your mustache might be evil

[tooqk4u22]

Bakari - your anology is only partially correct and I also hate it when people say that lottery BS - fine give it to me. 

The part you are missing is that income is the result of investment and is the "return on investment", it is the income (return) that is taxed, and it is the after-tax return that dictates whether or not an investment should be made.  So for your scenario it depends more heavily on what the investment was to get that incremental $1,000,000.

None of it really matters though because once income begins to approach the higher brackets the wealth people create new entities/corporation/shelters to avoid it.  For instance, back when I was in California it was against the law for a company to own gas stations and be a wholesale buyer of gasoline (I believe this was the case for liquor as well) and so it required a distributor (i.e. middleman) between the two.  Guess what, the owners of the gas stations created a distriution company (separate legal entities) and the distributor sold almost exclusively to the owners gas stations and they could manage the distribution price to manage taxes between the two entities. 

[Bakari]

Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth

You guys keep bringing wealth and tax rates into the equation, I have never once said that wealth wasn't concentrated at the top and in fact I even think I said that the gap is too disproportionate. 

How do you think it got that way?
How do you suppose society could change it?

Clearly you view that tax rates are far too low on anyone who is successful

Nope.  I don't equate extreme wealth with "success". 
1/2 of the 20 richest people inherited their wealth.  "Luck" is very different from "success". 
Taxes on inheritance have dropped substantially - 77% top bracket and 60k deduction in 1977 down to 45% and 3.5 million deduction in 2009 (and NONE what-so-ever 2010!)

and that is the only reason why they become wealthy.

Nope.
But it is one factor in how a handful of people in the past couple decades have become enormously ridiculously wealthy.

In addition to a top income tax bracket of only 35% (down from over 90% in the 40s and 50s - you know, that period of time in America known for high unemployment, stagnant growth, economic uncertainty, and general pessimism...) there is also the inheritance tax I mentioned a moment ago.

Other factors include changes in US law which encouraged corporate consolidation and outsourcing.  Also, increases in technology, which increase productivity, which in our system benefits the owners of companies at the expense of the employees.  And even some good old fashion hard work and innovation thrown in as well.

If that is the case the MMM

MMM is not enormously ridiculously wealthy.
I'm going to guess you aren't really aware of just how extreme wealth inequality really is.  MMM has a closer amount of wealth to that homeless guy you passed by yesterday than he does to anyone on the Forbes 400 list.
You can be forgiven for not really comprehending the vast scale of inequality though - most people don't:


Note that this graphic is fairly misleading - the smallest it shows is 1% of the population, but within that group, if you subdivide it even further to .1% or .01%, that set of subgroups is just about as unequal as the 1% is to everyone else.


See that pink square about 4 squares down from the top on the right?  There is more or less your successful Mustachain, or other 1%er.  See how much closer it is to the rest of the 99% than it is to the top square?  When I talk about taxing the wealthy, I'm talking about that top square, maybe the top two, not everyone above 50%.


But you don't have to take my word for it (or these people's either - most provide references, so you can check if you think they are just making up numbers):

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/forget-the-top-1-look-at-the-top-0-1/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/income-inequality/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/

http://daviddegraw.org/2011/08/who-rules-america-economic-elite-have-at-least-45-9-trillion-in-wealth-revealing-the-economic-top-0-1/

should be paying a lot more than he does and has demonstrated that it is possible to live well and actually even save/invest some at that low income,

yup.  The fact that the middle class wastes its money a) has no bearing on this discussion and b) doesn't mean that other people aren't actually poor enough that they have no left over money to save.

So the question is for the lower 50% why aren't they saving more, investing more.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money/msg20692/#msg20692

Basically you are saying I want to penalize the poor and you are saying you want to continue to reward them for being anti-MMM.

"Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it.  Taxes aren't a penalty.  They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not."
Taxes aren't a penalty.  Not paying taxes isn't a reward.
Being poor doesn't mean you are anti-MMM.

[Sylly]

If the marginal tax rate on income over 10 million dollars is 90%, that means an investor still gets another million dollars a year. 

Huh? I'm guessing what you mean is that if the marginal tax rate of income over 10mil is 90%, and an investor earns another 10mil, he still gets to keep that extra 1mil for a total of 11mil (minus the taxes for that first 10mil). Correct?

If generating income of an additional million dollars in a year isn't motivation, what is?

That depends. If said investor had to risk say, 10mil, to earn that last 10mil, he would basically be risking 10mil for 1mil profit. I make no judgement whether that's reasonable or not, or something I'd personally do or not. I'm just trying to give a possible reasoning on the argument of how such a high marginal tax rate may reduce an investor's incentive to invest further, especially when combined with the likelihood that at that income, that last 1mil is likely to have lower marginal utility as well.

Put in another way: If you work 20h to earn $500, and need to work another 20h to earn another $500, but that second $500 is taxed at 90% rate, so you can get $500 for 20h, or get $550 for 40h. Would you work that extra 20h?

There comes a point, which vary between individuals, where the additional post-tax amount they can earn, is not worth the amount of work /investment they need to put in. That makes perfect sense to me. I am, however, intentionally staying away from any discussion of what these rates should be.

edit: modify numbers to get decently liveable amount, fix typo, math

[grantmeaname]

You have to appreciate that statistical data can almost always be massaged to support any side of an argument (I am not saying you have done this but some of the sources may) and there are times when accurate or reliable data is not readily available and one needs to formulate opions based on information that is anecdotal or intuitive in nature based on observed trends.

I absolutely agree.

...Taking an affirmative position would minimize this.

Duly noted. I will say, in many cases, I don't have a fully-formed affirmative position yet. I'm wary of rushing into things and forming opinions, because there are so many facets of many of these issues and considering just a side or two of them can lead to awful policy.

So to be clear my position is that the government is inefficient and wasteful (in the broad sense) and that taxes shouldn't be raised until this is addressed - this is not an indictment on what they spend it on, that is a different discussion, but how they spend it.  I know you'll ask for facts but I think you know the reality...and see my SSI example in my prior comment.

I understand your argument better now. Means-testing SS payments is a great example of something that I think would cut down as expenditures, but I hadn't thought of that as a component of your waste argument. I thought you were arguing for efficiency alone, and not for dramatic policy changes to parts of the government that do unnecessary things (and which I definitely agree exist). I thought you were referring to pork-barrel spending, pension double-dipping, contractor fraud, and things like that. I know all those are problems but it doesn't seem to me that they are easily addressed.

[tooqk4u22]

How do you think it got that way?

I didn't say taxes weren't a factor,  but that there are more things that contributed and you touched on it lower in your post.

How do you suppose society could change it?

This is the question - I just don't think it should be in the form of increased taxes and instead should come in the form of tax reform such as closing loopholes and removing the elements of tax policy that can be easily manipulated (legally speaking).

Nope.  I don't equate extreme wealth with "success". 
1/2 of the 20 richest people inherited their wealth.  "Luck" is very different from "success". 
Taxes on inheritance have dropped substantially - 77% top bracket and 60k deduction in 1977 down to 45% and 3.5 million deduction in 2009 (and NONE what-so-ever 2010!)

Nevermind the fact that I don't think the government should get a piece of the action just because you die, this is a different topic and definitely falls under the category of hitting the "sperm donor lottery".  That said, a lot of middle market business go under or get sold because the family can't afford the estate taxes.  Wealthy people know how to circumvent this - they do it with charitable trusts, generation skipping trusts, resetting asset values, etc - and as a result they don't and have never paid as much as you think.  The reason whey the receipts went down is because the increased exemption - it is those people in the under $5 million range that have wealth but not so much so that they have an army of accountants and attorneys. I pointed out Buffett and Gates falls into this as well - but these are two individuals with $70B if bet worth that the government won't see a dime from via the estate tax as all of their assets are in a charitable trust.

Other factors include changes in US law which encouraged corporate consolidation and outsourcing.  Also, increases in technology, which increase productivity, which in our system benefits the owners of companies at the expense of the employees.  And even some good old fashion hard work and innovation thrown in as well.

This a few others including plus leverage....and keep in mind that leverage for the individual is a transfer of wealth to those who are making the loans. 

MMM is not enormously ridiculously wealthy.
I'm going to guess you aren't really aware of just how extreme wealth inequality really is.  MMM has a closer amount of wealth to that homeless guy you passed by yesterday than he does to anyone on the Forbes 400 list.

I didn't say he was ridiculously wealthy and I understand and appreciate the wealth and income gap, and said it a couple of times throughout this thread.  That said MMM is retired and has about $1,000,000 in his mid-30's - I view that as wealthy but not enormously ridiculously wealthy. And the point I made was that if he is living on income that is at/near/below the poverty line and still manages to save a little then you have to ask yourself why isn't it possible for actual poor people to live at/near/below the povertly level and not save a bit.

"Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it.  Taxes aren't a penalty.  They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not."
Taxes aren't a penalty.  Not paying taxes isn't a reward.
Being poor doesn't mean you are anti-MMM.

I wasn't injecting my values, I was accusing the other poster of claiming that was my position, possibly incorrectly so.  I have said it numerous times that taxes are necessary.  However, there can be debates about what the government provides and how it provides it.  And for the sake of this argument, I have left out the what government provides and instead focused on how it provides it.

[tooqk4u22]

Duly noted. I will say, in many cases, I don't have a fully-formed affirmative position yet. I'm wary of rushing into things and forming opinions, because there are so many facets of many of these issues and considering just a side or two of them can lead to awful policy.

I believe it is the right course of action so don't worry about.  Just be mindful that so many things in life (politics, investments, relationships, etc.) have intangible elements, are fluid in nature, and the fact that more often than not you will not have 100% of clarity in all situations there will be times when you will be forced to make decisions on imperfect data - business people, politicians, parents, etc do it every day.  The thing I don't like about having to do this is that sometimes I make the wrong decision but live and learn.

I understand your argument better now. Means-testing SS payments is a great example of something that I think would cut down as expenditures, but I hadn't thought of that as a component of your waste argument. I thought you were arguing for efficiency alone, and not for dramatic policy changes to parts of the government that do unnecessary things (and which I definitely agree exist). I thought you were referring to pork-barrel spending, pension double-dipping, contractor fraud, and things like that. I know all those are problems but it doesn't seem to me that they are easily addressed.

That is correct, open it all up for discussion.  I agree that the complexities of addressing one, let alone, all of the issues are tough but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  I just feel too many decisions in Washington are polictilly motivated or the issues aren't getting addressed because they are too busy focussing on the politically motivated issues.  I would rather their decisions be pragmatic in nature as was originally intended.  Also, I would just rather existing pot be better managed before we increase the pot, and afterwards if it is not enough then we increase the pot (hopefully on a temporary basis).


I admit I don't have all the answers, nowhere close in fact, and discussions like these help.

[Jamesqf]

Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online).

Let's think about that.  Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18.  Few of them would hold significant wealth.  About 10% of the population is in the 18-24 age range, and about half those are attending college.  They would not be expected to have significant wealth (and many probably have negative wealth, due to student loans). 

Then consider that it's going to take any young person (bar a few trust fund babies & similar) a few years to get going and accumulate significant wealth, and we can see that that "half the population holds 2.5% of wealth" is a pretty good example of how to lie by telling only part of the truth.

[Bakari]

Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online).

Let's think about that.  Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18.  Few of them would hold significant wealth.  About 10% of the population is in the 18-24 age range, and about half those are attending college.  They would not be expected to have significant wealth (and many probably have negative wealth, due to student loans). 

Then consider that it's going to take any young person (bar a few trust fund babies & similar) a few years to get going and accumulate significant wealth, and we can see that that "half the population holds 2.5% of wealth" is a pretty good example of how to lie by telling only part of the truth.

What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?
Grant said that in response to "half of the population pays no federal tax so it is not a fair system."
Should we start taxing children under 18?  If not, I just don't see how that statistic is a "lie"

[sol]

Let's think about that.  Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18.  Few of them would hold significant wealth.

I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned.  Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession. 

Sums of money that big are just too big to be amassed by earning a paycheck, so that wealth is either inherited (see: the Waltons) or financed (see, the Zuck).  In neither case is your age a determining factor.

[grantmeaname]

Age and wealth

That's a reasonably compelling argument, although I did not make my argument in the context of the way society should be. I made my argument in the context of the way society currently is, and the tax realities that result from it. It's an angle I hadn't considered. Surely if your argument is correct, the census data about wealth and income will support what you're saying, right? (It's available on Wikipedia if you're interested in actually learning about the economy instead of just patting yourself on the back for being right all the time, and since Wikipedia is free you could even conceivably go there, gather data to test your assertion, and then report back here!)

[Jamesqf]

What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?

It doesn't, except insofar as it's forcing an incorrect view of reality.  But what does the question of progressive taxation have to do with evil-or-not mustaches?

[Jamesqf]

I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned.  Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession.

Not correct.  I've no idea of the percentage of inherited wealth, but if you look at the Forbes 400, or any list of the very wealthy, you'll find that the great majority made the money themselves.  In the few cases where they didn't - most prominently the Waltons - they're the first generation heirs of someone who did make his own money.  Last I looked, you had to go down close to the end of the list to find a Rockefeller or Ford.

[grantmeaname]

It doesn't, except insofar as it's forcing an incorrect view of reality.  But what does the question of progressive taxation have to do with evil-or-not mustaches?

You didn't demonstrate it was incorrect, you just insinuated that you didn't like what it measured. Regardless, the reason it's related is because, like first world to third world charitable donations, it exemplifies the marginal utility of money.

[tooqk4u22]

Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online).

Let's think about that.  Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18.  Few of them would hold significant wealth.  About 10% of the population is in the 18-24 age range, and about half those are attending college.  They would not be expected to have significant wealth (and many probably have negative wealth, due to student loans). 

Then consider that it's going to take any young person (bar a few trust fund babies & similar) a few years to get going and accumulate significant wealth, and we can see that that "half the population holds 2.5% of wealth" is a pretty good example of how to lie by telling only part of the truth.

What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?
Grant said that in response to "half of the population pays no federal tax so it is not a fair system."
Should we start taxing children under 18?  If not, I just don't see how that statistic is a "lie"

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.  Just because a system is progressive doesn't make it fair.  I have asked several times directly and through example but once please explain to me the absolute sense why somebody who makes more should pay more beyond that "it is good for society" or "if the tax man don't taketh they won't giveth away" or "because they inherited it" or "because they benefit more because Obama built all the roads that they uese".

Simply answer the question why is it fair.  I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair.   That doesn't mean it should change or that the societal arguments don't come into play or fact of the matter that so what the system isn't fair, but life isn't always fair. 

You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this. 

[Bakari]

I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned.  Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession.

Not correct.  I've no idea of the percentage of inherited wealth, but if you look at the Forbes 400, or any list of the very wealthy, you'll find that the great majority made the money themselves.  In the few cases where they didn't - most prominently the Waltons - they're the first generation heirs of someone who did make his own money.  Last I looked, you had to go down close to the end of the list to find a Rockefeller or Ford.

2 Kochs, 4 Waltons, and 3 Mars is 9 of the top 20, little less than half.
So, you're both wrong.  Its just "very few", but its not "the great majority" either.

The rest is almost all computers and finance - they did make it themselves, but it wasn't exactly "just by working hard in their chosen profession."

[tooqk4u22]

Let's think about that.  Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18.  Few of them would hold significant wealth.

I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned.  Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession. 

Sums of money that big are just too big to be amassed by earning a paycheck, so that wealth is either inherited (see: the Waltons) or financed (see, the Zuck).  In neither case is your age a determining factor.

The Walton family still earned its money so why is it ok that it be taken away.   As much as I can't stand Zuck and he was lucky as hell for all the stupid money palcing crazy values on his company, you're are crazy if you think he didn't earn it and/or contribute to its success.  Not to mention all the people that are employed by FB or in some the result of FB. 

[tooqk4u22]

......... they did make it themselves, but it wasn't exactly "just by working hard in their chosen profession."

Define hard....just because one doesn't work with his hands doesn't mean he is not working hard...I-banker's notoriously work 24/7 for many years and need to keep doing so for a long time to get to that level of wealth.  Sure there are some that make the right trade and hit the lottery, but that is the exception and not the rule.  Also, think about it, let's say they work 24/7 type of hours (call it 1 whole day off and 20 hours for the other 6 days) - I have known plenty of people that do this in NY - in a sense they are working 3 times as much in a year as the typical 40 hr/week person is. Would I do it - no, and I would expect them to make more than me as a result.

[Jamesqf]

2 Kochs, 4 Waltons, and 3 Mars is 9 of the top 20, little less than half.
So, you're both wrong.  Its just "very few", but its not "the great majority" either.

Re-think your top 20.  The Kochs (much as I dislike them) did make most of the wealth that puts them in the top 20, though I grant they had a head start.  So by my count, that makes 15 out of the top 20 who made the bulk of their money themselves.  The rest are 1st-generation descendants of the person who made the money.  (I'm using the 2011 list, here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/ )

[grantmeaname]

You know first generation descendants still inherited their money, right?

[Bakari]

The Walton family still earned its money so why is it ok that it be taken away. 

Key word "family"

......... they did make it themselves, but it wasn't exactly "just by working hard in their chosen profession."

Keyword "just" - thats why I had it bold and italic.
You already acknowledged Zuck got lucky, so while he may have worked hard, and he may have had an innovative idea, it wasn't only hard work.

The Kochs (much as I dislike them) did make most of the wealth that puts them in the top 20, though I grant they had a head start. 

I would call having your parents pay for prep school and an ivy leauge college, maybe even buying you a house, a "headstart"
300 million dollars plus the reigns of an already established and successful company?  In my book, that's inherited wealth, even if you are able to use that money to make a whole lot more money.

[Bakari]

What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?

It doesn't, except insofar as it's forcing an incorrect view of reality.  But what does the question of progressive taxation have to do with evil-or-not mustaches?

Congress is debating this exact question right now.
If one is voting for whoever will lower their own taxes the most, they may choose differently than if they are considering what is best for society.

For example; I have a friend who is a day trader.  She was talking about the pending raise in tax rates for capital gains and dividends, and I said "I know, I'm really glad about that!  Money that you had to acually work for and which contributed something tangible to society shouldn't be taxed more than money you make just by virtue of already having money.  Taxes need to get paid for society to function."
And then she was quiet for a little bit as she thought about it, and she said "Thank you.  I like that perspective.  I was just thinking about it from the point of view of how much taxes I pay.  I feel better about it when you say it that way."

A central part of FI is passive income.  If we are trying to be responcible citizens, do we try to lower our own tax bill, even if it is at the exspense of society as a whole?

[Bakari]

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.  Just because a system is progressive doesn't make it fair.  I have asked several times directly and through example but once please explain to me the absolute sense why somebody who makes more should pay more beyond that "it is good for society" or "if the tax man don't taketh they won't giveth away" or "because they inherited it" or "because they benefit more because Obama built all the roads that they use".

Simply answer the question why is it fair.  I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair.   That doesn't mean it should change or that the societal arguments don't come into play or fact of the matter that so what the system isn't fair, but life isn't always fair. 

You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.

First, my principals dictate a focus on the social view.  I.e. I believe what is most important is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.  I think any prinical which causes some people to suffer so that one person can gain a negligable amount of marginal utility is an invalid principal.  Hence my examples of why propety rights should not be a fundamental / universal value. 

There is more than one way to define "fair".
If a grop of people has a limited food supply, you could say it is most fair if everyone gets an exactly equal portion.
However, if one person is a 98lb female, and another is a 200lb male who, by virtue of his strength, is tasked with doing the heavy lifting for the group, an equal division of the food may result in some having more than they need and others having not enough.

Just like I think in determining generosity, considering how much a person has left over is more relevant than how much they give away, so to with taxes, how much a person has post-tax needs to be taken into consideration to figure out what is "fair"

You really want to make everything fair and say that all wealth is built on merit, we could start by making preschool, kindergarten, mandatory and free, making at least the first 4 years of college free, and taxing all inheritience, trusts, and "gifts"(beyond sentimental value)
Since that isn't the world we live in, fair becomes relative

[tooqk4u22]

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.  Just because a system is progressive doesn't make it fair.  I have asked several times directly and through example but once please explain to me the absolute sense why somebody who makes more should pay more beyond that "it is good for society" or "if the tax man don't taketh they won't giveth away" or "because they inherited it" or "because they benefit more because Obama built all the roads that they use".

Simply answer the question why is it fair.  I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair.   That doesn't mean it should change or that the societal arguments don't come into play or fact of the matter that so what the system isn't fair, but life isn't always fair. 

You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.

First, my principals dictate a focus on the social view.  I.e. I believe what is most important is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.  I think any prinical which causes some people to suffer so that one person can gain a negligable amount of marginal utility is an invalid principal.  Hence my examples of why propety rights]https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/pursuing-and-maintaining-a-responsible-early-retirement/msg20853/#msg20853]propety rights should not be a fundamental / universal value. 

There is more than one way to define "fair".
If a grop of people has a limited food supply, you could say it is most fair if everyone gets an exactly equal portion.
However, if one person is a 98lb female, and another is a 200lb male who, by virtue of his strength, is tasked with doing the heavy lifting for the group, an equal division of the food may result in some having more than they need and others having not enough.

Just like I think in determining generosity, considering how much a person has left over is more relevant than how much they give away, so to with taxes, how much a person has post-tax needs to be taken into consideration to figure out what is "fair"

You really want to make everything fair and say that all wealth is built on merit, we could start by making preschool, kindergarten, mandatory and free, making at least the first 4 years of college free, and taxing all inheritience, trusts, and "gifts"(beyond sentimental value)
Since that isn't the world we live in, fair becomes relative

You have an RV, right?  Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week.  After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it. 

I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair.  My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.

[darkelenchus]

Simply answer the question why is it fair.  I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair.   

You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.

First, my principals dictate a focus on the social view.  I.e. I believe what is most important is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.  I think any prinical which causes some people to suffer so that one person can gain a negligable amount of marginal utility is an invalid principal.  Hence my examples of why propety rights should not be a fundamental / universal value. 

You have an RV, right?  Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week.  After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it. 

I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair.  My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.

Bakari couldn't leave out the soical stuff because his position is fundamentally utilitarian. As such, a progressive taxation system is not a matter of whether it is fair or not, but whether it is justified under the Greatest Happiness or the Greatest Good principles.

Moreover, you've presented a false analogy in comparing the purported unfairness of taking Bakari's van with the purported unfairness of the progressive taxation system. In the latter case, those at the top suffer a negligible loss in utility in being taxed. In the former case, Bakari will suffer a total lost of utility or something approaching a total loss of utility if you were to take his van.

On another note, since you're claiming to represent an absolute/principled perspective on what's fair/unfair, I suggest you revisit the Rawlsian position that partially got us into this labyrinthine discussion. Distributive Justice is a complicated, multi-faceted animal. Any serious notion of fairness must inevitably go beyond the notion of fairness as "equal proportion" that you've been insistent on throughout this conversation.

[Jamesqf]

You know first generation descendants still inherited their money, right?

Of course, but what I was addressing there was the notion of dynastic wealth.  If we'd looked at that list a decade or so ago, the wealth of the Walton and Mars families would still be in the hands of the people that first made it.

[Jamesqf]

300 million dollars plus the reigns of an already established and successful company?  In my book, that's inherited wealth, even if you are able to use that money to make a whole lot more money.

Did I say that it wasn't inherited wealth?  The original question was whether MOST wealth in the US is inherited.  Now if the Kochs started with $300 million, and now have a combined net worth of $50 billion, that means that only 0.6% of their wealth was inherited.  You could, if ambitious, do the same calculation for the rest of the Forbes 400, or any other subset of rich people.

For the top 20, earned is (roughly) $359.1 billion, inherited $101.1 billion (adjusting for the Koch's $300 mllion inheritance, and figuring that all the Walton and Mars wealth was inherited).  That works out to just over 28%, which I don't think counts as "most".

[sol]

That works out to just over 28%, which I don't think counts as "most".

I said most inherited or financed.  And by financed, I mean extracted from an IPO or otherwise leveraged within the financial system, not wealth they earned by collecting a paycheck.  Sums of money that large just cannot be acquired by depositing a biweekly paycheck, and instead are the result of either taking someone else's wealth as inheritance or taking other people's wealth by offering to invest it for them, and instead turning it into your personal fortune.

Then I suppose you could argue that some of them are CEOs who neither inherited nor created companies, but instead make 20 million a year in CEO salary based on a Harvard business degree.  In my mind, that's equally immoral but even those people are unlikely to ever hit billionaire status, unless they live very frugally and work long careers. 

[tooqk4u22]

You know what I find to be the most interesting(hypocritical) is that most of these dipshits that you find immoral tend to become the most liberal after they accumulate their wealth and espouse all kinds of rhetoric about how we should be more mindful of society and pay more taxes - of course by that point they have made/earned their money, sheltered it, and don't actually give any away until they die (if at all) yet they are extremely influential in driving policy and causing people to buy into this logic.  Hollywood types are probably the biggest offenders then followed by wall street types. 

It is more a form of guilt than anything else.....or refocusing back to the premise of the OP is it better to good along the way or accumulate more and then do good.

[sol]

You know what I find to be the most interesting(hypocritical) is that most of these dipshits that you find immoral tend to become the most liberal after they accumulate their wealth

It is an interesting observation and I agree that Hollywood types are predominately liberal, with some notable exceptions of course (Clint Eastwood, Adam Sandler, Chuck Norris...).

On the flip side, Hollywood does not control the majority of wealth in this country and I think that most of the people who do control the wealth are conservatives.  I don't think this has much to do with philosophy, but a lot to do with the pro-business policies of the Republican party.  We're all motivated by self interest, and it's no surprise to me that most rich people would favor politicians and parties that protect the interests of rich people.

Hollywood liberals make easy targets, but it's not like their money will swing an election.  Instead, it's conservative businessmen like Sheldon Adelson (gambling), the Koch brothers (fossil fuels) and Foster Friess (hedge funds).

As an example, look up the number of donors who have given 1 million dollars or more to each party this election cycle.  The Democrats have two such donors, and yes they are both Hollywood types.  The Republicans have almost 30 such donors who are known by name, and a possibly overlapping 24 more who have been able to remain anonymous by giving through Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove's 501(c).

Which isn't to say your point isn't valid; Hollywood millionaires are disproportionately liberal.  I'm not sure either of us can say if they became liberals after acquiring wealth, or if they were always liberal and have been true to their principles while getting rich.

It is more a form of guilt than anything else.....or refocusing back to the premise of the OP is it better to good along the way or accumulate more and then do good.

I'm the OP, so I'm well aware of what I said up front.  I'm not sure about your assertion that the above noted effect is guilt-driven, though.  If guilt were such a large factor, I'd think a few more of those GOP sugar daddies would spend their money on non-partisan philanthropy, instead of spending it to prop up the policies that directly benefit themselves.

Or are you suggesting that only the liberal millionaires feel guilt?  That's a theory I might be able to support, I think.

[Bakari]

You have an RV, right?  Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week.  After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it. 

I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair.  My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.

Leave out the social stuff?  If you were considering one single person on an otherwise deserted island, than the concept of "fairness" wouldn't even apply.  "Fair", by its very nature, implies a relation between 2 or more people, which makes it a social concept.  How do you leave the "social stuff" out of it?

Even my 2 year old nephew who I used to take care of recognized the difference between one person taking something from you, and a third party mediating what is fair. 
More specifically, if we were playing a game, and his mom said "ok, now its my turn" he would refuse to give up his turn, because she wanted to take it for herself.  But if I - a neutral third party - said "ok, now its her turn" he would accept it.  Same thing if her and my roles were reversed.
So there is one difference between your analogy and mine.

There is also the utility I pointed out with my food example.  I'll try a different one, since you didn't seem to get it.
Lets say one person purchases the entire supply of medical insulin in the world, and then refuses to sell it at any price.  This would be legal, and within their property rights, but is it "fair" to all of the diabetics of the world?  In your "absolute" framework, would it be immoral for the government to order them to give up the insulin?

How about if one person stole something, didn't get caught, and then passed it down to their child.  Should it be taken from the child and returned to the original owner?  Why punish the child, they didn't do anything wrong?  Which is more fair in this case?

The problem with what you are calling absolute principals is that it requires a very simple world.
If the supposed principal requires doing things that violates other principals or makes for a less than ideal system, you have to rethink that principal - maybe it is the principal itself which is invalid

[Bakari]

Moreover, you've presented a false analogy in comparing the purported unfairness of taking Bakari's van with the purported unfairness of the progressive taxation system. In the latter case, those at the top suffer a negligible loss in utility in being taxed. In the former case, Bakari will suffer a total lost of utility or something approaching a total loss of utility if you were to take his van.

hey!  I don't live in a "van"!
I have a 250 sq ft travel trailer.
Totally different. I'm living the life of luxury here, not like some hippy in a VW microbus

[darkelenchus]

Moreover, you've presented a false analogy in comparing the purported unfairness of taking Bakari's van with the purported unfairness of the progressive taxation system. In the latter case, those at the top suffer a negligible loss in utility in being taxed. In the former case, Bakari will suffer a total lost of utility or something approaching a total loss of utility if you were to take his van.

hey!  I don't live in a "van"!
I have a 250 sq ft travel trailer.
Totally different. I'm living the life of luxury here, not like some hippy in a VW microbus

Hahaha. Sorry.

[tooqk4u22]

I agree that hollywood types are typically liberal from the start, and while I don't think their money will swing an election I think their voices can given the audience they command.  You also focues just on the hollywood part, I also said wall streeters (i.e. I have referenced Buffett as big one a couple of times). 

To your point about there being more $1 million donors for GOP than for Democrats, which I believe there are more than that for the democrats, I would contend that it supports my point - remember that I effectively said they were hypocrites and don't put their money where their mouths are, they simply run their mouths and expect everyone else's money for it. At least the GOP supporters put their money where their mouth is. 

Also keep in mind that contributions from businesses are done for two reasons (1) to be aligned with what they think will be the winning horse and (2) to influence policy.  I assure you if they thought that Romney had no chance of winning (doesn't mean he will) you would see contributions start shifting to Obama so they can look like supporters (it was proved out when Obama was running the first time) - business first. And don't for a minute think Obama isn't influenced by business - he his is a politician.  Again both sides suck.

[tooqk4u22]

You have an RV, right?  Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week.  After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it. 

I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair.  My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.

Leave out the social stuff?  If you were considering one single person on an otherwise deserted island, than the concept of "fairness" wouldn't even apply.  "Fair", by its very nature, implies a relation between 2 or more people, which makes it a social concept.  How do you leave the "social stuff" out of it?

Even my 2 year old nephew who I used to take care of recognized the difference between one person taking something from you, and a third party mediating what is fair. 
More specifically, if we were playing a game, and his mom said "ok, now its my turn" he would refuse to give up his turn, because she wanted to take it for herself.  But if I - a neutral third party - said "ok, now its her turn" he would accept it.  Same thing if her and my roles were reversed.
So there is one difference between your analogy and mine.

There is also the utility I pointed out with my food example.  I'll try a different one, since you didn't seem to get it.
Lets say one person purchases the entire supply of medical insulin in the world, and then refuses to sell it at any price.  This would be legal, and within their property rights, but is it "fair" to all of the diabetics of the world?  In your "absolute" framework, would it be immoral for the government to order them to give up the insulin?

How about if one person stole something, didn't get caught, and then passed it down to their child.  Should it be taken from the child and returned to the original owner?  Why punish the child, they didn't do anything wrong?  Which is more fair in this case?

The problem with what you are calling absolute principals is that it requires a very simple world.If the supposed principal requires doing things that violates other principals or makes for a less than ideal system, you have to rethink that principal - maybe it is the principal itself which is invalid

Yes the questions is posed in the context of your comment in bold. 

Your example about the game depends on the rules...if in fact it is the mothers turn was next you would not be playing the role of mediator you would be playing the role of regulator/enforcer in a game scenario the better example would be you get to keep rolling the dice until you lose well if they go on a roll for an extended period of time then it wouldn't be fair (or fun) for the other person but would it be fair to say well you played by the rules but we never expected it to get to 10 rolls so now give the other person a try.  That's not fair, that's not the game.   

Your other examples actually support my point and that things in life don't need to be, and are often not, fair and I understand the utility argument but again utility doesn't equal fairness but doesn't mean it is moral.  In your utility example, yes if one wanted to hold all of the insulin, assuming it were legal, then I would argue while it is not fair to the diabetic it would also not be fair to take away this persons property - but I do beleive in this instance that it would be immoral for this person to withhold this supply or command payment so high that it would result in a form of enslavement that it would be justified to either regulate prices (ensuring that this person got a reasonable return) or seize it if this person did not comply.  But it doesn't make it fair for insulin holder.

As for the stolen property example...it is not fair to the child that their gift be taken away or that they have someone in their lives that would put them in such a position, but it is the right thing to do.  Separately while this is demonstrates an argument of fairness, if you are using to support the fairness of progressive taxes you would be implying that wealth people, who would be the child in this comparison, illegitimately received their wealth from someone who stole it and therefore it should be taken away. I don't think this it what you are saying but that is how this example would be compared - although without getting into a deeper issue you could argue that slavery was exactly this and the call for reparations would be supportable ignoring the difficulty of actually figuring it out. 

At the end of the day I think you agree that in the absolute principle sense that a progressive tax structure/inheritance taxes/etc. are not fair and I agree that while it is not fair it is needed and those with more should bear an increased responsibility to support our society.  Although what and how much that responsibility should equal is a whole different story. 

Right?

[Jamesqf]

That works out to just over 28%, which I don't think counts as "most".

I said most inherited or financed.  And by financed, I mean extracted from an IPO or otherwise leveraged within the financial system, not wealth they earned by collecting a paycheck.  Sums of money that large just cannot be acquired by depositing a biweekly paycheck, and instead are the result of either taking someone else's wealth as inheritance...

Well, you're right about the biweekly paycheck part :-)

But let's put this to the test on the top 20 again.  There's a total of $459.2 billion there (unless my fingers slipped).  Out of that, at least $190.1 billion is NEW WEALTH, obtained by creating something that did not exist before.  It could certainly be argued that quite a bit more of the total is new wealth, too.

...taking other people's wealth by offering to invest it for them, and instead turning it into your personal fortune.

You're talking about Bernie Madoff, right?  Because he (and similar scam artists) are the only ones who take the money and turn it into their personal fortunes.  Others, from Warren Buffet on down, arguably provide a service for which they're entitled to charge a fee.  It's really no different from me calling a plumber.  If I don't have the skill or desire to crawl around under my house trying to fix a leaking pipe, I call a plumber, and pay for the service.  Likewise, if I don't want to spend time doing my own investment research, I can put my money with Berkshire Hathaway - or Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, etc.

Then I suppose you could argue that some of them are CEOs who neither inherited nor created companies, but instead make 20 million a year in CEO salary based on a Harvard business degree.  In my mind, that's equally immoral...

Immoral?  Can't see that.  Foolish, perhaps, on the part of the board who hires a CEO at that rate.

[Jamesqf]

Even my 2 year old nephew who I used to take care of recognized the difference between one person taking something from you, and a third party mediating what is fair. 
More specifically, if we were playing a game, and his mom said "ok, now its my turn" he would refuse to give up his turn, because she wanted to take it for herself.  But if I - a neutral third party - said "ok, now its her turn" he would accept it. 

But the reason he can accept it is because you are an adult, so he can believe (rightly or wrongly :-)) that you ARE a neutral authority figure who will be fair.  In the adult world, especially in the political sphere where most redistributionist schemes are hatched, there is a notable lack of unbiased authority figures.

[tomsang]

Great thread. So great that I don't have much to add.

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: A reply about enjoying life now has been split to its own thread here: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/enjoy-life-now/

[aj_yooper]

Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth

You guys keep bringing wealth and tax rates into the equation, I have never once said that wealth wasn't concentrated at the top and in fact I even think I said that the gap is too disproportionate. 

How do you think it got that way?
How do you suppose society could change it?

Clearly you view that tax rates are far too low on anyone who is successful

Nope.  I don't equate extreme wealth with "success". 
1/2 of the 20 richest people inherited their wealth.  "Luck" is very different from "success". 
Taxes on inheritance have dropped substantially - 77% top bracket and 60k deduction in 1977 down to 45% and 3.5 million deduction in 2009 (and NONE what-so-ever 2010!)

and that is the only reason why they become wealthy.

Nope.
But it is one factor in how a handful of people in the past couple decades have become enormously ridiculously wealthy.

In addition to a top income tax bracket of only 35% (down from over 90% in the 40s and 50s - you know, that period of time in America known for high unemployment, stagnant growth, economic uncertainty, and general pessimism...) there is also the inheritance tax I mentioned a moment ago.

Other factors include changes in US law which encouraged corporate consolidation and outsourcing.  Also, increases in technology, which increase productivity, which in our system benefits the owners of companies at the expense of the employees.  And even some good old fashion hard work and innovation thrown in as well.

If that is the case the MMM

MMM is not enormously ridiculously wealthy.
I'm going to guess you aren't really aware of just how extreme wealth inequality really is.  MMM has a closer amount of wealth to that homeless guy you passed by yesterday than he does to anyone on the Forbes 400 list.
You can be forgiven for not really comprehending the vast scale of inequality though - most people don't:


Note that this graphic is fairly misleading - the smallest it shows is 1% of the population, but within that group, if you subdivide it even further to .1% or .01%, that set of subgroups is just about as unequal as the 1% is to everyone else.


See that pink square about 4 squares down from the top on the right?  There is more or less your successful Mustachain, or other 1%er.  See how much closer it is to the rest of the 99% than it is to the top square?  When I talk about taxing the wealthy, I'm talking about that top square, maybe the top two, not everyone above 50%.


But you don't have to take my word for it (or these people's either - most provide references, so you can check if you think they are just making up numbers):

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/forget-the-top-1-look-at-the-top-0-1/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/income-inequality/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/

http://daviddegraw.org/2011/08/who-rules-america-economic-elite-have-at-least-45-9-trillion-in-wealth-revealing-the-economic-top-0-1/

should be paying a lot more than he does and has demonstrated that it is possible to live well and actually even save/invest some at that low income,

yup.  The fact that the middle class wastes its money a) has no bearing on this discussion and b) doesn't mean that other people aren't actually poor enough that they have no left over money to save.

So the question is for the lower 50% why aren't they saving more, investing more.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money/msg20692/#msg20692

Basically you are saying I want to penalize the poor and you are saying you want to continue to reward them for being anti-MMM.

"Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it.  Taxes aren't a penalty.  They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not."
Taxes aren't a penalty.  Not paying taxes isn't a reward.
Being poor doesn't mean you are anti-MMM.

Bakari, you are the bomb!  Thank you.

[steveo]

All that aside, I certainly think one must be vigilant to guard against what sol is worried about: singular focus on FI at the expense of our more important values.

To me this feels like the central paradox of this whole shebang, more than just an aside.  The blog, the forum, the philosophy, all of it is geared towards showing people how to focus on their real values and not their material possessions, but the very mechanism of that focus is the quest for material wealth.

That doesn't strike anyone else as contradictory?

I don't see it like this. I think that the focus isn't on material wealth. To me material wealth is about having more stuff whereas FI is about freedom and having money work for you rather than money just going up in smoke.

Wealth and money are also aspects of life that you need to get figured out.

[PFHC]

So many words... not enough time.

Talking to a long empty room here, but it feels good anyways. This is my problem... this right here. The original post hits me. It's right. The attitudes bleeding through the words of many here don't have the feel of humanity. They don't have the warmth. They are cold, fact-driven, calculating, harsh, judging, arrogant, and self-congratulatory.

But, I'm here. I want this, I want FI. I imagine in my mind my FI. Bright tree-rimmed days, crisp moving fresh air, my growing family close at hand, challenges, and trials, and creating, and growing, and art, and literature, and quiet music, and great big rest for my long taxed engineering brain. It feels nice… but fake and weak and lame. Then the darkness edges into the image and I know I need to do more... the world needs more of us. More from the people who can see the world and understand it. Who can navigate the convolutions and distractions of life and arrive at something new. Smart people, understanding people, motivated, interested and interesting people. People who can love and think and analyze.

Take that back… the world doesn’t need it. It demands it. Demands to know who the fuck are we to snatch and grab then just sit back and watch the world burn through a pair of secondhand welding goggles. Yes, we worked for it. Yes, we labored ourselves and made what we would like to enjoy. Yes, we are bad-asses. But, this makes me feel empty. We are bad-asses with nowhere to put our badassity that is worth a shit. Spending my days doing what I want. What a cop out.

This keeps me up at night. Makes me want to do more. I’m not good at doom and gloom, so my mind goes with it. I start dreaming up ridiculous ideas. Studying physics from free online schools. Teaching myself astro-physics and my kids, too. They’re smart enough. Spend my life thinking and burning and dreaming and creating and collaborating on something big. Real big. A big deal. Something that will help. Something that will inspire. Something that will move this lump of ennui we’ve encountered in the path of our humanity. Something that will kick our ass and get this fucker rolling.

This awesome post tells me there are others out there like this, too. Others that want more than to line their pockets so they can go douchingwheeling around with their heads crammed up their ass. And that, my friends, is awesome.

Someday, perhaps in some way, we can meet on an excited day over something that truly matters.

[sol]

Internet forum threads, like everything else in life, are only empty until they aren't.  You fill it by arriving.

I'm glad this old thread is still reaching people occasionally, because the conflict inherent to seeking financial independence through slavish devotion to financial control has not resolved itself for any of us, I'd wager.

[Basenji]

Was feeling disconnected, annoyed, perhaps forum fatigue, money talk fatigue. I saw this thread mentioned in some old post and I'm floored, delighted. Bumping against the rules because Sol freshened my heart with this thoughtful thread. Thanks!

[sol]

Oooh, good thread revival.  I'm cross-posting this from the comics thread because a) as someone who loved the Dune books as a teenager I think the source material is excellent and deserves wider exposure, and b) the message is relevant to the discussion in this thread.




I sometimes have to remind myself that money is a tool, not an end in and of itself.  Don't forget to live your life the way you want to live it, now, rather than just fantasizing about how you will live your life someday when you finally reach your FIRE goals.

[tomsang]

Sol - This thread is one of the few threads that I think about every once in awhile.  It is also one that I should be pointing people to as they discuss this topic in various forms as they discuss other topics.

[Bicycle_B]

Sol!! 

I have enjoyed posts of yours on other threads and sensed a good spirit from you...but only just now discovered this thread.  Glad to see a more explicit expression of your values.  What a good guy.  Thanks for sending out your thoughts/feelings.  Keep on being you, you're a treasure on these boards.

So you probably want a more on-topic comment.  I hereby contribute the Tao of the Mustache:

Sure, miserly "Mustachian" actions miss the point.  But a balanced reasonable growth of the Stache is wisdom in action, a good thing, a thoughtful and responsible concentration of resources that enables human health and happiness to be developed, maintained, spread around.

Facets of this Tao Mustache path:

1) Maybe the same power to say "FU" is the power to express views that others are scared to say - Black Lives Matter, I don't need an SUV, here's $10 for food and some new socks.  Use judiciously.
2) Every faith tradition says give to the poor.  If we waited until we knew we were safe, it might be too late. 
3) Maybe we should develop courage by giving 10% of personal spending even during the accumulation phase, and not declaring FI until investments cover spending that also includes that 10%.  Or set a budget that includes 10%, and if we are under budget, give the extra too.  (That way we're not reducing the gift just because we lived thriftier than budget.)  Either way we can make ourselves givers, now and forever until we die...maybe after we die, too, by leaving bequests.
4) Sometimes an example is more powerful than any words or picture.  Just reinforcing the value of responsibility by being a friendly example of frugality could be of value sometimes. It could be a lifesaver to someone who didn't have a good role model or peer until now.  Fight the power by rejecting its ads.
5)  Accumulating enough capital to live on doesn't mean you're necessarily depriving anyone unless capitalism itself is irredeemably oppressive (which I don't think it is).  The only error is in overdoing it, such as by obsessing about it to the exclusion of humane daily actions, or seeking to maximize profit by squeezing people instead of making fair deals.
6) Just in case, contribute time or money or skill to something that curbs an excess of capitalism - a whistleblower fund, an anti-pollution campaign, a campaign to make B corporations legal in your state.
7) I heard a TED talk saying that in 80% of companies and organizations, most employees know what's wrong but everyone is scared to say it.  At some point (FI if not before), say it.
8) To err is human, to minimize error by reducing financial stress is Mustachian.

[Lski'stash]

The thread that sparked this one was about how ridiculous it is that some people would spend 2% of their income on coffee, and had evolved into a discussion about how others were so proud of themselves for spending 1% or less on coffee instead.

Setting aside for a moment my belief that drugs like coffee and tobacco are a crutch for the weak-willed, reading that discussion in conjunction with the more philosophical discussion of the happiness principle and utilitarianism in the Rawlsian Theory of Justice thread just made me realize how fucked up the whole thing is.  Is it ever morally acceptable to leave your garden hose running while your neighbor dies of thirst?  To buy yourself a third investment property when there are homeless mentally disabled people in your city who freeze to death in the wintertime?  Yet this is the model of our economy, where everyone collectively and individually seeks personal profit at the expense of those who are less fortunate.  And we label it capitalism and celebrate it as a virtue.

I am a capitalist and should be free to do what I want with my money.  Ignoring the fact that I have paid and continue to pay a ridiculous amount of taxes (income, wage, sales, property, among others) into a system that doesn't work to largely support people that don't work.  I am all for help those in need and I do give to charity but I will take care of myself and my family first - I also work hard and earned what I have so if I want to by a coffee or a beer - I am fuckin entitled to it because it is out of my own pocket.  To many people (sounds like your camp) feel they are entitled to the same rewards but on someone elses dime.  Fuck that. 

Tooqk here is not alone in his assessment.  Many Americans willfully turn a blind eye to the fact that over a million American children are undernourished due to poverty, here on US soil, while at the same time proudly proclaiming their own entitlement to luxuries, because they feel those poor people somehow deserve their poverty.  This strikes me as the coldest kind of callousness, well beyond benign indifference.  This is walking by a drowning child and looking the other way.  Their sense of entitlement, even when expressed less profanely, usually offends anyone who stops to think about it too carefully.  Do you really think you're "entitled" to a 3000 sqft house and two SUVs?

Perhaps I can shed some light into the irony. In today's capitalist world, those without money are forgotten about and are left voiceless. They are subject to sub-par conditions which the rest of the country doesn't face. Those with money have made it so they do not have to see what those in poverty face by using those large cars to put distance in between those who have...and those who have not.

For proof, please look no further than the east side of my state, where the history of the car has exacerbated this situation to one of the worst segregation a between those who have wealth and those who don't. Detroit Public Schools is in a state of literal collapse, and Flint continues to live with water that the rest of the country deems undrinkable. 

Unfortunately, the teachers in Detroit, who fight so valiently, highlight evermore why one must accumulate wealth in order to help those without. They are fighting in spite of the possibility of losing their jobs, which is something they live with everyday.

 Essentially, someone with wealth is needed to speak for those who cannot. Someone who can make a fuss and won't also have to be worried about what the consequences of fighting mean financially. Those without are fighting just to get clean water and get to school with clean cloths and a full stomach everyday. They don't have time to fight for change too.

So, my mustachian mission, in a nutshell, is to amass enough FU money to withstand whatever politics may throw at me in the fight for what's right, and not just what's status quo. I am, unfortunately, not as brave as the teachers in Detroit though, and I won't risk my job until I don't need it.

There's the irony. In a capitalist world, if one wants to help those without, they need money. This sometimes also means letting the others go for a time being (on a one-to-one scale), until that money can be made.

[Northwestie]

One of the reasons I look forward to retiring is spending more time as a volunteer with the couple groups I now support.  I give them money and some time now.  Later it will be less money and more time. 

I would hope that most folks would help others, on whatever their interest area, once they retire.   Then again, my brother-in-law seems quite satisfied in the barca-lounger watching ESPN all day.

A life not examined...................and all that.

[Cassie]

There may be many people on this site that either volunteer, give $ or do both and don't mention it. We have always volunteered and given some to local good causes even we were young and did not have a lot. It was nothing religious but the right thing to do.  Now that we have more time  and $ we can give more of both. Just because people are not talking about it does not mean it is not happening. It would be interesting to have a poll asking people what they actually do. One thing that I don't agree with is when people have massive debt but insist on donating a certain percent to charity. In that case charity begins at home and they would be better off to still donate but just less of it until their own financial house is in order.

[tobitonic]

Still one of the best threads to ever appear on the forums (I've done a lot of reading here over the years before finally plunking down a membership).

Thinking of purpose and of others is a big part of why I still show up at the day job. I'm a preschool teacher; every day I'm at work makes a difference--potentially a lifelong one--in the lives of my kiddos. And yet I still want to quit some days...a lot. Never because of the kids; almost always because of the administrative nonsense, as well as because I'd like more time with my wife and kids. But on the other hand, my working the day job allows us to give much more to charity, which I'm very happy about, and I also get to reshape a lot of people's perspectives about males in early childhood education at the same time. I sometimes think of my job as being a volunteer teacher for 40h a week and getting paid 50k a year to do so. I don't know. Naturally, working longer also pads our financial coffers more, which increases our odds of being able to fully fund our kids' college educations someday. I don't know. But I do definitely agree with the notion of selfishness and social irresponsibility in dropping out of society as quickly as possible to live large on a heap of money while so many go hungry and without opportunity. And yet at the same time, I fantasize about doing the same on a weekly basis. Our side income has exceeded my day job income for more than a year now. We'll see how long I stick with it. In the mean time, I know I'm doing right by my work kids, and strangers I'll never meet around our town and around the world are helped by some of the finances we entrust with particular charities.