistic declined to 1% having 99% of the wealth so it isn't just opportunity. There were programs of discrimination to lift certain minorities and some have been lifted but not enough to have real impact. My own nation has been engaged in a program of intervention so that a specific minority might have opportunity at equivalent levels to the other 95% of the population. It doesn't seem to have made significant difference. The gap has not been closed. No, I think the word is initiative, I think it is lacking and I think the problem is education
I can't comment on education in Australia... but I can in the USA being old enough to see its gross missteps over the last 40+ years. At least here they have been focusing on stupid stuff like self esteem (and failing miserably at that)... to the point of making people believe they are "Special" and giving them a very unrealistic perspective of their worth to others going out into the world where they lack the basic necessities to survive.. and at least here... so poorly educated many High School graduates don't have the required basic skills to even enter college. And I'm not talking "Special Ed" (for the intelligence challenged) or any of the Vocational directions... but people on track with the College prep curriculum. I hate to say it but when you have more than a few people that can't point out major Geographical areas on a globe... or in some cases find their own country on it... you have a lot of teachers that really should be working in a different field.

Opportunity does vary significantly country to country. Having lived in Europe a significant period... someone does have significantly MORE opportunity here in the USA than they do there.

If between 20 and 40 million illegals can find work and make enough to support themselves and send a large portion back to their home countries... then one can reasonably argue opportunity is there and its abundant, so it dooes fall back to your other point. Initiative. You can't teach that... and while parents and upbringing play a large part.. even GREAT parents can't make or instill initiative into their demon offspring in some cases.

However hunger IS a great motivator...if they aren't allowed to fail and be made to understand the full impact of failing..or quitting...they might never develop that initiative. Because failing carries no consequences to them.

Thats one place someone in the third world does have a leg up...what they might lack in education..they more than make up for in initiative...because they usually do understand failing may make the difference between surviving or not.

Smoothy I think we are almost working from two ends of the sprectum, our secondary education system works quite well, too well because it is designed for university preparation when a great many will not take that path and vocational training is a minefield messed with by successive governments as a parking place for those without employment. The employment pool has moved away from full time employment so that our statistics hide the reality that youth find it difficult to find opportunity and are being told to expect to have many jobs in their lifetime. In this economy you just can't walk into a job, you have to have been certified to work in that industry in many instances because of very stringent workplace safety regime, this stifles initiative.

The government targets the migration program to select those with skills so there is no place here for the unskilled unless you like itinerant fruit picking and a great deal of competition for entry level jobs as many of the skills those migrants have don't translate well.

The difference between our two environments is emphasis on government control, education is a government enterprise where a private education system exists side by side with a government run system. We don't have the equilavent of your college system where you can park a large number of school leavers for a few years, our universities are full on, packed with international students and the attrition rate is high

It doesn't matter how much junk a junkie has, a junkie always wants more junk.

Sarcasm doesn't cut it, from your response I expect you are one of the 1% and you don't like looking in the mirror

You are out of line with this comment. As you are sometimes with other comments

Tickle you are very late to the party, my comments reflect the idea that there must be fairness not selfishness,

We've talked about the Walmart business model before, Clete. OBSCENE for sure.
So Starbucks CEO ,all sanctimoniosly proclaimed that" we are taking wages up across the country and we will pay above the minimum wage in every state we operate. Starbucks is way above the minimum wage. I have always looked at total compensation." ...."I have always believed that our success as a company is best shared."

So how has that worked out ? Well we learned that 'total compensation' means more that hourly wages . It also means total hours worked .

Starbucks accused of slashing employee work hours amid cost cuts | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-starbucks-dispute-idUSKCN0ZG2GR)

So how were they able to reduce hours ? They introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices.

Starbucks also did the unexpected . You see ,the plan to boost min wages was really about employees who already make more than min wage.If the min wage went up then it stood to reason that everyone elses pay would increase . That did not happen at Starbucks. All the min wage increase meant was that new hirees were getting the same pay to start as veterans who had been there for years .
AND to top it off..... with all those customers using technology ,and the "Starbucks Rewards" program, which allows customers to pay with a loyalty card or mobile phones ;tips have gone down . The take home pay of the employees have taken a substantial hit.

Just going by your theory that corporate bosses are greedy bass turds ,this was predictable . WTG Libs !!! another good intentioned plan gone bad.

Good question, heard on the news today, someone in the US just won 450 million dollars in a lottery. Don't know what state, but that amount of money would tend to ruin anyone's life, don't you think?

We have a lottery up here (you know where) but it never goes that high.

I am happy with what I have, a good paying job, healthcare coverage and my own home and not a man in site to mess it up. Unless I want one to mess it up of course.

. Don't know what state, but that amount of money would tend to ruin anyone's life, don't you think?

We have a lottery up here (you know where) but it never goes that high.

.
yes sudden wealth often does ruin a life and is disapated quickly because the average person cannot handle such large numbers, once you have the house, the car, the boat the holiday, where do you go then? They would be far better off if there were more frequent lotteries of lesser value

I'd like a chance to find out if it really does or not. I bet I could beat the odds.

Good question, heard on the news today, someone in the US just won 450 million dollars in a lottery. Don't know what state, but that amount of money would tend to ruin anyone's life, don't you think?

We have a lottery up here (you know where) but it never goes that high.

I am happy with what I have, a good paying job, healthcare coverage and my own home and not a man in site to mess it up. Unless I want one to mess it up of course.



Part of what your ready about the lottery is pure fantasy. The total amount is representative of an annuity. The pay out is 20 years. The actual cash value payout is much less.

After taxes and a cash payout the person might receive 120 - 150 mil.

It is still a lot of money and yes we would all like to try and beat the odds